The Peatland-ES-UK research team at the University of York have released their 10-year project report which includes a full summary and a short summary. The report is an update to the previous 5-year Defra-funded project report (Heinemeyer et al., 2019). It includes a wide-ranging comparative assessment of the impacts of heather-versus-no management on various factors. This includes the impact on carbon storage, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology, water quality, and biodiversity. It provides answers to the ways in which heather-dominated peatland can be managed, various methods to choose from to help tackle climate change impacts, and biodiversity losses.
Researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) at the University of York have completed a report at the 10-year mark of a 20-year Peatland-ES-UK study. This project compares the impacts of different heather management options on key aspects for mitigating climate change, increasing water storage and quality, as well as supporting biodiversity.
They found that heather burning, cutting or leaving it unmanaged should all be available tools that upland land managers can use dependent of that particular piece of land and particular aspects under consideration. Ultimately, there was no ‘one size fits all’ approach. Notably, management impacts changed considerably over time which highlights the benefit of long-term monitoring to inform management policy.
The study showed that the burning and cutting small patches of heather supported increased vegetation diversity with increased levels of sphagnum moss (which are especially supportive of peat formation) compared to unmanaged plots. The study also predicted a greater number of some ground-nesting birds on burnt and cut plots as the taller, unmanaged heather limited appropriate nesting sites.
Burning, in particular, was good for nutrient content for grazing animals but also for carbon uptake. This is likely due to the fertilisation that ash provides which compensates for the initial combustion losses. Cutting was particularly beneficial to peat wetness to a small extent. But the additional benefit only lasted for a few years, and carbon losses from brash decomposition accumulated over time.
Unmanaged heather areas took up most carbon over the course of our study. But the carbon uptake declined as the heather aged and the peat got drier. This was due to higher water loss from the tall vegetation allowing microbes to decompose the peat. As a result, unmanaged areas now absorb less than half the levels compared to at the start of our project, and the drier peat poses a real wildfire risk under warmer and drier summers.
