Major Review Finds No Clear Link Between Burning and Water Quality
- Rob Beeson
- Sep 24
- 3 min read
A major scientific review critically examines ten common claims regarding the effects of prescribed heather burning on peatlands in the UK, with “Prescribed heather burning causes water colour and quality issues " being the seventh claim reviewed.
The authors, including Dr. Andreas Heinemeyer, consider the claim unclear due to a lack of robust evidence and the presence of many confounding factors that make it difficult to establish a direct causal link.
The Core Argument against Claim 7
The central finding regarding this claim is the lack of clear and robust evidence to either support or negate it. The relationship between prescribed burning and water quality is complicated by several issues:
Confounding Factors: It is difficult to isolate burning as a single cause of water colour or quality changes. Other factors such as drainage, acidification, grazing, existing vegetation, peat cover, rainfall, altitude, and long-term climatic effects can all influence water quality, making it challenging to attribute any observed changes solely to burning.
Contradictory and Uncertain Evidence: Existing studies present conflicting results. For instance, laboratory studies might suggest burning increases water colour, but these findings do not necessarily translate to field conditions at the plot or catchment level. A review by Harper et al. (2018) noted mixed outcomes in previous studies.
Methodological Limitations: Many studies lack an appropriate experimental design, such as adequate controls, which can lead to unreliable conclusions. For example, a study by Brown et al. (2014) was highlighted for its experimental constraints.
Specific Evidence and Counterpoints
The sources point to several pieces of evidence and reviews that question a direct link:
A recent BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) study on peatland restoration through grip blocking showed no clear positive effects on water quality and even some lasting negative impacts, demonstrating that other management interventions also have complex and not always beneficial effects.
A 2023 study by Williamson et al. raised uncertainties about using regression analysis to infer impacts on Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) from managed catchments, finding little evidence to support negative effects from burning. The study suggested that drainage is more likely to be the major cause of increased DOC concentration.
Long-term climatic changes have also been identified as a cause of deteriorating water quality, further confounding tests of management impacts like burning.
The review by Holland et al. (2022) for Nature Scot confirmed the lack of clear, robust evidence linking prescribed burning to water quality issues.
Claim 7 in the Broader Context of the Ten Claims Review
The issues identified with Claim 7 are representative of broader, systemic problems with the evidence base for all ten claims examined in the paper. The authors identify four key, recurring problems that apply to the debate over water quality and other impacts of burning:
Definitions: The terms used are often ill-defined, which complicates comparisons and assessments.
Methodology: A significant portion of the research is hampered by poor experimental design, such as a lack of proper controls or multi-site analysis. This is a major reason why the evidence on water quality remains unclear.
Scale: Findings from small, short-term plots are often generalized to landscape-scale, long-term impacts, which is not scientifically valid. Laboratory results on water colour not translating to the field is a perfect example of this issue.
Site-Specific Nature: Peatlands are highly variable, and findings from one site (like Moor House, which is heavily studied) cannot be generalized to all UK peatlands without further testing.
Recommendations for Moving Forward
To resolve the uncertainty surrounding Claim 7, the authors recommend a more rigorous scientific approach. Their recommendation is to use a BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) methodology with multi-factor trials and analyses. This "gold standard" approach would allow researchers to:
Establish baseline conditions before any management intervention.
Compare managed areas to unmanaged control areas.
Isolate the effects of burning from other confounding factors to identify true causation.
In summary, the claim that prescribed heather burning causes water colour and quality issues is currently unsubstantiated by robust evidence. The existing research is contradictory and confounded by methodological limitations and multiple environmental variables. The authors argue that until more rigorous, controlled, and site-specific studies are conducted, it is not possible to support this claim definitively.
📧 Keep updated on this and all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.
