Why Cutting Is Not an Alternative to Controlled Burning

Wildfires are a growing concern in the UK's uplands and to manage these precious landscapes, land managers use various techniques, including cutting, grazing, and controlled burning.

What is Moorland Cutting?

Cutting, or mowing, is a method of vegetation management that involves mechanically removing older heather and other plants to encourage new growth and reduce the overall fuel load. It's often seen as an alternative to traditional heather burning, particularly in areas designated for special protection.

The Limits of Cutting for Wildfire Prevention

While cutting might seem like a straightforward solution, there are several significant limitations to its effectiveness, especially concerning wildfire risk:

• Difficult Terrain: Machinery used for cutting, like flails or rotary mowers, can only operate on low slope angles and smooth terrain, avoiding rocky or broken ground. This means many inaccessible areas of moorland, often those at highest risk, cannot be managed by cutting.

• Creating 'Dry Fuel': Unlike burning, cutting leaves the removed vegetation, known as 'brash' or 'litter', on the ground. This dead material dries out quickly and can become a substantial fuel load, actually increasing the risk and intensity of future wildfires. One expert even suggests it can be "worse than not doing anything" due to this readily combustible dead fuel.

• Impact on Ground Features: Heavy machinery can cause compaction damage to the soil. It can also destroy the natural bumps and hollows (microtopography) of the moorland, creating a "bowling green" effect. This uniform surface is less beneficial for promoting diverse plant life, like mosses, and may impact ground-nesting birds that rely on varied terrain for nesting.

• Tick Habitat: The thick layer of cut brash creates a warm, moist breeding ground for ticks. An increase in tick numbers can pose a serious health risk to both humans (e.g., Lyme disease) and wildlife.

• Limited Research & Long-Term Understanding: Despite being promoted as an alternative, much less is known about the long-term effects of cutting on vegetation structure, composition, carbon cycling, and water quality compared to burning. Short-term studies can be misleading, and comprehensive long-term research is desperately needed to understand the true impacts over a full management cycle. Early findings from ongoing research even suggest that cutting may increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long term and promote the release of phosphorus into water.

• Strict Regulations and Insufficient Scale: Current regulations, particularly from Natural England, often impose very strict and sometimes impractical parameters for cutting, such as requiring heather to be over 30cm tall, and often limit the acreage that can be cut. This means that management may not be carried out at the scale needed to effectively reduce wildfire risk as vegetation grows "out of control".

The Bigger Picture

Moorland management is a complex issue with no simple answers. While cutting can reduce vegetation height in the short term, burning often achieves this more effectively and for longer durations. Experts emphasize that managing fuel loads is critical for wildfire prevention, and all available tools, including cutting and burning, should be considered and adapted to site-specific conditions.

The push for cutting as a primary alternative to burning is occurring without sufficient scientific backing regarding its risks and benefits. A balanced, adaptive approach, driven by robust evidence and the on-the-ground knowledge of land managers, is crucial for protecting these vital ecosystems from the increasing threat of wildfires and for maintaining their biodiversity and carbon storage capabilities.

📧 Keep updated on this and all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.