Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    12%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One before and after study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially decreased the cover of most plant species, but that their cover subsequently increased. A systematic review of five studies from the UK found that prescribed burning did not alter species diversity.
  • A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that regeneration of heather was similar in cut and burned areas. A systematic review of five studies, from Europe found that prescribed burning did not alter grass cover relative to heather cover.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A systematic review of five studies of the impact of prescribed burning on lowland heathland vegetation in North Western Europe (Newton et al. 2008) found that burning did not increase the cover of grass species, relative to heather species. There was no evidence of publication bias that would influence the outcomes of the systematic review. The systematic review summarised the impacts of burning at eight sites from five studies, four of which represented before-and-after trials. Of 266 potentially relevant references only five presented information on the impacts of burning that could be used by the systematic review.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 1978–1983 in two heathland sites in the UK (Hobbs & Gimingham 1984) found that prescribed burning initially decreased cover of most plant species, but that their cover subsequently increased. Cover of common heather Calluna vulgaris was lower immediately after burning than before burning (after: 5–42%, before: 52–100%) but this increased after three years to 9–63% cover. Similarly cover of the shrubs bell heather Erica cinerea (immediately after: 2–24%, before: 55–92%, after three years: 21–85%) and bearberry Arctosaphylos uva-ursi (immediately after: 2–43%, before: 46–97%, after three years: 5–65%) initially decreased following fire and then increased after three years. The number of plant species was lower immediately after prescribed burning than before burning (after: 4–11 species, before: 10–31 species) but this increased after three years to 19–30 species. No statistical analyses were carried out in this study. Fourteen areas of the two heathland sites were burned in 1978 or 1979. Four 1 m2 quadrats were placed in each burned area and cover of plant species recorded three times a year in 1978–1980, including before burning took place.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated study in 1987–1989 in a moorland site in the Yorkshire, UK (Liepert et al. 1993) found that heather Calluna vulgaris regeneration was similar in burned and cut areas. After two years, cover of heather did not differ between burned (young heather: 58%; old heather: 29%) and cut areas (young heather: 77%; old heather: 17%). Additionally, after two years, neither shoot nor seedling growth differed significantly between burned (shoot: 37 cm; seedling: 21 cm) and cut areas (shoot: 34 cm; seedling: 26 cm). Heather was burned in six plots and cut in six others. During the study the plots were exposed to light grazing by sheep. Vegetation was sampled annually in July using 0.25 m2 quadrants placed in the centre of each plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A systematic review of five studies of the impact of prescribed burning on lowland dry heathland vegetation in the UK (Stewart et al. 2004) found that prescribed burning did not alter the diversity (presented as Simpson’s diversity) or number of plant species of heathland sites. There was no evidence of publication bias that would influence the outcomes of the systematic review. The systematic review summarised the impacts of prescribed burning at 12 sites from five studies, with six of the sites representing before-and-after trials and the remaining six representing site comparisons. Of 280 potentially relevant references only five presented information on the impacts of prescribed fire that could be used by the systematic review.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Martin P.A., Rocha R., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2018) Shrubland and Heathland Conservation. Pages 447-494 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation - Published 2017

Shrubland and Heathland synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust