Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The peatland vegetation burning debate: keep scientific critique in perspective. A response to Brown et al . and Douglas et al .

2016; Royal Society; Volume: 371; Issue: 1708 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1098/rstb.2016.0434

1471-2970

G. Matt Davies, Nicholas Kettridge, Cathelijne R. Stoof, Alan Gray, R.H. Marrs, Davide Ascoli, Paulo M. Fernandes, Katherine A. Allen, Stefan H. Doerr, Gareth Clay, Julia Mcmorrow, Vigdis Vandvik,

Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamics

Open AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Davies G. Matt, Kettridge Nicholas, Stoof Cathelijne R., Gray Alan, Marrs Rob, Ascoli Davide, Fernandes Paulo M., Allen Katherine A., Doerr Stefan H., Clay Gareth D., McMorrow Julia and Vandvik Vigdis 2016The peatland vegetation burning debate: keep scientific critique in perspective. A response to Brown et al. and Douglas et al.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B3712016043420160434http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0434SectionOpen AccessInvited replyThe peatland vegetation burning debate: keep scientific critique in perspective. A response to Brown et al. and Douglas et al. G. Matt Davies G. Matt Davies School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Nicholas Kettridge Nicholas Kettridge School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B31 2DX, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Cathelijne R. Stoof Cathelijne R. Stoof Soil Geography and Landscape Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Alan Gray Alan Gray NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Edinburgh EH26 0QB, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Rob Marrs Rob Marrs School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Davide Ascoli Davide Ascoli Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2-10095, Grugliasco (TO), Italy Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Paulo M. Fernandes Paulo M. Fernandes Centro de Investigação e de Tecnologias Agro-Ambientais e Biológicas, Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Katherine A. Allen Katherine A. Allen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3270-5817 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Stefan H. Doerr Stefan H. Doerr http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8700-9002 Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Gareth D. Clay Gareth D. Clay School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Julia McMorrow Julia McMorrow School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Vigdis Vandvik Vigdis Vandvik Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Postboks 7803, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author G. Matt Davies G. Matt Davies School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Nicholas Kettridge Nicholas Kettridge School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B31 2DX, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Cathelijne R. Stoof Cathelijne R. Stoof Soil Geography and Landscape Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Alan Gray Alan Gray NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Edinburgh EH26 0QB, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Rob Marrs Rob Marrs School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Davide Ascoli Davide Ascoli Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2-10095, Grugliasco (TO), Italy Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Paulo M. Fernandes Paulo M. Fernandes Centro de Investigação e de Tecnologias Agro-Ambientais e Biológicas, Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Katherine A. Allen Katherine A. Allen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3270-5817 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Stefan H. Doerr Stefan H. Doerr http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8700-9002 Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Gareth D. Clay Gareth D. Clay School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Julia McMorrow Julia McMorrow School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed and Vigdis Vandvik Vigdis Vandvik Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Postboks 7803, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:19 November 2016https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0434We are glad that Brown et al. [1] and Douglas et al. [2] agree that there is a need to move forward in the debate regarding the use of fire as a management tool in the UK uplands and appreciate their robust responses to some of the issues we identified. We may not agree, but discussing these problems and balancing the current debate from an ecological viewpoint is important. Our recent paper [3] contained a critique of certain aspects of two recent papers they published [4] and [5]. We believe this critique was important, because we believe the interpretations they provided sometimes lacked adequate engagement with existing research on peatland fire ecology, had the potential for damaging misinterpretation, and occasionally appeared to have an unintentional lack of balance. In the case of Brown et al. [4], this concern was exacerbated by the fact it was a review paper and such publications aim to provide an authoritative overview of knowledge in a certain area. We believe there were several respects in which that standard was not met. We also critiqued media outreach and coverage associated with their papers and, in the case of Brown et al. [3], the publication protocol associated with a research report they issued [6]. Here, we briefly address Brown et al. and Douglas et al.'s main concerns regarding our recent paper.Many of the issues raised by Brown et al. are associated with a particular interpretation of our language. While our original paper emphasized the importance of precision of language, for reasons of brevity, we are not able to engage with all such criticisms here and do not feel it is productive to get into a prolonged debate about how we or they may have phrased things better. We will simply state that where we offered a critique of their tone or interpretation, we did so having carefully read their research, corresponded with co-workers about it, and then raised specific concerns about how it could be perceived. We remain willing to clarify our concerns in correspondence should the authors wish.Brown et al. were concerned over our criticism of their statement that 'burning is considered particularly detrimental to peat-forming Sphagnum species'. As they acknowledge in their comment, there was a single reference provided in their review paper with regard to Sphagnum sensitivity to managed fires [7]. We referred to this as an unpublished report, because free availability and an ISBN does not equate to formal scientific publication, particularly where there is no indication of peer review. Following the citation trail in Grant et al. [7] for their initial assertion regarding Sphagnum [4] reveals three references. Two are non-technical publications that predate much research on peatland fire ecology in the UK and elsewhere, and none are peer-reviewed [8–10]. Burning involves biomass combustion, so we cannot dispute that when fires occur in peatlands Sphagnum biomass could be lost. However, during management fires, this is unlikely owing to Sphagnum's very high moisture content. Smouldering combustion might occur during severe fires in periods of drought. Although there is palaeoecological data that provides circumstantial evidence that some Sphagnum species may be sensitive to land-use intensification and burning [11,12], there is abundant evidence that Sphagnum can regenerate following burning [13,14] and that some species may be favoured by managed fire [15]. There is a lack of evidence for temporal and spatial effects of fire on Sphagnum in general and severe wildfire effects should not be confounded with the outcomes of prescribed burns. It remains unclear why a managed (thus low severity) fire should be particularly detrimental to Sphagnum, because it has the ability to regenerate from stems many centimetres below the capitulum [16] and fire-induced belowground heating is very limited [17]. We hope Brown et al. will understand that our concern was that they were propagating a highly generalized supposition ('Burning is considered particularly detrimental to peat-forming Sphagnum species') which remains largely unsupported in the scientific literature.Brown et al. criticize us for disagreeing with their concerns about the controllability of prescribed fires, in particular the potential for combustion of moss and litter layers. It would obviously be ludicrous to state that consumption of such layers is physically impossible. Rather, we pointed out that available experimental evidence suggests that this can be minimized by burning under appropriate fuel moisture conditions [18]. We also felt it was inaccurate for them to conflate the difficulty of fire control (i.e. fire intensity) with consumption/heating of the moss and litter layer (i.e. fire severity). We refer readers to Keeley [19] for further discussion of this issue.Regarding our critique of the release, and press coverage, of the non-peer-reviewed EMBER report [6], we acknowledged, in our paper, that many of the results have since been published in peer-reviewed journals. In contrast to what they state in their comment, we did not suggest that the results of their recent review [4] influenced media coverage of their report—all entries in our table 1 are referenced as being associated with the EMBER report [6]. In our paper, we made no criticism of the basic science in the EMBER report. We would argue that if scientists need to issue potentially controversial research reports to, for example, satisfy funders, they should develop and report their codes of best practice. Wherever possible such reports should be peer-reviewed. Research reports should describe methodologies in full either in the report itself or in a technical supplement as there is no guarantee all results will eventually be accepted by scientific journals.With regard to criticism of our perception study by Brown et al. and Douglas et al., we clearly stated that the participants were a mixture of senior (final-year) undergraduates and graduate students studying ecosystem restoration. Undergraduate students were predominantly majors in environmental science or forestry, fisheries and wildlife. We did not collect data on the participants' gender, nor did we collect data on their race, age, marital status, sexual orientation or socio-economic background. Readers were assigned to random groups and were asked to reach a consensus which they reported for the group as a whole. This approach does not lend itself to formal statistical analysis but is a legitimate qualitative approach to a socio-scientific question [20]. Our reporting of the study is fully appropriate given its scope—we are happy to provide the detailed materials and methods we used should anyone wish to duplicate it, we would be interested to hear what results they get.Douglas et al. criticize us for inconsistency in our description of the seasonal distribution of wildfires in the UK. We are happy to clarify any misunderstanding. If readers examine the reference in question [21] they will see that wildfires display a bimodal seasonal distribution. The larger peak does, indeed, occur in early spring and may be associated with both fire weather conditions and the prevalence of ignitions (presumably at least in part from escaped managed burns). A second large peak occurs in summer and is primarily associated with warm dry weather. Management burns are legally constrained between October and mid-April (exact dates vary by location and elevation). A paper on the seasonal variation in wildfire activity in Scotland is currently under a review.A number of the authors here have previously outlined their concerns regarding Douglas et al.'s interpretation of their MODIS data [22] and why the balance of evidence suggests the fires they detected are likely to be large wildfires rather than to be much smaller managed burns. We are very aware of the challenges of using and interpreting MODIS active fire data both in general and in a UK context. We have previously corresponded with one of the authors of Douglas et al. [2] on this subject and are happy to continue doing so if we can provide useful insights from related studies a number of us have undertaken [23,24]. We will not repeat our critique here except to again note that (i) the number of 'managed fires' Douglas et al. [5] reported from their MODIS data is rather small compared with the number of wildfires reported by the Fire and Rescue Services, let alone the number of managed fires burnt by managers; and (ii) the probability of MODIS detection for most managed fires will be less than 50% even in perfect viewing conditions.With regard to our estimation of fire rotations, criticized in Douglas et al. [2], we clearly stated that we used the data available from Douglas et al. [5] to make a rough estimate of mean fire rotation (defined as per [25]) and annual area burnt. Confusion may have been caused as we later stated '…average fire-return interval of 147 years…' when we should have referred to a 'mean fire rotation'. The values we provided are not misleading; they should certainly not be taken as absolute but usefully illustrate the significant variation in fire regimes across the UK. Douglas et al. have at their disposal an extremely valuable dataset that could be used to interpret variation in fire regimes. We would encourage them to consider Romme [25] and we look forward to them developing their analysis further than we were able to based on the simple summary statistics reported in their original paper.Our paper outlined why we believe that wholesale changes in management should be considered carefully as we currently have little evidence of what the environmental consequences of actions such as the total cessation of burning would be. Douglas et al. are correct that there is growing pressure being placed on the use of managed burning by water companies (for instance burn bans on the significant areas of peatland they own) owing to concern regarding dissolved organic carbon, DOC). As we outlined in our paper, there is currently no clear consensus that existing evidence suggests managed burning alone drives increased DOC concentrations or has negative consequences for C storage (e.g. different responses at different scales have been reported). Many existing studies suffer from complexities introduced by interacting disturbances, including fire, grazing and drainage. We demonstrated that assessments of habitat condition are overly simplistic and do not account for the ecological role of fire in peatlands. Douglas et al. advocate a precautionary response to these challenges; this might be appropriate in some locations where services such as drinking water are of critical importance. Given existing uncertainty there is no guarantee that such changes will provide the desired benefits. A passive Adaptive Management approach [26] is therefore required. We have not argued that burning should be used everywhere, and nor do we suggest the status quo associated with grouse moor management (such as generalizations about highly variable practices are possible) is appropriate everywhere either. We would point out that wildfire control and fuel reduction treatments may be important in areas where burning ceases. Although this requires further study, the results reported in Allen et al. [27] highlight potential benefits. Prescribed fire is a flexible tool that can be used in a targeted fashion to ensure that landscapes at large experience a lengthened fire return interval. Upland ecosystems support a diverse range of ecosystem services, important plant communities and wildlife populations as well as agricultural and game production. Managing for a single ecosystem service, be it red grouse, drinking water or carbon, is unlikely to lead to holistically managed, diverse upland landscapes. We advocate an Adaptive, evidence-based approach where decision-making on land-use priorities takes place locally, in a participatory manner and in which clear objectives and on-going monitoring are used to facilitate adaptation. Achieving ecological management objectives will require a range of tools, which, depending on the local circumstances, may include burning.In their conclusion, Brown et al. suggest we have added to the partisan tone of the debate. We are content that our paper has instead rebalanced the conversation regarding peatland fire management and subjected it to a rigorous assessment from the perspective of fire ecology. Specific criticisms we have made while demonstrating our points should be kept in perspective—science proceeds by debate and the formulation of questions or hypotheses, followed by evidence gathering to address the questions and then further debate. The complex questions associated with the effects of fire in peatlands are best addressed by appreciating perspectives and expertise from a range of different disciplines. We hope Brown et al. and Douglas et al. will be willing to reflect on and appreciate ours. We retain admiration for much of their work aside from our disagreements here.Competing interestsWe declare we have no competing interests.FundingWe received no funding for this study.FootnotesThe accompanying comments can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0432 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0433.© 2016 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.References1Brown LE, Holden J, Palmer SM. 2016Moorland vegetation burning debates should avoid contextomy and anachronism: a comment on Davies et al. (2016). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20160432. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0432) Link, ISI, Google Scholar2Douglas DJT, Buchanan GM, Thompson P, Wilson JD. 2016The role of fire in UK upland management: the need for informed challenge to conventional wisdoms: a comment on Davies et al. (2016). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20160433. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0433) Link, ISI, Google Scholar3Davies GMet al.2016The role of fire in UK peatland and moorland management: the need for informed, unbiased debate. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150342. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0342) Link, ISI, Google Scholar4Brown LE, Holden J, Palmer SM, Johnston K, Ramchunder SJ, Grayson R. 2015Effects of fire on the hydrology, biogeochemistry, and ecology of peatland river systems. Freshw. Sci. 34, 1406–1425. (doi:10.1086/683426) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar5Douglas DJT, Buchanan GM, Thompson P, Amar A, Fielding DA, Redpath SM, Wilson JD. 2015Vegetation burning for game management in the UK uplands is increasing and overlaps spatially with soil carbon and protected areas.Biological Conservation 191, 243–250. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar6Brown LE, Holden J, Palmer SM. 2014Effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins. Key findings from the EMBER project. University of Leeds. See http://www.wateratleeds.org/fileadmin/documents/water_at_leeds/Ember_report.pdf (accessed 17 Feb 2016). Google Scholar7Grant MC, Mallard J, Leigh S, Thompson PS. 2012The costs and benefits of grouse moor management to biodiversity and aspects of the wider environment: a review. Sandy, UK: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Google Scholar8Pearsall WH. 1950Mountains and moorlands. London, UK: Collins. Google Scholar9Ratcliffe DA. 1964Mires and bogs. In The vegetation of Scotland (ed. Burnett JH), pp. 426–478. Edinburgh, UK: Oliver & Boyd. Google Scholar10Rowell TA. 1990Management of peatlands for conservation. Brit. Wildl. 1, 144–156. Google Scholar11Swindles GT, Turner TE, Roe HM, Hall VA, Rea HA. 2015Testing the cause of the Sphagnum austinii (Sull. ex Aust.) decline: Multiproxy evidence from a raised bog in Northern Ireland, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 213: 17–26. Google Scholar12McCarroll J, Chambers FM, Webb JC, Thom T. 2016Informing innovative peatland conservation in light of palaeoecological evidence for the demise of Sphagnum imbricatum: the case of Oxenhope Moor, Yorkshire, UK. Mires Peat 18, 08. ISI, Google Scholar13Sillasoo Ü, Väliranta M, Tuittila E-S. 2011Fire history and vegetation recovery in two raised bogs at the Baltic Sea. J. Veg. Sci. 22, 1084–1093. (doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01307.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar14Lukenbach MC, Devito KJ, Kettridge N, Petrone RM, Waddington JM. 2015Hydrogeological controls on post-fire moss recovery in peatlands. J. Hydrol. 530, 405–418. (doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.075) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar15Lee H, Alday JG, Rose RJ, O'Reilly J, Marrs RH. 2013Long-term effects of rotational prescribed burning and low-intensity sheep grazing on blanket-bog plant communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 625–635. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12078) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar16Clymo RS, Duckett JG. 1986Regeneration of Sphagnum. New Phytol. 102, 589–614. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1986.tb00834.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar17Grau R, Davies GM, Waldron S, Gray A, Bruce M. 2014Fuel and climate controls on peatland fire severity. In: Viegas D.X. (Ed.) Advances in Forest Fire Research. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. Google Scholar18Davies GM, Smith AA, MacDonald AJ, Bakker JD, Legg CJ. 2010Fire intensity, fire severity and ecosystem response in heathlands: factors affecting the regeneration of Calluna vulgaris. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 356–365. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01774.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar19Keeley JE. 2009Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 18, 116–126. (doi:10.1071/WF07049) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar20Taylor SJ, Bogdan R, DeVault M. 2015Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and resource, 4th edn. London, UK: Wiley. Google Scholar21Legg CJ, Davies GM, Kitchen K, Marno P. 2007Developing a fire danger rating system for the UK: FireBeaters phase I final report. Report to the Scottish Wildfire Forum. Google Scholar22Davies GM, Stoof CR, Kettridge N, Gray A. 2016Comment on: Vegetation burning for game management in the UK uplands is increasing and overlaps spatially with soil carbon and protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 195, 293–294. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.01.002) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar23Benali A, Ervilha AR, Sá ACL, Fernandes PM, Pinto RMS, Trigo RM, Pereira JMC. 2016Deciphering the impact of uncertainty on the accuracy of large wildfire spread simulations. Sci. Total Environ. 569–570, 73–85. (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.112) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar24McMorrow J. 2013MODIS-detected fire regime in Great Britain: potential and challenges of validating against national fire incident data. In EARSeL Forest Fire Special Interest Group workshop, 15–17 October 2013. Coombe Abbey, Warwickshire. See https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:237306&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF (accessed 10 August 2016). Google Scholar25Romme W. 1980Fire History Terminology: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee. In Proc. the fire history workshop (eds MA Stokes, JH Dieterich), October 20–24, 1980, Tucson, Arizona. General Technical Report RM-GTR-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Google Scholar26Westgate MJ, Likens GE, Lindenmayer DB. 2013Adaptive management of biological systems: A review. Biological Conservation 158, 128–139. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar27Allen KA, Harris MPK, Marrs RH. 2013Matrix modelling of prescribed burning in Calluna vulgaris-dominated moorland: short burning rotations minimize carbon loss at increased wildfire frequencies. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 614–624. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12075) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar28Allen KA, Denelle P, Sánchez Ruiz FM, Santana VM, Marrs RH. 2016Prescribed moorland burning meets good practice guidelines: a monitoring case study using aerial photography in the Peak District, UK. Ecol. Indic. 62, 76–85. (doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.030) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar29Scottish Government. 2011The Muirburn code. Edinburgh, UK: The Scottish Government. See http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/08/09125203/0 (accessed 22 June 2016). Google Scholar Previous Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited by Jeffers J (2021) Particularizing adaptation to non-predominant hazards: A history of wildfires in County Donegal, Ireland from 1903 to 2019, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102211, 58, (102211), Online publication date: 1-May-2021. Marrs R, Marsland E, Lingard R, Appleby P, Piliposyan G, Rose R, O'Reilly J, Milligan G, Allen K, Alday J, Santana V, Lee H, Halsall K and Chiverrell R (2018) Experimental evidence for sustained carbon sequestration in fire-managed, peat moorlands, Nature Geoscience, 10.1038/s41561-018-0266-6, 12:2, (108-112), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. Milligan G, Rose R, O'Reilly J and Marrs R (2018) Effects of rotational prescribed burning and sheep grazing on moorland plant communities: Results from a 60-year intervention experiment, Land Degradation & Development, 10.1002/ldr.2953, 29:5, (1397-1412), Online publication date: 1-May-2018. Sotherton N, Baines D and Aebischer N (2017) An alternative view of moorland management for Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica , Ibis, 10.1111/ibi.12489, 159:3, (693-698), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017. This Issue19 November 2016Volume 371Issue 1708Theme issue 'Interoception beyond homeostasis: affect, cognition and mental health' compiled and edited by Manos Tsakiris and Hugo D. Critchley Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0434PubMed:28080979Published by:Royal SocietyPrint ISSN:0962-8436Online ISSN:1471-2970History: Manuscript accepted01/09/2016Published online19/11/2016Published in print19/11/2016 License:© 2016 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Citations and impact Subjectsecologyenvironmental science