Suchergebnisse

In their paper entitled "Wildfires as an ecosystem service", Pausas and Keeley (2019) summarize the benefits generated by – as well as the evolutionary and socioecological importance of – wildfires for humankind. Although we recognize the importance of wildfires in such a context, we argue that presenting wildfire per se as an ecosystem service is conceptually incorrect and can be misleading for policy makers and resource managers. Throughout their paper, the authors repeatedly refer to (wild)fire as a potential provider of multiple ecosystem services (and not as an ecosystem service itself, as indicated in their article's title). We believe that this is more than a dispute over semantics, for such a contradiction could lead to misperceptions about the definition of the term " ecosystem services", which is especially concerning in light of its real-world applications to fire management. ; ÂS received support from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through PhD grant SFRH/BD/ 132838/2017, funded by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education, and by the European Social Fund–Operational Program Human Capital within the 2014–2020 EU Strategic Framework. AR is funded by Xunta de Galicia (post-doctoral fellowship ED481B2016/084-0). This research was developed as part of the project FirESmart (PCIF/MOG/0083/2017), which received funding from the FCT. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The effects of fire and its use on European peatlands and heaths are the focus of considerable research and debate due to the important services these ecosystems provide and the threats they face from climatic and land-use change. Whilst in some countries ecologists are actively promoting the restoration of historic fire management regimes, in the UK the debate has become increasingly acrimonious. Positions seem entrenched between continuing the intensive form of management associated with grouse moors or ceasing burning and seeking to eliminate fire altogether. In a recent paper we argued that participants' positions appeared influenced by political and philosophical beliefs associated with, for example, private land-ownership, hunting, and associated conservation conflicts such as raptor persecution. We also suggested there was inadequate engagement with key concepts and evidence from fire and peatland ecology. We argued that management debates should aim to be inclusive and evidence-based, and to understand the benefits and costs of different fire regimes. In a strongly-worded critique of our paper, George Monbiot (author of "Feral: Searching for Enchantment on the Frontiers of Rewilding") suggested we: i) framed our research question too narrowly; ii) made the implicit assumption that moorlands were the "right" ecosystem for the UK countryside; and iii) failed to adequately engage with arguments put forward for cessation of managed burning. Here we critically examine each of these issues to provide further insight into how adaptive, participatory land-management could develop. We argue that a productive debate must acknowledge that complex trade-offs are inevitable during ecological management. Choosing the "right" ecosystem is difficult, especially in a landscape with a long history of human influence, and the answer depends on the values and ecosystem services we prioritize. Natural resource management decisions will be improved if based on an understanding and valuation of the multiple scales and levels ...

Fire has been used for centuries to generate and manage some of the UK's cultural landscapes. Despite its complex role in the ecology of UK peatlands and moorlands, there has been a trend of simplifying the narrative around burning to present it as an only ecologically damaging practice. That fire modifies peatland characteristics at a range of scales is clearly understood. Whether these changes are perceived as positive or negative depends upon how trade-offs are made between ecosystem services and the spatial and temporal scales of concern. Here we explore the complex interactions and trade-offs in peatland fire management, evaluating the benefits and costs of managed fire as they are currently understood. We highlight the need for (i) distinguishing between the impacts of fires occurring with differing severity and frequency, and (ii) improved characterization of ecosystem health that incorporates the response and recovery of peatlands to fire. We also explore how recent research has been contextualized within both scientific publications and the wider media and how this can influence non-specialist perceptions. We emphasize the need for an informed, unbiased debate on fire as an ecological management tool that is separated from other aspects of moorland management and from political and economic opinions.

The effects of fire and its use on European peatlands and heaths are the focus of considerable research and debate due to the important services these ecosystems provide and the threats they face from climatic and land-use change. Whilst in some countries ecologists are actively promoting the restoration of historic fire management regimes, in the UK the debate has become increasingly acrimonious. Positions seem entrenched between continuing the intensive form of management associated with grouse moors or ceasing burning and seeking to eliminate fire altogether. In a recent paper we argued that participants' positions appeared influenced by political and philosophical beliefs associated with, for example, private land-ownership, hunting, and associated conservation conflicts such as raptor persecution. We also suggested there was inadequate engagement with key concepts and evidence from fire and peatland ecology. We argued that management debates should aim to be inclusive and evidence-based, and to understand the benefits and costs of different fire regimes. In a strongly-worded critique of our paper, George Monbiot (author of "Feral: Searching for Enchantment on the Frontiers of Rewilding") suggested we: i) framed our research question too narrowly; ii) made the implicit assumption that moorlands were the "right" ecosystem for the UK countryside; and iii) failed to adequately engage with arguments put forward for cessation of managed burning. Here we critically examine each of these issues to provide further insight into how adaptive, participatory land-management could develop. We argue that a productive debate must acknowledge that complex trade-offs are inevitable during ecological management. Choosing the "right" ecosystem is difficult, especially in a landscape with a long history of human influence, and the answer depends on the values and ecosystem services we prioritize. Natural resource management decisions will be improved if based on an understanding and valuation of the multiple scales and levels of organization at which ecological diversity exists, the role of disturbance in controlling ecosystem composition and function, and the need for participatory action.

Climate change is expected to have strong social-ecological implications, with global but especially regional and local challenges. To assess the climatic vulnerability of a given territory, it is necessary to evaluate its exposure to climate change and its adaptive capacity. This study describes the development of an Action Plan for Adapting to Climate Change in the Tâmega and Sousa Region, a mountainous inter-municipal community in the North of Portugal. The goals were to identify the main impacts of climate change on water resources, agriculture, forests, biodiversity, and socioeconomic sectors, as well as to develop a plan, merging local and scientific knowledge through a transdisciplinary lens. This study describes an approach that combines modelling methods, applied in the different sectors, and participatory methods, based on the analysis of the perceptions of local actors. Results indicate that the target region will experience a generalized increase in temperature and a decrease in precipitation, which will negatively impact all studied social-ecological dimensions. Overall, local business and institutional agents perceive the primary and tourism sectors as the most vulnerable in the region. The described framework demonstrates the engagement process between relevant scientific experts and local practitioners, as well as how it is critical to understand the impacts of climate change and to support the co-design of an adaptation plan, which in turn can guide political and economic decision-making towards effective implementation of the plan. In addition, the difficulties and challenges encountered during this process are discussed to support future plans and strategies for local adaptation.