Prescribed Fire in UK Heather-Dominated Blanket Bog Peatlands: A Critical Review of “Carbon Storage and Sequestration by Habitat: A Review of the Evidence (Second Edition)” by Gregg et al., 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of Heinemeyer & Ashby submitted to Fire

The authors have very valid reasons for wanting to provide a critical review of a recent synthesis of terrestrial carbon sequestration in the UK by Gregg et al. In their critique, the authors point out some true deficiencies in the work of Gregg et al. that should be remedied if it is to be relied upon as an authoritative source of information for scientists, land managers, and policymakers. Foremost, the authors rightly state that Gregg et al. should be much more explicit in identifying their criteria for including research products in their synthesis. This lack of methodological detail is problematic. However, as discussed below, some sections of the manuscript should be revised to increase the overall strength of the work.

Section 3.1 correctly points out that Gregg et al. made conclusions that were too strong and too broad. However, the authors of this manuscript also err by suggesting that the only way that there will be conclusive evidence on the effect of prescribed fire on bog carbon sequestration will be when their own study acquires an additional 10 years of data. There are two issues with this (1) There are other approaches that could provide strong and persuasive evidence and (2) Even the outcome of the authors’ research study will still be limited in spatial and temporal context and therefore not unassailably authoritative.

Section 3.2 makes valid critiques, but those critiques don’t necessarily seem to have been accurately aimed. On L128-130 the authors question (perhaps rightfully) how Gregg et al can claim that prescribed burning does or will turn bogs into a C source. However, nowhere in quote above (L120-123) do Gregg et al actually make that claim—the quoted text is about the broader management of these ecosystems in the UK, not just the application of fire.

Section 3.6 takes issue with the statement that prescribed burning has been a practice for hundreds of years. The authors then discuss research on historical evidence of fire in these ecosystems going back much further. While the authors do provide compelling evidence that fire has long played a role in these ecosystems, none of the evidence that they provide contradicts the specific statement they quoted from Gregg et al.

In section 3.7, the authors are right to point out the limitations of the EMBER study. However, Gregg et al. would also be at fault if they neglected to mention the EMBER study. The authors should not err in the other direction of Gregg et al by portraying the EMBER study as without value and encouraging readers to completely disregard the EMBER study.

There are a few minor issues that need to be remedied.

In the prescribed fire section of the breakout text box on page 3, it reads as though prescribed fire can only be applied on two individual days each year. Surely this is not the case?

L274: Two spelling errors

L302: SCP is not defined.

L342-344: This statement, while accurate, comes off as petty.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors in the work entitled " Prescribed Fire in UK Heather-Dominated Blanket Bog Peat- Lands. A Critical Review of “Carbon Storage and Sequestration by Habitat: A Review of the Evidence (Second Edition)” by Gregg et al. 2021" raises an extremely important issue, which is to present critical comments to the previously published article. The authors pay particular attention to the lack of a transparent and objective methodology proposed by Gregg et al. It is noteworthy that the authors, already in the first paragraph put special emphasis on defining the terms used later in the text. In addition, to be precise, the authors directly quote the discussed text along with the pages - this allows for a direct reference to the discussed text, at the same time authors propose solutions to disputed issues by explaining them and providing specific references.

 

To sum up, the current work does not require corrections and is suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and realising the importance of our manuscript. We are pleased that you think it is suitable for publication in its current form.