David Ross is correct to highlight the dangers of wildfires to the peat stored in Scotland's uplands, and the evidence of massive damage in the English Peak District over past decades is a warning ("Peat wildfires are linked to climate change", The Herald, September 24).
As our climate changes, wildfires are likely to become more frequent, especially in the spring when there is a lot of dry fuel in the form of dead vegetation after the winter, as we have seen in 2012 and 2013.
Wildfires with high fuel load burn hottest and go down into the peat layer below, resulting in loss of all vegetation and then releasing the carbon stored in the peat through wind and water erosion.
However, periodic reduction of the fuel load by carefully managed muirburn has a big part to play in preventing such wildfires. When done correctly, muirburn will take off excess vegetation, leaving the ground layer intact and encouraging vigorous new growth that protects in turn the peat below. Areas of short vegetation also act as natural firebreaks, which is why wildfires on managed moorland tend to be far less damaging than where a thick layer of old woody heather has been allowed to develop.
Peatlands are increasingly recognised as a vital way of storing carbon and moorland managers are playing an active part in preventing damage to the peat.
Tim Baynes
Director Scottish Land & Estates Moorland Group,
Stuart House, Eskmills Business Park, Musselburgh
Glasgow University researchers suggest peat destroyed by a wildfire on a 10-acre site in the Highlands released between 0.1% and 0.3% of carbon dioxide all the UK's peatlands would otherwise have absorbed in a year. Why, then, does the Scottish Government support the building of wind farms on peatlands? The first phase of the Whitelee site covered 13,000 acres from which one million cubic metres of peat were removed.
Gillian Bishop,
Woodside Cottage, Ryelands, Strathaven.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article