Muirburn changes ecological balance

Sir, – In his recent letter Peter Fraser suggests I am confusing the short heather and patches of exposed rock typical of high-altitude montane heath, with lower areas of regularly burned heather showing surface erosion of peat and exposed stones. This is not the case. I am aware of the difference.

Mr Fraser points out the burning within game parks in Africa and India “which benefits grazing and diversity”. In semi-arid areas where fires caused by lightning strikes are fairly common, plants have evolved over millennia which are “fire germinated” – i.e. they need to be exposed to intense heat or smoke before they burst into growth. However, it is dangerous to transfer techniques from one ecosystem to another and as Scotland is neither semiarid nor exposed to frequent lightning strikes none of our plants need this treatment and its use is inappropriate.

Muirburn prevents the regeneration of trees and shrubs and changes the ecological balance towards the specific heather monoculture required for grouse moor management rather than the natural climax vegetation of trees, shrubs, heather etc.

This raises the question as to whether or not grouse shooting – with its associated collateral damage to other species – is an appropriate use for so much of upland Scotland.

I did not propose covering Scotland’s “prime agricultural land” with trees as suggested by Mr Fraser. Colin D Young. Newtonhill, Stonehaven.