Action

Replace blocks of vegetation after mining or peat extraction

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    35%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of replacing blocks of vegetation after mining or peat extraction. One study was in a bog and one was in a fen.
  • Plant community composition (2 studies): Two studies, in a bog in the UK and a fen in Canada, reported that transplanted vegetation blocks retained their peatland vegetation community. In the UK, the community of the transplanted blocks did not change over time. In Canada, the community of replaced vegetation blocks remained similar to an undisturbed fen.
  • Vegetation cover (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the UK reported that bare peat next to translocated bog vegetation developed vegetation cover (mainly grass/rush). Sphagnum moss cover declined in the translocated blocks. One site comparison study in Canada reported that replaced fen vegetation blocks retained similar Sphagnum and shrub cover to an undisturbed fen.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study in 1991–1997 in a historically mined blanket bog/heathland in England, UK (Standen & Owen 1999) reported that translocated bog vegetation retained its overall community composition whilst gaining new species, and that adjacent bare peat was colonized by herbs and bog-characteristic plants. These results were not tested for statistical significance. Over six years, translocated bog vegetation retained its overall bog-characteristic community (data reported as a graphical analysis). However, it did gain six additional plant species (before translocation: 15 species; six years after: 21 species) and abundance of fringed bog moss Sphagnum fimbriatum declined (in 15% of quadrats before translocation, but only 3% six years after). Bare peat between translocated strips was colonized by 28 plant species with 48% total vegetation cover, 21–31% grass/rush cover, 10–15% cover of heather Calluna vulgaris and 1–5% cover of five other bog-characteristic species. In 1991, sods (vegetation and 1 m of underlying peat) were cut from a blanket bog remnant. They were moved to eight 4 x 140 m trenches, dug in a site historically mined for coal. Dry peat was spread between the translocated strips. Plant species and vegetation cover were recorded in 1991 (before translocation) and 1997: in 100 quadrats (0.25 m2) in six translocated strips, and in 90 quadrats (1 m2) in three strips between.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A site comparison study in 2008–2009 in a fen in Ontario, Canada (Wilhelm et al. 2015) reported that plots where surface peat was replaced developed plant cover and community composition intermediate between hummocks and hollows of an undisturbed plot. These results were not tested for statistical significance. After one year, Sphagnum moss cover was higher in peat-replacement plots (22–35%) than in undisturbed hollows (8–19%), but lower than on undisturbed hummocks (100%). The same was true for shrubs (peat-replacement: 15–20%; undisturbed hollows: 10%; undisturbed hummocks: 50%). For peat-replacement plots, data were not provided separately for hollows and hummocks. Overall community data were reported as a graphical analysis. In April 2008, 30-cm-thick blocks of peat and vegetation were replaced on a 12 x 12 m plot after removal of the underlying peat. An undisturbed plot 80 m away provided a comparison. From May to July 2009, vegetation cover was estimated in 6–18 quadrats/plot, distributed evenly across hummocks and hollows.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor N.G., Grillas P. & Sutherland W.J. (2018) Peatland Conservation. Pages 329-392 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Peatland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation
Peatland Conservation

Peatland Conservation - Published 2018

Peatland Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust