Action

Maintain/restore water flow across service corridors

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    1%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of restoring water flow across service corridors. The study was in a fen.
  • Characteristic plants (1 study): One before-and-after study in a fen in the USA found that following restoration of water inflow across a road (along with general rewetting), cover of wet peatland sedges increased whilst cover of grasses preferring drier conditions decreased.

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 2002–2004 in a degraded fen in California, USA (Patterson & Cooper 2007) found that after water flow was restored across a road (along with general rewetting), cover of peatland-characteristic sedges increased whilst cover of grass species preferring drier conditions typically decreased. Cover of three sedge species characteristic of wet peatlands increased (two significantly or marginally so), from 12–15% before rewetting to 13–20% one year after. Cover of three grass species that prefer drier conditions decreased (two significantly), from 2–6% before rewetting to 1–5% one year after. In July 2003, 21 channels were created across a road that blocked surface water flow into the fen. At the same time, the main drainage ditch of the fen was dammed. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions. Vegetation cover was estimated in July before (2002) and after (2004) intervention, in fifty-nine 10 m2 plots.

    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