Action

Use grazing to maintain or restore disturbance

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    25%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Four studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using grazing to maintain or restore disturbance. All four studies were in fens or fen meadows. N.B. Grazing in peatlands with no history of disturbance is considered as a separate action.
  • Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found that the overall plant community composition differed between grazed and mown fen meadows.
  • Characteristic plants (3 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Germany reported that the abundance of bog/fen-characteristic plants was similar in grazed and ungrazed fen meadows. One replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that cover of fen-characteristic mosses did not change after grazers were introduced. One replicated, paired, site comparison study, also in Germany, found that grazed fen meadows contained fewer fen-characteristic plant species than mown meadows.
  • Herb cover (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK reported that grazing increased cover of some herb groups (cottongrassessedges or all grass-like plants). One of the studies found that grazing reduced purple moor grass cover, but the other found that grazing typically had no effect.
  • Moss cover (2 studies): One replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that cover of fen-characteristic mosses did not change after grazers were introduced. One controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the UK found that grazing reduced Sphagnum moss cover.
  • Tree/shrub cover (2 studies): Of two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK, one found that grazing reduced shrub cover but the other found that grazing typically had no effect on shrub cover.
  • Overall plant richness/diversity (3 studies): Of two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK, one found that plant species richness increased after grazing was reinstated but the other reported that there was typically no effect. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found that grazed fen meadows contained fewer plant species than mown meadows.

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 replicated, paired, site comparison study in 32 fen meadows in Germany (Stammel et al. 2003) found that grazed meadows contained a significantly different plant community with fewer species than mown meadows, but there was no difference in vegetation height or biomass. Meadows grazed or mown for at least 10 years had different overall plant communities (data reported as a graphical analysis). Grazed meadows contained fewer plant species than mown meadows, per meadow (71 vs 79) and per 25 m2 plot (43 vs 51), and fewer fen-characteristic plant species (18 vs 19 species/plot). Meadows did not differ significantly in vegetation height (grazed: 19; mown: 24 cm) or above-ground biomass (grazed: 954; mown: 1,103 g/m2). Of the 32 studied meadows, 16 were open to cattle (<0.5/ha) each summer and 16 were mown each autumn. In August (year not reported), cover of every plant species was recorded in 25 m2 plots: 58 across the grazed meadows and 51 across the mown meadows. Vegetation height was measured at three points in each meadow. Biomass was cut from three 25 x 25 cm quadrats then dried and weighed.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, paired, controlled study in 2001–2005 in a degraded fen meadow in Germany (Rasran et al. 2007) reported that grazing had no effect on the abundance of bog/fen-characteristic plants. This result is not based on a test of statistical significance. After five years, bog/fen-characteristic plants occurred in 0–3% of quadrats with 0–3% cover in both grazed and ungrazed plots. Variation between plots was related to topsoil stripping rather than grazing. In 2001, sixteen 6 x 6 m plots were established, in four blocks of four, in a drained, abandoned, nutrient-enriched fen meadow. Eight plots (two plots/block) were grazed by cattle (1.5 cattle/ha). The other eight plots were fenced to exclude cattle. None of these plots were sown with hay, but topsoil was stripped from four grazed and four ungrazed plots at the start of the experiment. Between 2002 and 2005, vegetation cover was estimated in 16 permanent 1 m2 quadrats/plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated before-and-after study in 2011–2013 in a degraded fen in Wales, UK (Birch et al. 2015) found that grazing typically increased cover of grass-like plants but had no effect on other vegetation cover, diversity or structure. Cover of grasses/sedges/rushes significantly increased in two of three grazed plots (from 78–79% before grazing to 93–105% after 16–21 months of grazing). There was no significant change in two of three plots (but a decrease in the other) in purple moor grass Molinia caerulea cover, dwarf shrub cover, fen-characteristic moss cover, fen-characteristic herb cover, plant species richness, plant diversity or vegetation height. Three 10 x 10 m plots were established in an abandoned fen. From spring or summer 2012, each plot was grazed by cattle or ponies. Before grazing began (August 2011) and after 16–21 months (autumn 2013) measurements were taken in five 4 m2 quadrats/plot. Cover of every plant species was estimated, and vegetation height was measured, in the centre of each quadrat.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A controlled, before-and-after study in 2003–2012 in a historically grazed and recently burned fen in England, UK (Groome & Shaw 2015) found that grazing increased plant species richness, but reduced total vegetation cover and had mixed effects on cover of individual plant groups. Over nine years, grazed plots experienced a greater increase in plant species richness, but a smaller increase in total vegetation cover, than ungrazed plots (data not reported). For some vegetation, such as common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium and carnation sedge Carex panicea, cover increased more in grazed than ungrazed plots. For other vegetation, cover increased less in grazed plots. This included soft bog moss Sphagnum tenellum (data not reported), purple moor grass Molinia caerulea (before: 14–48%; grazed after: 14–43%; ungrazed after: 15–64%) and dwarf shrubs (before: 3–8%; grazed after: 22–37%; ungrazed after: 33–53%). In summer 2003, cover of every plant species was estimated in 174 permanent 1 m2 quadrats across the fen. From 2005, summer-autumn cattle grazing was reinstated (see original paper for details) except in three fenced exclosures. In 2010 and 2012, vegetation cover was re-surveyed in the quadrats (116 grazed, 58 ungrazed).

    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