Remove pollutants from waste gases before they enter the environment

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing pollutants from waste gases before release into the environment. The study was in bogs.
  • Plant richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in bogs in Estonia reported that following installation of dust filters in industrial plants (along with a general reduction in emissions), the number of Sphagnum moss species increased but the total number of plant species 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 1990–2007 in two raised bogs in Estonia (Paal et al. 2009) reported that after installing improved dust filters in industrial plants (along with a general reduction in emissions), total plant species richness decreased but Sphagnum moss species richness increased. These results were not tested for statistical significance. In the late 1980s/early 1990s, when bogs were polluted by calcium-rich ash, there were 91–123 plant species and nine Sphagnum species/0.1 ha. In 2007, after pollution was reduced, there were only 43–58 plant species but 14 Sphagnum species/0.1 ha. Throughout the 1990s, emissions of calcium-rich ash fell by 80%, partly through fitting improved dust filters but partly through reduced industrial activity. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these changes. In 2007, plant species were recorded in a 0.1 ha plot in each bog. Species richness was compared to published records from the late 1980s/early 1990s.

    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