Action

Drain/replace acidic water

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    35%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of draining/replacing acidic surface water. Both studies were in fens.
  • Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two controlled studies in fens in the Netherlands reported that draining acidic water had mixed effects on cover of Sphagnum moss and herbs after 4–5 years, depending on the species and whether moss was also removed.
  • Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Netherlands reported that draining and replacing acidic water increased plant species richness.

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 controlled study in 1989–1993 in a degraded floating fen in the Netherlands (Beltman et al. 1996) reported that draining acidic surface water increased herb cover, but only when moss was also removed. These results were not tested for statistical significance. Drainage alone had no effect on vegetation cover. After four years, a drained and undrained plot had similar vegetation cover (total moss: 93%; Sphagnum: 62%; herbs: 3%). However, drainage in combination with moss removal favoured herbs. A plot drained and cleared of moss developed 76% herb cover with 0% moss cover. In contrast, a plot cleared of moss but not drained regained high moss cover (total moss: 96%; Sphagnum: 53%; herbs: <1%). In 1989, a ditch was built to drain surface water from two 16 m2 plots in an acidified, nutrient-enriched fen. Two other plots were not drained. In 1991, the moss carpet was also cleared from one drained and one undrained plot. In 1995, vegetation cover was recorded in six 1 m2 quadrats/plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled, before-and-after study in 1991–1996 in a degraded floating fen in the Netherlands (Bootsma et al. 2002) reported that draining acidic surface water (and replacing it with less acidic water) increased plant species richness and Sphagnum moss cover, but had no effect on sedge or common reed abundance. These results were not tested for statistical significance. Before intervention, plots contained approximately 16 species. After five years, drained plots contained 22–43 plant species, compared to 14–16 species in undrained plots. Drained plots had 41–100% Sphagnum cover, compared to 21–40% in undrained plots. Drain and undrained plots had similar cover of sedge Carex nigra (0–20%) and abundance of common reed Phragmites australis (in 81–100% of quadrats). Effects of drainage on cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium abundance were more complicated and depended on whether moss was also removed (see original paper). In January 1992, ditches were built to drain surface water from one plot in an acidified, nutrient-enriched fen. An inflow of less acidic water was also created. Water was not manipulated in a neighbouring plot. Within each plot, surface moss was cleared from three subplots but not three others. Between 1991 and 1996, vegetation was estimated in quadrats covering 6–8 m2 of each subplot.

    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