Action

Remove vegetation that could compete with planted peatland vegetation

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    2%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of removing competing plants to aid planted peatland vegetation. The study was in a bog.
  • Survival (1 study): One controlled study in a bog in the UK reported that some Sphagnum moss survived when sown (in gel beads) into a plot where purple moor grass had previously been cut, but no moss survived in a plot where grass had not been cut.

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 2010–2013 in a degraded, grassy blanket bog in England, UK (Rosenburgh 2015) reported that some sown Sphagnum moss survived in a plot where purple moor grass Molinia caerulea had previously been cut, but no moss survived in an uncut plot. This result was not tested for statistical significance. After three years, a plot that was flailed before sowing Sphagnum contained 28 Sphagnum clumps (0.03% cover). No Sphagnum survived in an adjacent plot that was not flailed before sowing. In October 2010, two adjacent 3 x 3 m plots were sown with flat-topped bog moss Sphagnum fallax, encapsulated in gel beads (400 beads/m2). Both plots were dominated by purple moor grass, but one was flailed (cut) before sowing. Grass litter was left in place. In September 2013, Sphagnum clumps were identified in each plot and their area was measured.

    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