This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs

    A site comparison study in 1995–2001 in an overgrown rich fen in Sweden (Sundberg 2011) found that following shrub/tree removal, the plant community composition became more like a natural fen, and plant species richness and vegetation cover increased. Between one and six years after shrub removal, the overall plant community composition became more like an open fen (data reported as a graphical analysis). Where shrubs were removed, species richness increased for vascular plants (from 15 to 18 species/m2), mosses (from 7 to 9 species/m2) and fen-characteristic plants (from 8 to 10 species/m2). Cover of these groups also increased (vascular plants: from 18 to 24%; mosses: from 9 to 31%; fen-characteristic plants: from 7 to 15%), as did cover of common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium (from 0.3 to 0.6%) and three of eight Carex sedge species. Cover of five other sedge species, purple moor grass Molinia caerulea and common reed Phragmites australis did not change. In 1995, shrubs (mainly juniper Juniperus communis) and trees (conifers) were manually cut and removed from a 30 x 50 m area of overgrown fen. The fen was grazed by 7–12 cows every summer, both before and after shrub removal. Cover of every plant species was estimated in August 1996 and 2001: in nine 1 m2 quadrats across the managed area and three quadrats in another part of the fen that had not become overgrown.

  2. Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1996–2001 in a degraded rich fen in Sweden (Sundberg 2011) found that mown and unmown plots maintained a similar overall plant community and vegetation cover, but that mown plots developed greater plant species richness. The overall plant community composition changed over five years, but in a similar way in mown and unmown plots (data reported as a graphical analysis). Likewise, vegetation cover increased by similar amounts, from similar initial values, in mown and unmown plots. This was true for vascular plants, fen-characteristic plants, bryophytes, six of eight Carex sedge species, common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium, purple moor grass Molinia arundinacea and common reed Phragmites australis. After five years, mown plots contained more vascular plant species than unmown plots (26 vs 18 species/m2) and more fen-characteristic plant species (14 vs 10 species/m2). Before mowing, species richness was similar in all plots (vascular: 15; fen-characteristic: 7–8). In 1996, nine pairs of 9 m2 plots were established in a degraded fen. Every August until 2001 vegetation was cut by hand (and cuttings removed) in one random plot/pair. The other plots were not cut. All plots had been cleared of trees and shrubs and were grazed every summer (approximately 50 cows/ha). In 1996 (before mowing) and 2001, cover of every plant species was estimated in one 1 m2 quadrat/plot.

Output references
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