Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for peatland plants (without planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Introduce seeds of peatland herbs

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for peatland plants (without planting)

    A site comparison study in 2009–2011 in a fen in Michigan, USA (Bess et al. 2014) found that a ditch filled with peat spoil developed similar vegetation cover to undisturbed areas of the fen, but contained more plant species. After two years, the filled ditch and adjacent areas of undisturbed fen had similar cover of total vegetation (165 vs 180%), sedges (81 vs 80%), grasses (15 vs 10%), forbs (33 vs 20%) and bryophytes (29 vs 40%). However, there were more plant species in the filled ditch (49 species) than undisturbed fen (40 species). Results after one year were similar, except that the ditch had lower total vegetation cover than undisturbed fen (126 vs 188%) and lower bryophyte cover (18 vs 40%). In 2009, a ditch (dug in 2007 as a fire break) was filled with adjacent spoil (still moist and containing fen plant seeds). In 2010 and 2011, vegetation cover was recorded in sixty 1 m2 quadrats along the length of the ditch: 20 within it and 20 on either side. These were placed in areas not sown with additional seeds.

  2. Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2009–2011 in a fen in Michigan, USA (Bess et al. 2014) found that plots sown with shrub (and herb) seeds developed more vegetation cover overall than unsown plots, but similar cover of all monitored plant groups and similar species richness. After two years, sown plots had greater total vegetation cover (214%) than unsown plots (165%). Cover of individual plant groups did not differ significantly between sown and unsown plots (although it tended to be higher in the former): shrubs (4 vs 4%), sedges (120 vs 81%), grasses (27 vs 15%), forbs (28 vs 33%), bryophytes (33 vs 29%). The same was true for plant species richness (45 vs 43 species across all quadrats). Patterns were similar, but cover lower, one year after intervention. In 2009, twenty pairs of 9 m2 plots were established, in a ditch recently refilled with seed-rich fen spoil. Twenty plots (one random plot/pair) were sown with a mixture of shrub and herb seeds. The other 20 plots were not sown. The study does not distinguish between the effects of sowing shrubs and herbs. In 2010 and 2011, vegetation cover was recorded in one 1 m2 quadrat/plot.

  3. Introduce seeds of peatland herbs

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2009–2011 in a fen in Michigan, USA (Bess et al. 2014) found that plots sown with herb (and shrub) seeds developed more vegetation cover overall than unsown plots, but similar cover of all monitored plant groups and similar species richness. After two years, sown plots had greater total vegetation cover (214%) than unsown plots (165%). Cover of individual plant groups did not differ significantly between sown and unsown plots (although it tended to be higher in the former): sedges (120 vs 81%), grasses (27 vs 15%), forbs (28 vs 33%), mosses (33 vs 29%), shrubs (4 vs 4%). The same was true for plant species richness (45 vs 43 species across all quadrats). Patterns were similar, but cover lower, one year after intervention. In 2009, twenty pairs of 9 m2 plots were established, in a ditch recently refilled with seed-rich fen spoil. Twenty plots (one random plot/pair) were sown with a mixture of herb (grasses, rushes, sedges, forbs) and shrub seeds. The other 20 plots were not sown. The study does not distinguish between the effects of sowing herbs and shrubs. In 2010 and 2011, vegetation cover was recorded 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