Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use grazing to maintain or restore disturbance

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Use grazing to maintain or restore disturbance

    A replicated before-and-after study in 2011–2013 in a degraded fen in Wales, UK (Birch et al. 2015) found that grazing typically increased cover of grass-like plants but had no effect on other vegetation cover, diversity or structure. Cover of grasses/sedges/rushes significantly increased in two of three grazed plots (from 78–79% before grazing to 93–105% after 16–21 months of grazing). There was no significant change in two of three plots (but a decrease in the other) in purple moor grass Molinia caerulea cover, dwarf shrub cover, fen-characteristic moss cover, fen-characteristic herb cover, plant species richness, plant diversity or vegetation height. Three 10 x 10 m plots were established in an abandoned fen. From spring or summer 2012, each plot was grazed by cattle or ponies. Before grazing began (August 2011) and after 16–21 months (autumn 2013) measurements were taken in five 4 m2 quadrats/plot. Cover of every plant species was estimated, and vegetation height was measured, in the centre of each quadrat.

  2. Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance

    A replicated before-and-after study in 2010–2012 in a degraded fen in Wales, UK (Birch et al. 2015) reported that burning (along with other interventions) reduced grass/sedge/rush and shrub cover, but typically had no effect on fen-characteristic plant cover and overall diversity, and had mixed effects on vegetation height. In both managed plots, there were decreases in total grass/sedge/rush cover (before burning: 97–98%; two years after: 70–74%) and shrub cover (before: 7–81%; after: 10–13%). Cover of purple moor grass Molinia caerulea decreased significantly in one plot with a similar trend in the other (before: 4–64%; after: 0–3%). There was no significant change in cover of fen-characteristic mosses (<1% before and after), fen-characteristic herbs (before: <2%; after: <1%), or plant species richness/diversity (in three of four comparisons). Vegetation height decreased in one plot but did not change in the other. Two 20 x 20 m plots were established in an abandoned fen. In September 2011, both plots were burned. After burning, one plot was mown and both plots were lightly grazed by cattle. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions and burning. Cover of every plant species was estimated before burning (August 2008) and two years after (autumn 2013), in five 4 m2 quadrats/plot.

  3. Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance

    A replicated before-and-after study in 2010–2013 in two degraded fens in Wales, UK (Birch et al. 2015) found that mowing (sometimes along with other interventions) reduced shrub and grass/sedge/rush cover, typically had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic species and plant richness/diversity, and had mixed effects on vegetation height. In five of six managed plots, there were declines in shrub cover (before intervention: 27–87%; after 2–3 years: 9–19%) and total grass/sedge/rush cover (before: 91–98%; after: 63–80%). Cover of purple moor grass Molinia caerulea decreased in three plots (before: 64–81%; after: 3–34%). In four or five plots, there was no change in cover of fen-characteristic mosses (<1% before and after), fen-characteristic herbs (before: <2%; after: <1%), plant species richness (before: 9–17; after: 8–14 species/4 m2) or plant diversity (data reported as diversity indices). Management had mixed effects on vegetation height (increase: 1 plot; decrease: 2 plots; no change: 3 plots). Six 20 x 20 m plots were established across two abandoned fens. In autumn 2010 or spring 2011, each plot was mown once. Cuttings were removed. Four plots were also grazed. Two of these were also burned. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions and mowing. Cover of every plant species was estimated before mowing (autumn 2010) and 2–3 years after (autumn 2012 or 2013), in five 4 m2 quadrats/plot.

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE 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 some of 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