Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Add mosses to peatland surface

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Add inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Add lime (before/after planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Directly plant peatland mosses

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Add mosses to peatland surface

    A before-and-after study in 1991–1993 in a historically mined raised bog in England, UK (Money 1995) reported that most Sphagnum moss species did not survive when sown onto peat or into pools, but that the surviving species typically spread. Of eight Sphagnum species spread onto bare peat, only one survived after 30 months: feathery bog moss Sphagnum cuspidatum. There were 20 plants/100 cm2. Of eight Sphagnum species spread onto floating rafts, three survived: feathery bog moss, recurved bog moss Sphagnum recurvum and lobed bog moss Sphagnum auriculatum. There were 25–40 plants/100 cm2. Two species had spread beyond the initial planted area. In May 1991, pairs of pools (4 m3) and bare peat plots (4 m2) were excavated (number of pools/plots not reported). Individual Sphagnum plants (5 cm long) were placed on the bare peat and on a floating mesh raft (50 plants in a 0.5 m2 area for each species). In November 1993, survival and density of each Sphagnum species were recorded.

  2. Add inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting)

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1991 in a historically mined raised bog in England, UK (Money 1995) found that fertilization increased growth of planted Sphagnum mosses in three of four cases. In pools with no other intervention, both Sphagnum species grew faster when fertilized than when not fertilized (feathery bog moss Sphagnum cuspidatum 30% faster and recurved bog moss Sphagnum recurvum 85% faster). Amongst limed pools, only feathery bog moss grew faster (35%) when fertilized. In limed pools, fertilizer had no effect on recurved bog moss growth. In 1991, individual Sphagnum plants (cut to 5 cm length) were submerged (30 cm deep) in 4 m3 pools dug in the bog (number of plants and pools not reported). After 10 days, four treatments were applied: fertilization and liming, fertilization only, liming only, or none. Fertilized pools received 30 g sodium phosphate. Limed pools received 80g calcium carbonate. The length of all plants was measured after 20 weeks.

  3. Add lime (before/after planting)

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1991 in a historically mined raised bog in England, UK (Money 1995) found that liming reduced growth of one planted Sphagnum species and had no effect on another. The growth rate of recurved bog moss Sphagnum recurvum was 12–50% lower in limed pools than in unlimed pools. The effect of liming was especially strong in pools that were also fertilized. The growth rate of feathery bog moss Sphagnum cuspidatum was not significantly lower (only 4–8% less) in limed pools than in unlimed pools. In 1991, individual Sphagnum plants (cut to 5 cm length) were submerged (30 cm deep) in 4 m3 pools dug in the bog (number of plants and pools not reported). After 10 days, four treatments were applied: lime with fertilizer, liming only, fertilization only, or none. Limed pools received 80g calcium carbonate. Fertilized pools received 30 g sodium phosphate. The length of all plants was measured after 20 weeks.

  4. Directly plant peatland mosses

    A before-and-after study in 1991 in a historically mined raised bog in England, UK (Money 1995) reported that planted Sphagnum moss grew within bog pools. Over the first 20 weeks after planting, feathery bog moss Sphagnum cuspidatum plants had grown by 10–15% per week. Recurved bog moss Sphagnum recurvum plants had grown by 6–13% per week. Growth of both species was affected by liming (see Section 14.1) and fertilization (see Section 14.2). In 1991, individual Sphagnum plants (cut to 5 cm length) were submerged (30 cm deep) in 4 m3 pools dug in the bog (number of plants and pools not reported). After 10 days, some pools were limed, fertilized or limed and fertilized. After 20 weeks, the length of all plants was measured.

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