Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Legally protect peatlands

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Exclude or remove livestock from degraded peatlands

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Legally protect peatlands

    A site comparison study in 2014 in a peatland in Chile (Cabezas et al. 2015) found that a protected area had greater vegetation cover and taller vegetation, but lower vascular plant richness and diversity, than an adjacent grazed and harvested area. The protected area had greater cover than the unprotected area of total vegetation (87 vs 62%), herbs (68 vs 51%) and shrubs (19 vs 11%) and contained taller vegetation (65 vs 13 cm). The protected area had lower vascular plant species richness than the unprotected area (7 vs 11 species/4 m2) and lower diversity (reported as a diversity index), but also contained fewer non-native species (<0.1 vs 1.9 species/4 m2). In 2014, vegetation cover and height were recorded in forty-four 2 x 2 m quadrats. Fifteen quadrats were in a protected part of a peatland (5.5 ha owned by a research station, fenced to exclude livestock for eight years and with no moss harvesting for at least 20 years). Twenty-nine quadrats were in an unprotected part (10.5 ha, grazed by four oxen and harvested every month).

  2. Exclude or remove livestock from degraded peatlands

    A site comparison study in 2014 in a peatland in Chile (Cabezas et al. 2015) found that a protected area (fenced to exclude livestock and where moss harvesting was prohibited) had greater vegetation cover and taller vegetation, but lower vascular plant richness and diversity, than an adjacent unprotected (grazed and harvested) area. The protected area had greater cover than the unprotected area of total vegetation (87 vs 62%), herbs (68 vs 51%) and shrubs (19 vs 11%) and contained taller vegetation (65 vs 13 cm). The protected area had lower vascular plant species richness than the unprotected area (7 vs 11 species/4 m2) and lower diversity (reported as a diversity index), but also contained fewer non-native species (<0.1 vs 1.9 species/4 m2). In 2014, vegetation cover and height were recorded in forty-four 2 x 2 m quadrats. Fifteen quadrats were in 5.5 ha of protected peatland, fenced to exclude oxen for eight years and with no moss harvesting for at least 20 years. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions. Twenty-nine quadrats were in 10.5 ha of unprotected peatland, grazed by four oxen and harvested monthly.

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

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 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