Raise water levels in ditches or grassland

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated trial from 1987 to 1989 on what was once a species-rich wet meadow at the Veenkampen, near Wageningen in the Netherlands (Berendse et al. 1992) found that areas with raised water levels lost plant species overall, but species favouring wet conditions increased. Cuckoo flower Cardamine pratensis, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus and creeping bent grass Agrostis stolonifera increased on wet and intermediately wet plots, but the total number of plant species fell from around 20 to around 15. Dry plots had 14-18 plant species throughout. The area was divided into three compartments. One had water levels 30-70 cm below the soil surface in summer and 5-40 cm below in winter, like the surrounding farmland. A wet and an intermediate compartment had embankments built and water added. In the wet compartment, summer water levels were 10-50 cm below the surface, and winter levels 0-20 cm below the surface. The intermediate compartment was in between wet and dry levels. Other experimental treatments were tested in these compartments. No fertilizer was applied during the experiment, and plots were mown for hay once or twice each year. Plants were monitored annually, in fifty 0.25m2 quadrats/plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled, randomized study of a former improved pasture in the Netherlands (Oomes et al. 1996) found that raising the water level resulted in a more rapid establishment of species typical of wet grassland, than vegetation management (cutting and removing hay; cutting, mulching and leaving hay; topsoil removal to 5 cm followed by cutting and removing hay). In 1985, the water level was raised to its former level in one area (1.5-2 ha), the other area was left dry. Plant species composition was recorded annually (20-50 samples/plot).

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A 2000 literature review of grassland management practices in the UK (Wakeham-Dawson & Smith 2000) reported that there were numerous studies detailing the success of providing high ditch-water or water table levels in restoring breeding and wintering bird numbers (e.g. Andrews & Rebane 1994, Evans et al. 1995).

    Additional references:

    Andrews J. & Rebane M. (1994) Farming & Wildlife: A Practical Management Handbook. Sandy: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

    Evans C., Street S., Benstead P., Cadbury J., Hirons G., Self M. & Wallace H. (1995) Water and sward management for conservation: a case study of the RSPBs West Sedgemoor Reserve. RSPB Conservation Review, 9, 60-72.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated study in 1993-1995 at 17 UK lowland grassland sites (12 with winter flooding introduced in the previous 1-14 years) (Ausden et al. 2001) found that unflooded pastures contained high biomass of soil macroinvertebrates (mainly cranefly (Tipulidae) larvae and earthworms (Lumbricidae)) of importance to breeding wading birds. Conversely, grasslands with a long history of winter flooding had a much lower soil macroinvertebrate biomass, comprising mainly a few semi-aquatic earthworm species.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated study from January-March 2002 of 15 northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus chicks on one grassland site in the Isle of Islay, UK (Devereux et al. 2004) found that raising water levels in the grassland did not affect lapwing foraging rate. Foraging rate increased with decreasing vegetation height and was greater in ditches than on rigs. Soil moisture, however, did not significantly affect foraging rate after sward height and rig versus ditch effects were factored out. The timing of fertilizer application (to promote grass growth) and water level in ditches was manipulated at the field scale, which resulted in a range of soil moisture levels and vegetation heights. Water level was controlled through sluiced canals that ran along field boundaries and in-field ditches. The authors point out that spring 2002 was particularly wet and may have confounded any effect of added soil moisture.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A before-and-after study of grazing marshes in eastern England (Smart & Coutts 2004) found that opening up existing footdrains, creating new ones and reconnecting drains to ditches resulted in an increase in breeding wading bird numbers.  Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus numbers increased from 19 pairs in 1993 to 85 pairs in 2003 and common redshank Tringa totanus rose from four to 63 pairs.  Numbers of winter wildfowl also increased over the period and changes in vegetation communities to those more tolerant of inundation occurred. In 1993, water levels were raised by 45 cm.  From 1995, approximately 600 m of footdrains were opened/year; from 2000 onwards, approximately 2,000 m of footdrains were opened or added.  Grazing intensity was also reduced from 1.5-2 head of cattle to 0.7 head/ ha and fertiliser inputs were stopped.


    Study and other actions tested
  7. A before-and-after study at Campfield Marsh RSPB Reserve, Cumbria, England  (Lyons 2005) found that five years after water levels were raised in August 1995, breeding common snipe Gallinago gallinago and northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus recolonized the site and that, over the reserve as a whole, breeding Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata densities were 5.5 pairs/km² (one of the highest UK breeding densities). Five fields comprising 23 ha of former cattle-grazed, species-poor perennial rye grass Lolium perenne dominated grassland and arable cropland were restored. Over the five years vegetation also shifted towards target plant communities characteristic of wet grassland.

    Study and other actions tested
  8. A replicated controlled study of 32 ditches in arable and pastoral land in 2005 in Leicestershire, UK (Aquilina et al. 2007) (same study as (Defra 2007)) found that bunded ditches, which dammed water, had significantly greater invertebrate biomass than controls (dry weight: 10 g/m² vs 4 g/m²).  Invertebrate families other than flies (Diptera) showed a more mixed response to bunding.  Ditches were bunded (small dams placed across ditches) and slightly widened in 5-20 m lengths, with equal length control sections approximately 50 m upstream.  Five insect emergence traps (0.5 mm mesh, surface area 0.1 m²) were spaced along each section.  Samples were collected every two weeks (April-August 2005), invertebrates identified to family and recorded as biomass estimates.

    Study and other actions tested
  9. A replicated, controlled (paired) study of wet pasture and drainage ditches in arable and pastoral areas in Leicestershire, UK (Defra 2007) (same study as (Aquilina et al. 2007)) found that wetting-up resulted in higher invertebrate and bird numbers.  The following were significantly higher in bunded (dammed ditches) compared to non-bunded ditches: bird visit rates (1.0 vs 0.5 visits/month), emergent aquatic insect biomass (1,400 vs 900 individuals/m²), surface-active flies (Diptera) adults (in arable ditches in 2005; 85-100 vs 60-65/sample) and fly larvae and butterfly/moth (Lepidoptera) larvae (in pastoral ditches in 2006). There was no difference for invertebrates active in the grass layer.  Vascular plant species richness was lower and bare ground cover higher in bunded ditches than controls in 2005 due to disturbance.  In wet pasture, bird visit rates were significantly higher (livestock: 0.26, livestock-excluded: 0.17 visits) than in control dry plots (livestock: 0.10, livestock-excluded: 0.06).  Sampling involved bird observations (45 minutes, 1-2/month; both features), fixed/floating traps for emergence of aquatic insects (ditches), pitfall traps and sweep-netting for terrestrial invertebrates (ditches) and a botanical quadrat survey (0.25-0.5m²; ditches).  Data was obtained between April 2005-March 2007; birds all year, other groups spring-summer.

    Study and other actions tested
  10. A 2007 review of experimental evidence on how to restore species-rich grassland on old arable fields (Diggelen 2007) found three studies showing that re-wetting soils rich in organic matter works only a little (around 20% less available nitrogen - Oomes 1991, Berendse et al. 1994) or increases nutrients (20% increase in available nitrogen - Eschner & Liste 1995).

    Additional references:

    Oomes M. J. M. (1991) Effects of groundwater level and the removal of nutrients on the yield of non-fertilized grassland. Acta Oecologia, 12, 461-470.

    Berendse F., Oomes M. J. M., Altena H. J. & De Visser W. (1994) A comparative study of nitrogen flows in two similar meadows affected by different groundwater levels. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 40-48.

    Eschner D. & Liste H. H. (1995) Stoffdynamik wieder zu vernassender Niedermoore. Zeitschrift fur Kurlturtechnik und Landentwickung [Substance dynamics in the fens after rewetting], 36, 113-116.

    Study and other actions tested
  11. A replicated, controlled study in 1999-2001 and 2004-2005 in Jutland, Denmark (Kahlert et al. 2007) found that permanent grassland fields under an agri-environment scheme designed to increase water levels had significantly higher numbers of three species of wading bird (northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus, black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa, common redshank Tringa totanus) after the scheme was implemented (2004-2005), compared to numbers before the scheme (1999-2001). However, this was only the case for fields that successfully retained water (40 breeding pairs of northern lapwing before the scheme and 90 after for wet fields vs approximately two pairs before and five after for dry fields). In addition, fields that were dry before the scheme and wet after showed a greater increase in lapwing numbers (280-290% increase) than fields that were wet beforehand (130-170% increase). There were no increases in lapwing numbers on restored grasslands (formerly cropland), whether or not they were under the scheme, or on control fields (i.e. not under the scheme) that failed to retain water. Numbers increased on control fields that retained water, but the numbers found on them were no different from those expected if increases were uniformly distributed across the landscape (i.e. birds did not appear to be selecting the fields preferentially). Eurasian oystercatchers Haematopus ostrolagus did not increase on any field types and the authors note that regional wader numbers were still far lower than in 1978-1988. The scheme involved blocking drainage pipes and ‘rills’ (drainage channels) as well as reducing fertilizer inputs, grazing intensity and restricting when mowing could take place. A total of 615 fields were studied. The four species were surveyed twice during the breeding season (April-May), and the number of each species and their location recorded.


    Study and other actions tested
  12. A replicated study in 2005-2006 of 70 fields with wet features at nine lowland pastoral sites in eastern England (Eglington et al. 2008) found that the probability of a field being used by nesting northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus was significantly greater with an increase of foot drain floods.  Foot drains are shallow channels used historically for drainage. Foot drain floods are areas where water overtops the foot drain. Fields with foot drain floods held the highest densities of nesting pairs. Nests were more likely to be located within 50 m of foot drain floods and chicks more likely to forage near foot drain floods (in wet mud patches created by receding water). Fields with foot drains, foot drain floods and isolated pools were visited at least once a week (March-July 2005-2006) and the number of lapwing pairs displaying parental behaviour within a 10-min sampling period used as a measure of brood density.  Habitat variables and percentage of wet ground were collected around each nest site and the distance measured to the nearest foot drain, pool and flood.

    Study and other actions tested
  13. A 2009 literature review of agri-environment schemes in England (Natural England 2009) found studies that suggested more expensive agri-environment scheme options for wetland habitats (such as controlling water levels) were more effective at providing good habitat for wading birds than easier-to-implement options.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams, D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Farmland Conservation. Pages 283-321 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Farmland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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 the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust