Slow down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

20%
Harms

5%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Polluted water entering a peatland could be slowed down, allowing more time for natural breakdown or removal of pollutants before the water reaches the peatland. This could be facilitated by making input channels longer (e.g. Kooijman et al. 2016) or building a dam in the input channels (e.g. Bootsma et al. 2002). This intervention is mainly relevant to fens and fen meadows, which are fed by inputs of ground water. Bogs and tropical peat swamps are mainly fed by inputs of rainfall.

Key peatland types for which this action may be appropriate: bogs, fens/fen meadows, tropical peat swamps.

_{Bootsma M.C., van den Broek T., Barendregt A. & Beltman B. (2002) Rehabilitation of acidified floating fens by addition of buffered surface water. Restoration Ecology, 10, 112–121.}

_{Kooijman A.M., Cusell C., Mettrop I.S. & Lamers L.P.M. (2016) Recovery of target bryophytes in floating rich fens after 25 yr of inundation by base-rich surface water with lower nutrient contents. Applied Vegetation Science, 19, 53–65.}

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of slowing down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed. The study was in a fen.
Characteristic plants (1 study): One before-and-after study in a floating fen in the Netherlands found that after input water was rerouted on a longer path (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased.
Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study found that after input water was rerouted on a longer path (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), vascular plant biomass decreased.

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

A before-and-after study in 1984–2013 in a floating rich fen in the Netherlands (Kooijman et al. 2016) found that after rerouting input water on a longer path (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), moss cover changed to species characteristic of lower nutrient levels, whilst vascular plant biomass decreased. Four of seven moss species characteristic of low nutrient levels increased in cover (from 1–62% four years before ditch extension to 11–83% eleven years after). Meanwhile, six of seven moss species characteristic of high nutrient levels decreased in cover (from 7–78% to 1–32%). Vascular plant biomass decreased from 1,123 g/m² eight years before ditch extension to 287 g/m² ten years after. In 1992, water entering the fen was rerouted on a longer path to allow more time for nutrient removal. The study does not distinguish between the effects of this intervention and the long term effects of two other interventions carried out since the 1970s: use of water purification facilities and switching the water source from a nutrient-rich river to a nutrient-poor lake. In 1988 and 2013, cover of every moss species was recorded in a 25 x 200 m area. In 1984 and 2012, above-ground vascular plant biomass was collected, dried and weighed.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Kooijman A.M., Cusell C., Mettrop I.S. & Lamers L.P.M. (2016) Recovery of target bryophytes in floating rich fens after 25 yr of inundation by base-rich surface water with lower nutrient contents. Applied Vegetation Science, 19, 53-65.

Please cite as:

Taylor, N.G., Grillas, P. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Peatland Conservation. Pages 367-430 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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Clean waste water before it enters the environment Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Use biodegradable oil in farming machinery Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Retain or create buffer zones between pollution sources and peatlands Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link