Cover peatland with organic mulch (without planting)

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of covering a peatland with organic mulch (without planting). Both studies were in bogs (but in one study, being restored as a fen).
  • Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch did not affect cover of fen-characteristic plants. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Australia reported that plots mulched with straw had similar Sphagnum moss cover to unmulched plots.
  • Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch increased the number of fen characteristic plants present, but did not affect their cover.

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, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2002 in a historically mined bog in Quebec, Canada (Cobbaert et al. 2004) found that mulching with straw increased the number of fen-characteristic plant species but had no effect on fen-characteristic plant cover. Note that the aim of this study was to create a fen, as the post-mining peat chemistry was more like a fen than a bog. Before sowing, no vegetation was present. After two growing seasons, there were more plant species typical of local fens in mulched plots (8 species) than unmulched plots (5 species). Fen plant cover did not significantly differ between mulched (6%) and unmulched plots (10%). In spring 2001, eighteen 5 x 5 m plots were established, in three blocks of six. Nine plots (three random plots/block) were mulched with straw (1,500 kg/ha). The other plots were not mulched. All plots had previously been rewetted, raked and fertilised. None of these plots were sown. In August 2002, cover of every plant species was estimated in ten 30 x 30 cm quadrats/plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2003–2007 in a fire-damaged bog in Australia (Whinam et al. 2010) reported that mulching with straw had no effect on Sphagnum moss cover. This result is not based on a test of statistical significance. After 40 months, Sphagnum cover was similar in straw-mulched (8.6%) and unmulched plots (7.8%). This followed fluctuations over the 40 months, when Sphagnum cover was sometimes higher in mulched than unmulched plots but sometimes lower. Immediately before shading, plots had approximately 3% Sphagnum cover. In January 2003, the focal bog was burned by a wild fire. In October 2003, five burned plots (3 x 15 m) were mulched with sterilized straw (2 tonnes/ha). Five additional plots were not mulched. Vegetation cover was recorded in 0.25 m2 quadrats: five across the bog in October 2003, then one/plot every six months until March 2007.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Peatland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation
Peatland Conservation

Peatland Conservation - Published 2018

Peatland 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