Create mounds or hollows (before planting)

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

30%
Certainty

38%
Harms

5%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Vegetation may struggle to colonize flat bare peat. It can be damaged by extreme heat, sunlight, strong winds or prolonged flooding. In temperate peatlands, roughening the peat surface (e.g. by ploughing, creating vehicle tracks, or adding peat blocks) could create lower sheltered, moist and shaded habitats that are more suitable for plant growth. These processes can also break up any hard crust or compress loose, dry peat. Although raised areas might be less suitable for peatland vegetation initially, the idea is that peatland vegetation can spread from the depressions once they have been colonized. In tropical peatlands, planting trees into mounds might improve their survival by reducing the duration of flooding and increasing oxygen supply to the roots (Wibisono et al. 2005). Mounds may naturally form in peat swamp forests from the roots of fallen trees.

Caution: Manipulating the peat surface may damage its physical structure. Repeated use of vehicles on soft, wet peat may be particularly damaging.

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

_{Wibisono I.T.C., Siboro L. & Suryadiputra I.N.N. (2005) Panduan Rehabilitasi dan Teknik Silvikultur di Lahan Gambut (A Guide to Rehabilitation and Silvicultural Engineering on Peatlands; in Indonesian). Wetlands International Indonesia Programme & Wildlife Habitat Canada, Bogor.}

Study locations

Key messages

Three studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of creating peat mounds or hollows before planting peatland plants. Two studies were in bogs. One was in a tropical peat swamp.
Growth (1 study): One controlled study in a peat swamp in Thailand reported that trees planted into mounds of peat grew thicker stems than trees planted at ground level.
Cover (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in bogs in Canada found that roughening the peat surface (by harrowing, ploughing, creating vehicle tracks or adding peat blocks) did not significantly affect cover of planted Sphagnum moss after 1–3 growing seasons.

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 replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1995–1996 in a historically mined raised bog in Quebec, Canada (Price et al. 1998) found that roughening the peat surface, before sowing Sphagnum-dominated vegetation fragments, had no effect on Sphagnum moss cover. After 1–2 growing seasons, roughened and smooth plots had similar cover of Sphagnum, when compared amongst mulched areas (roughened: 1.4–4.7%; smooth: 1.2–2.3%) or unmulched areas (roughened: 0.1–0.3%; smooth: 0.1–0.2%). In May 1995, twelve 15 x 30 m plots were established, in three blocks of four, on bare rewetted peat. Three plots (one random plot/block) received each roughening treatment: harrowing (5 cm deep), ploughing (20 cm deep), using bulldozer tracks to create trenches (1 m wide, 20 cm deep), or no intervention (smooth plots). Then, all plots were sown with vegetation fragments (mostly Sphagnum moss) from the surface of a nearby bog. Half of each plot was mulched with straw. In June and September 1996, Sphagnum cover was estimated in 36–72 quadrats/plot, each 25 x 25 cm.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Price J., Rochefort L. & Quinty F. (1998) Energy and moisture considerations on cutover peatlands: surface microtopography, mulch cover and Sphagnum regeneration. Ecological Engineering, 10, 293-312.
A controlled study in a degraded peat swamp in Thailand (Nuyim 2000) reported that five tree species grew thicker stems when planted into mounds than when planted at ground level. The results were not tested for statistical significance. After three years and for all five planted species, trees planted into mounds had developed thicker stems (3–6 cm) than trees planted at ground level (2–3 cm). Mounds had a particularly strong effect on Syzygium pyrifolium stem thickness (mounded: 6 cm; ground level: 3 cm). In a degraded peat swamp, trees were either planted into mounds of peat (50 cm high, 70–90 cm circumference) or at ground level. After three years, the diameter of all trees was measured 10 cm above the peat surface. The year, number of trees and their initial size were not reported.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Nuyim T. (2000) Whole aspect on nature and management of peat swamp forest in Thailand. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatlands, Bogor, Indonesia, 109-117.
A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2010 in two historically disturbed bogs in Ontario, Canada (Corson & Campbell 2013) found that placing peat blocks on a peatland, before sowing Sphagnum moss, had no effect on bryophyte cover. After three years, Sphagnum cover did not differ significantly between plots with peat blocks (40%) or without (38%). There was also no difference in total bryophyte cover between plots with peat blocks (66%) or without (67%). In August 2007, six pairs of 2 x 2 m plots were established on bare peat, historically disturbed by vehicles or pipeline construction. Twenty-five bare peat blocks (10 x 12 x 20 cm) were evenly spaced on one random plot in each pair. Then, all plots received fresh fragments of rusty bog moss Sphagnum fuscum and flat-topped bog moss Sphagnum fallax, and 30 g/m² rock phosphate fertilizer. In August 2010, moss cover was estimated in six random 12.5 x 12.5 cm subplots within each plot.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Corson A. & Campbell D. (2013) Testing protocols to restore disturbed Sphagnum-dominated peatlands in the Hudson Bay Lowland. Wetlands, 33, 291-299.

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
Add fresh peat to peatland (before planting) Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Add lime (before/after planting) Action Link	Likely to be ineffective or harmful	6	Synopsis Link
Reprofile/relandscape peatland (before planting) Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	4	Synopsis Link