Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors in farmed areas One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of retaining or creating habitat corridors in farmed areas.This study was in a tropical peat swamp. Vegetation structure (1 study): One study in Indonesia found that a peat swamp forest corridor contained 5,819 trees/ha. This included 331 large trees/ha, 1,360 saplings/ha and 4,128 seedlings/ha.   Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study recorded 18–29 tree species in the peat swamp forest corridor (the number of species depending on the size class). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1730https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1730Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:09:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of livestock grazing One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of reducing livestock grazing intensity. This study was in bogs. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in the UK found that total vegetation and shrub cover were greater where grazing intensity was lower. Cottongrass cover was greater where grazing intensity was lower (one species) or unaffected by grazing intensity (one species). Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study found that vegetation biomass was higher where grazing intensity was lower. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1735https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1735Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:21:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain/restore water flow across service corridors One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of restoring water flow across service corridors. The study was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One before-and-after study in a fen in the USA found that following restoration of water inflow across a road (along with general rewetting), cover of wet peatland sedges increased whilst cover of grasses preferring drier conditions decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1741https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1741Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:25:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of harvest (of wild biological resources) One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of reducing harvest intensity (of wild biological resources). The study was in a bog. Moss cover (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a bog in New Zealand reported that Sphagnum moss cover was higher, three years after harvesting, when some Sphagnum was left in plots than when it was completely harvested. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1744https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1744Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:27:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically exclude vehicles from peatlands One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of physically excluding vehicles from peatlands. The study was in a fen. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, site comparison study in a floating fen in the USA reported that fencing off airboat trails allowed total and non-woody vegetation biomass to increase, recovering to levels recorded in undisturbed fen. Woody plant biomass did not recover. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that fencing off airboat trails allowed overall plant diversity to increase, recovering to levels recorded in undisturbed fen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1750https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1750Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:31:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to control problematic plants One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of using herbicide to control problematic plants. The study was in fens. Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in fens in the USA found that applying herbicide to shrubs (along with other interventions) changed the overall plant community composition. Tree/shrub cover (1 study): The same study found that applying herbicide to shrubs (along with other interventions) could not prevent increases in shrub cover over time. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that applying herbicide to shrubs (along with other interventions) prevented increases in plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1776https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1776Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:44:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce an organism to control problematic plants One study evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of introducing an organism (other than large vertebrate grazers) to control problematic plants. The study was in a fen meadow. Plant community composition (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a fen meadow in Belgium found that introducing a parasitic plant altered the overall plant community composition. Vegetation cover (1 study): The same study found that introducing a parasitic plant reduced cover of the dominant sedge but increased moss cover. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that introducing a parasitic plant increased overall plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1777https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1777Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:44:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean waste water before it enters the environment One study evaluated the effect, on peatland vegetation, of cleaning waste water before it enters the environment. The study was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a floating fen in the Netherlands found that after input water began to be cleaned (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 began to be cleaned (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), vascular plant biomass decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1778https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1778Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:13:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Slow down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1780https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1780Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:14:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove pollutants from waste gases before they enter the environment One study evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing pollutants from waste gases before release into the environment. The study was in bogs. Plant richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in bogs in Estonia reported that following installation of dust filters in industrial plants (along with a general reduction in emissions), the number of Sphagnum moss species increased but the total number of plant species decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1789https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1789Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:18:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime to reduce acidity and/or increase fertility One study evaluated the effects of liming (without planting) on peatland vegetation. The study was in a fen meadow. N.B. Liming is considered in different contexts here and here. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a fen meadow in the Netherlands found that liming increased overall vegetation biomass (mostly grass). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1790https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1790Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:18:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay landowners to protect peatlands One study evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of paying landowners to protect them. The study was of bogs. Peatland habitat (1 study): One review from reported that agri-environment schemes in the UK had mixed effects on bogs, protecting the area of bog habitat in three of six cases. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1799https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1799Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection (e.g. rangers) One study evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of increasing ‘on-the-ground’ protection. The study was in tropical peat swamps. Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia reported that the number of illegal sawmills decreased over two years of anti-logging patrols. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1800https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1800Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reprofile/relandscape peatland (without planting) One study evaluated the effects of reprofiling/relandscaping peatlands (without planting) on peatland vegetation. The study was in degraded bogs (being restored as fens). Plant community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Canada reported that after five years, reprofiled (and rewetted) bogs contained a different plant community to nearby natural fens. Vegetation cover (1 study): The same study reported that after five years, reprofiled (and rewetted) bogs had lower vegetation cover (Sphagnum moss, other moss and vascular plants) than nearby natural fens. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1807https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1807Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:30:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize One study evaluated the effects of stabilizing the peatland surface (without planting) on peatland vegetation. The study was in a bog. Vegetation cover (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in the UK found that pegging coconut fibre rolls onto almost-bare peat did not affect the development of vegetation cover (total, mosses, shrubs or cottongrasses). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1815https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1815Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:43:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build artificial bird perches to encourage seed dispersal One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of building artificial bird perches. The study was in a tropical peat swamp. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia found that artificial bird perches had no significant effect on seedling abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1817https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1817Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:44:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of burying the upper layer of peat or soil before planting peatland plants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1836https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1836Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encapsulate planted moss fragments in beads/gel We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encapsulating moss fragments on their performance, relative to loose moss fragments, when introduced to peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1838https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1838Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fences or barriers to protect planted vegetation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fences or barriers to protect planted peatland vegetation. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1839https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1839Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect or prepare vegetation before planting (other interventions) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting or preparing peatland vegetation before planting (other than by adding root-associated fungi). ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1842https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1842Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:56:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (wild fire) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about wild fire on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1845https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1845Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:57:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (problematic species) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about problematic species on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1846https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1846Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness through engaging volunteers in peatland management or monitoring We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging volunteers to manage or monitor peatlands on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1847https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1847Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt zero burning policies near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adopting zero burning policies near peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1856https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1856Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:54:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild herbivores We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of controlling populations of wild herbivores. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1861https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1861Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:17:42 +0000
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