Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove residential or commercial development from peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing residential or commercial development from 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%2F1719https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1719Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:15:53 +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: Replace blocks of vegetation after mining or peat extraction Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of replacing blocks of vegetation after mining or peat extraction. One study was in a bog and one was in a fen. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two studies, in a bog in the UK and a fen in Canada, reported that transplanted vegetation blocks retained their peatland vegetation community. In the UK, the community of the transplanted blocks did not change over time. In Canada, the community of replaced vegetation blocks remained similar to an undisturbed fen. Vegetation cover (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the UK reported that bare peat next to translocated bog vegetation developed vegetation cover (mainly grass/rush). Sphagnum moss cover declined in the translocated blocks. One site comparison study in Canada reported that replaced fen vegetation blocks retained similar Sphagnum and shrub cover to an undisturbed fen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1738https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1738Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:22:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors across service corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of retaining/creating habitat corridors across service corridors. ‘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%2F1742https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1742Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:25:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of harvest (of wild biological resources) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reducing harvest frequency (of wild biological resources). ‘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%2F1743https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1743Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:25:51 +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: Restrict vehicle use on peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restricting vehicle use on 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%2F1749https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1749Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:31:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict pedestrian access to peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restricting pedestrian access 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%2F1751https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1751Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:31:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce water level of flooded peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reducing the water level in unnaturally flooded 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%2F1757https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1757Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:34:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore natural water level fluctuations We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restoring natural water level fluctuations per se. ‘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%2F1758https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1758Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:34:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove plant litter to maintain or restore disturbance Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of removing plant litter to maintain or restore disturbance. One study was in fen meadow and one was in a fen. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized, one paired, before-and-after) in a fen meadow in Germany and a fen in Czech Republic found that removing plant litter did not affect plant community composition. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Czech Republic found that removing plant litter did not affect bryophyte or tall moor grass cover. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a fen meadow in Germany reported that removing plant litter increased plant species richness and diversity. However, one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Czech Republic found that removing litter did not affect vascular plant diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1760https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1760Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:35:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or create buffer zones between pollution sources and peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of retaining or creating buffer zones between pollution sources and 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%2F1781https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1781Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:14:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reducing fertilizer or herbicide use in adjacent areas. ‘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%2F1783https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1783Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:15:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove oil from contaminated peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing oil from contaminated 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%2F1788https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1788Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:17:28 +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: Restore/create peatlands in areas that will be climatically suitable in the future We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restoring or creating peatlands in areas that will be climatically suitable in the future. ‘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%2F1795https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1795Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:21:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create peatland vegetation (multiple interventions) Nine studies evaluated the effects of multiple restoration interventions (other than the moss layer transfer technique) on peatland vegetation. Six studies were in bogs (one being restored as a fen). One study was in a fen. Two studies were in unspecified or mixed peatlands. Plant community composition (3 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK reported that the overall plant community composition differed between restored and unrestored bogs. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Estonia found that restored and natural bogs contained more similar plant communities than unrestored and natural bogs. However, one site comparison study in Canada reported that after five years, bogs being restored as fens contained a different plant community to natural fens. Characteristic plants (1 study): One controlled study in a fen in France reported that restoration interventions increased cover of fen-characteristic plants. Moss cover (7 studies): Five studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs or other peatlands in the UK, Estonia and Canada found that restoration interventions increased total moss (or bryophyte) cover. Two studies (one replicated and controlled) in bogs in the Czech Republic and Estonia reported that restoration interventions increased Sphagnum moss cover, but one replicated before-and-after study in bogs in the UK reported no change in Sphagnum cover following intervention. Two site comparison studies in Canada reported that after 1–15 years, restored areas had lower moss cover than natural fens. Herb cover (5 studies): Five studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs or other peatlands in the Czech Republic, the UK, Estonia and Canada reported that restoration interventions increased cover of herbaceous plants, including cottongrass and other grass-like plants. Overall vegetation cover (3 studies): Three studies (one replicated, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in the UK and France reported that restoration interventions increased overall vegetation cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1803https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1803Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:29:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create peatland vegetation using the moss layer transfer technique Four studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restoration using the moss layer transfer technique (as defined in the Background section). All four studies were based on bogs in Canada. Three studies were based on one experimental set-up that was included in the other, larger study. Plant community composition (2 studies): One replicated study in bogs in Canada reported that the majority of restored areas developed a community of bog-characteristic plant species within 11 years. One controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada reported that a restored area (included in the previous study) developed a more peatland-characteristic plant community over time, and relative to an unrestored area. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two controlled studies in one bog in Canada reported that a restored area had greater moss or bryophyte cover (including Sphagnum) than an unrestored area after 4–8 years. The restored area also had greater herb cover (including cottongrass), but less shrub cover, than the unrestored area. One of the studies reported that vegetation in the restored area became more similar to local natural bogs. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada reported that a restored area contained more plant species than an unrestored area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1804https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1804Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:29:33 +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: Remove upper layer of peat/soil (without planting) Ten studies evaluated the effects of removing the upper layer of peat or soil (without planting afterwards) on peatland vegetation. Nine studies were in fens or fen meadows and one was in an unspecified peatland. Plant community composition (6 studies): Five studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in a peatland in the USA and fens or fen meadows in the Netherlands and Poland reported that plots stripped of topsoil developed plant communities with a different composition to those in unstripped peatlands. In one study, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. Two studies in fen meadows in Germany and Poland reported that the depth of soil stripping affected plant community development. Characteristic plants (5 studies): Four studies in fen meadows in Germany and the Netherlands, and a peatland in the USA, reported that stripping soil increased cover of wetland-characteristic or peatland-characteristic plants plants after 4–13 years. In the Netherlands, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. One replicated site comparison study in fens in Belgium and the Netherlands found that stripping soil increased fen-characteristic plant richness. Herb cover (4 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled) in fens or fen meadows in Germany, the UK and Poland found that stripping soil increased cover of rushes, reeds or sedges after 2–6 years. However, one controlled study in a fen meadow in the Netherlands reported that stripping soil had no effect on sedge or bentgrass cover after five years. Two controlled studies in a fen meadow in the Netherlands and a fen in the UK found that stripping soil reduced purple moor grass cover for 2–5 years. Vegetation structure (3 studies): Two studies in fens or fen meadows in the Netherlands and Belgium found that stripping soil reduced vegetation biomass (total or herbs) for up to 18 years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found that stripping soil had no effect on vegetation biomass after four years. Overall plant richness/diversity (6 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled) in fens or fen meadows in the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands reported that stripping soil increased total plant species richness over 2–18 years. In one study, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. One replicated, controlled study in a fen in Poland found that stripping soil had no effect on plant species richness after three years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found that stripping soil increased plant species richness and diversity, after four years, in one field but decreased it in another. One replicated study in a fen meadow in Poland reported that plant species richness increased over time, after stripping soil. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1809https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1809Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reprofile/relandscape peatland (before planting) Four studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reprofiling or relandscaping before planting peatland plants. All four studies were in bogs. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in Canada found that survival of sown Sphagnum mosses was higher, after one growing season, in reprofiled basins than on raised plots. Cover (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies in bogs in Canada found that reprofiled basins had higher Sphagnum cover than raised plots, 3–4 growing seasons after sowing Sphagnum-dominated vegetation fragments. However, one controlled study in a bog in Estonia reported that total Sphagnum cover did not differ between reprofiled and raised plots, 1–2 years after sowing. All three studies found that reprofiled and raised plots developed similar cover of other mosses/bryophytes and vascular plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1833https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1833Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:52:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing 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%2F1835https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1835Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted peatland vegetation One study evaluated the effects of removing competing plants to aid planted peatland vegetation. The study was in a bog. Survival (1 study): One controlled study in a bog in the UK reported that some Sphagnum moss survived when sown (in gel beads) into a plot where purple moor grass had previously been cut, but no moss survived in a plot where grass had not been cut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1840https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1840Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:34 +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 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 +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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue