Impact of drainage and hydrological restoration on vegetation structure in boreal spruce swamp forests

  • Published source details Maanavilja L., Aapala K., Haapalehto T., Kotiaho J.S. & Tuittila E.-S. (2014) Impact of drainage and hydrological restoration on vegetation structure in boreal spruce swamp forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 330, 115-125.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Rewet peatland (raise water table)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Rewet peatland (raise water table)

    A replicated site comparison study in 2009 in 36 forested fens in Finland (Maanavilja et al. 2014) found that rewetting changed the plant community composition towards a more natural state, but had no effect on plant richness or diversity, tree volume or vegetation cover. After 1–14 years, the overall plant community composition in rewetted sites was intermediate between, but significantly different from, both drained and natural sites (data reported as a graphical analysis). In contrast, rewetting had no significant effect on plant species richness (rewetted: 31; drained: 30 species/site), plant diversity (reported as a diversity index), tree volume (rewetted: 235; drained: 335 m3/ha) and Sphagnum moss cover (rewetted: 25%: drained: 9%). Also similar between sites, but not statistically tested, were other moss cover (rewetted: 22%: drained: 25%), shrub cover (rewetted: 9%: drained: 8%) and herb cover (rewetted: 5%: drained: 2%). Compared to natural sites, rewetted sites had lower Sphagnum moss cover (natural: 46%) but greater cover of other mosses (natural: 3%) and greater plant diversity. Of the 36 forested fens studied, 18 had been rewetted in 1995–2008 by filling or blocking drainage ditches (water table raised to 15 cm below the peat surface). Nine fens remained drained (ditches open; water table 40 cm below surface). Nine fens had never been drained (water table 17 cm below surface). In 2009, vegetation cover and species were recorded in 72 circular (30 cm diameter) quadrats/site. Tree volume was measured in one 30 x 30 m plot/site. This study used the same sites as (32).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references
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