Reduce intensity of harvest (of wild biological resources)

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

25%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Mechanical harvests can be intense, completely clearing vegetation from a peatland. Harvesting less intensely can increase the capacity of the peatland vegetation to recover. Harvesting by hand is often less intense, or allows better control of intensity (Zegers et al. 2006). Harvesting a smaller area or removing fewer plants leaves a larger population of plants to grow or spread into harvested gaps. Removing less of each plant (e.g. removing Sphagnum to a shallower depth) might avoid killing them and allow them to regrow (Díaz & Silva 2012). Low intensity harvests can often continue year after year.

Caution: In some fens and fen meadows, harvesting is important to maintain the diversity of desirable peatland species (Middleton et al. 2006).

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

_{Díaz M.F. & Silva W. (2012) Improving harvesting techniques to ensure Sphagnum regeneration in Chilean peatlands. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 72, 296–300.}

_{Middleton B., Holsten B. & van Diggelen R. (2006) Biodiversity management of fens and fen meadows by grazing, cutting and burning. Applied Vegetation Science, 9, 307–316.}

_{Zegers G., Larraín J., Francisca Díaz M. & Armesto J. (2006) Impacto ecológico y social de la explotación de pomponales y turberas de Sphagnum en la Isla Grande de Chiloé (Ecological and social impact of the exploitation of mosses and Sphagnum bogs on the island of Chiloé ; in Spanish). Revista Ambiente y Desarrollo, 22, 28–34.}

Study locations

Key messages

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.

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, controlled study in a bog in New Zealand (Whinam & Buxton 1997) reported that incompletely harvested plots regained Sphagnum moss cover more quickly than completely harvested plots. In plots where 30% of harvestable Sphagnum was left in place, Sphagnum cover was 90% after three years. In contrast, in plots from which all Sphagnum had been harvested, Sphagnum cover was only 50% after three years. No statistical tests were carried out and details of methods were not reported.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Whinam J. & Buxton R.P. (1997) Sphagnum peatlands of Australasia: an assessment of harvesting sustainability. Biological Conservation, 82, 21-29.

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	Category
Reduce frequency of harvest (of wild biological resources) Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	Synopsis Link
Implement ‘mosaic management’ when harvesting wild biological resources Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	Synopsis Link
Use low impact vehicles for harvesting (wild biological resources) Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	Synopsis Link