Introduce an organism to control problematic plants

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • 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.

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

  1. A controlled, before-and-after study in 1994–2012 in a degraded fen meadow in Belgium (Decleer er al. 2013) found that a plot sown with parasitic marsh lousewort Pedicularis palustris developed a different plant community to unsown plots, less dominated by acute sedge Carex acuta, and with greater moss cover and more plant species. After six years, plots with and without lousewort contained a significantly different overall plant community (reported as a statistical model result). The plot with lousewort contained less acute sedge than the plot without lousewort: less biomass (80 vs 540 g/m2), shorter plants (100 vs 40 cm) and less cover (after 18 years; 20 vs 80%). After six years, the plot with lousewort also contained less overall plant biomass (460 vs 670 g/m2), but greater moss cover (49 vs 6%) and more plant species (21 vs 14 species/400 m2). Before intervention, vegetation was similar in both plots (acute sedge biomass: 870 g/m2; acute sedge cover: 100%; overall plant biomass: 960 g/m2; other data not reported). In July 1994, one 20 x 20 m plot dominated by acute sedge was sown with 500 lousewort seeds. An adjacent plot was not sown and lousewort plants were continually removed. Biannual mowing had been resumed in 1992. Data were recorded in each plot in 1994, 2000 and 2012: height of 30 random sedge plants, dry above-ground biomass from six 1 m2 quadrats, and plant species and moss cover in ten 1 m2 quadrats.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Peatland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation
Peatland Conservation

Peatland Conservation - Published 2018

Peatland Conservation

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