Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

20%
Certainty

20%
Harms

5%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Peatland plants may struggle to colonize loose bare peat. Seeds, spores or young plants can be washed or blown away. The peatland surface could be stabilized by pegging fibre netting (e.g. geojute) into the peat or applying fibre rolls to act as wind/water breaks. If made of organic material, these stabilizing aids should degrade once peatland vegetation has colonized.

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

Related actions: cover peat with mulch or other material, which may stabilize the peat surface as well as controlling the microclimate.

Study locations

Key messages

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).

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 controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2010 in a degraded blanket bog in England, UK (Anderson et al. 2011) found that adding coconut fibre rolls to stabilize the peat surface had no effect on vegetation cover. Comparing data from before intervention and three years after, vegetation cover increased by a similar amount in areas with and without the rolls. This was true for total vegetation cover (with rolls: from 6 to 10%; without: from 15 to 20%), moss cover (with rolls: from 0 to 1.0%; without: from 0 to 2.5%), dwarf shrub cover (with rolls: from 0.5 to 1%; without: from 0.5 to 4%) and common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium cover (with rolls: from 1 to 3%; without: from 4 to 7%). In March 2007, coconut fibre rolls were pegged onto an area of almost-bare peat to stabilize it. An adjacent area was left untreated. Sheep were excluded from both areas before the study began. In 2007 (before intervention) and 2010, vegetation cover was estimated in thirty 2 x 2 m quadrats/area.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Anderson P., Worrall P., Ross S., Hammond G. & Keen A. (2011) United Utilities Sustainable Catchment Management Programme Volume 3: The Restoration of Highly Degraded Blanket Bog. Penny Anderson Associates report. Penny Anderson Associates Report.

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	Studies	Category
Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	5	Synopsis Link
Cover peatland with something other than mulch (without planting) Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Excavate pools (without planting) Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link