Create mounds or hollows (before planting)

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of creating peat mounds or hollows before planting peatland plants. Two studies were in bogs. One was in a tropical peat swamp.
  • Growth (1 study): One controlled study in a peat swamp in Thailand reported that trees planted into mounds of peat grew thicker stems than trees planted at ground level.
  • Cover (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in bogs in Canada found that roughening the peat surface (by harrowing, ploughing, creating vehicle tracks or adding peat blocks) did not significantly affect cover of planted Sphagnum moss after 1–3 growing seasons.

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 replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1995–1996 in a historically mined raised bog in Quebec, Canada (Price et al. 1998) found that roughening the peat surface, before sowing Sphagnum-dominated vegetation fragments, had no effect on Sphagnum moss cover. After 1–2 growing seasons, roughened and smooth plots had similar cover of Sphagnum, when compared amongst mulched areas (roughened: 1.4–4.7%; smooth: 1.2–2.3%) or unmulched areas (roughened: 0.1–0.3%; smooth: 0.1–0.2%). In May 1995, twelve 15 x 30 m plots were established, in three blocks of four, on bare rewetted peat. Three plots (one random plot/block) received each roughening treatment: harrowing (5 cm deep), ploughing (20 cm deep), using bulldozer tracks to create trenches (1 m wide, 20 cm deep), or no intervention (smooth plots). Then, all plots were sown with vegetation fragments (mostly Sphagnum moss) from the surface of a nearby bog. Half of each plot was mulched with straw. In June and September 1996, Sphagnum cover was estimated in 36–72 quadrats/plot, each 25 x 25 cm.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled study in a degraded peat swamp in Thailand (Nuyim 2000) reported that five tree species grew thicker stems when planted into mounds than when planted at ground level. The results were not tested for statistical significance. After three years and for all five planted species, trees planted into mounds had developed thicker stems (3–6 cm) than trees planted at ground level (2–3 cm). Mounds had a particularly strong effect on Syzygium pyrifolium stem thickness (mounded: 6 cm; ground level: 3 cm). In a degraded peat swamp, trees were either planted into mounds of peat (50 cm high, 70–90 cm circumference) or at ground level. After three years, the diameter of all trees was measured 10 cm above the peat surface. The year, number of trees and their initial size were not reported.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2010 in two historically disturbed bogs in Ontario, Canada (Corson & Campbell 2013) found that placing peat blocks on a peatland, before sowing Sphagnum moss, had no effect on bryophyte cover. After three years, Sphagnum cover did not differ significantly between plots with peat blocks (40%) or without (38%). There was also no difference in total bryophyte cover between plots with peat blocks (66%) or without (67%). In August 2007, six pairs of 2 x 2 m plots were established on bare peat, historically disturbed by vehicles or pipeline construction. Twenty-five bare peat blocks (10 x 12 x 20 cm) were evenly spaced on one random plot in each pair. Then, all plots received fresh fragments of rusty bog moss Sphagnum fuscum and flat-topped bog moss Sphagnum fallax, and 30 g/m2 rock phosphate fertilizer. In August 2010, moss cover was estimated in six random 12.5 x 12.5 cm subplots within each plot.

    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