Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance Three studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance. Two studies were in fens and one was in a bog. N.B. Prescribed burning in peatlands with no history of disturbance is considered as a separate action. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that burning (along with other interventions) had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic mosses or herbs. Herb cover (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in a fen in the USA reported that burning reduced forb cover and increased sedge/rush cover, but had no effect on grass cover. In contrast, one replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that burning (along with other interventions) reduced grass/sedge/rush cover. Tree/shrub cover (2 studies): Two replicated studies in fens in the USA and the UK reported that burning (sometimes along with other interventions) reduced tree/shrub cover. Overall plant richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in a fen in the USA and a bog in New Zealand found that burning increased plant species richness or diversity. However, one replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that burning (along with other interventions) typically had no effect on plant species richness and diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1763https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1763Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:37:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin vegetation to prevent wild fires We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of thinning vegetation to prevent wild fires. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1764https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1764Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:39:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peat to prevent wild fires We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of rewetting peat to prevent wild fires. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1765https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1765Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:39:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fire breaks We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of building fire breaks. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1766Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:40:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of implementing biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic species. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1767Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:40:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants Three studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of removing problematic plants. All three studies were in fens. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a fen in Ireland reported that cover of fen-characteristic plants increased after mossy vegetation was removed. Herb cover (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies in fens in the Netherlands and Ireland reported mixed effects of moss removal on herb cover after 2–5 years. Results varied between species or between sites, and sometimes depended on other treatments applied to plots (i.e. drainage or isolation from the surrounding bog). Moss cover (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a fen in Ireland reported that removing the moss carpet reduced total bryophyte and Sphagnum moss cover for three years. Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies in fens in the Netherlands reported that removing the moss carpet had no effect on moss cover (after 2–5 years) in wet plots, but reduced total moss and Sphagnum cover in drained plots. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Netherlands reported that moss removal increased plant species richness, but only in a drained area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1768https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1768Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:41:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1769https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1769Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:41:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants Four studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of cutting/mowing problematic herbaceous plants. Three studies were in fens or fen meadows and one was in a bog. N.B. Cutting/mowing in historically disturbed peatlands is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in rich fens in Sweden found that mowing typically had no significant effect on the overall plant community composition. One controlled study in a fen meadow in the UK reported that mown plots developed different plant communities to unmown plots. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in Sweden found that mown plots contained more fen-characteristic plant species than unmown plots, although their cover did not differ significantly between treatments. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in rich fens in Sweden, one found that mowing had no effect on vascular plant or bryophyte cover over five years. The other reported that mowing typically increased Sphagnum moss cover and reduced purple moor grass cover, but had mixed effects on cover of other plant species. Growth (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Estonia found that clipping competing vegetation did not affect Sphagnum moss growth. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1770https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1770Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:42:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of cutting/mowing Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of mowing or cutting in different seasons. One study was in a fen meadow and one was in a peatland with mixed vegetation. Plant community composition (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, before-and after study in a fen meadow in the UK reported that changes in plant community composition were typically similar in spring-, summer- and autumn-mown plots. However, one study in a peatland in the Netherlands reported that summer- and winter-mown areas developed cover of different plant community types. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, before-and after study in a fen meadow in the UK found that plant species richness increased more, over two years, in summer-mown plots than spring- or autumn-mown plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1771https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1771Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:42:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of cutting and removing problematic large trees/shrubs. Both studies were in fens. N.B. Cutting trees/shrubs in historically disturbed peatlands is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, controlled, before-and-after) in fens in the USA and Sweden reported that the plant community composition changed following tree/shrub removal, becoming less like unmanaged fens or more like undegraded, open fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a fen in Sweden found that species richness and cover of fen-characteristic plants increased following tree/shrub removal. Vegetation cover (2 studies): One study in a fen in Sweden found that moss and vascular plant cover increased following tree/shrub removal. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in fens in the USA found that shrub removal (along with other interventions) could not prevent increases in shrub cover over time. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One study in a fen in Sweden found that moss and vascular plant species richness increased following tree/shrub removal. However, one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in fens in the USA found that shrub removal (along with other interventions) prevented increases in total plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1772https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1772Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:43:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing to control problematic plants We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using grazing to control problematic plants. N.B. Grazing in different contexts is considered in separate actions here, here and here. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1773https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1773Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:43:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire to control problematic plants Six studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of using prescribed fire to control problematic plants: five in bogs and one in fens. Four studies were based on the same experimental set-up in the UK. N.B. Prescribed burning in historically disturbed peatlands is considered as a separate action. Moss cover (4 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in Germany found that burning increased moss/lichen/bare ground cover in the short term (2–7 months after burning). Three replicated, paired studies (based on the same experimental set-up) in one bog in the UK found that moss cover (including Sphagnum) was higher in plots burned more often. Herb cover (4 studies): Of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in Germany and the UK, one found that burning had no effect on cottongrass cover after 2–7 months but the other found that burning increased cottongrass cover after 8–18 years. Two replicated, paired studies in the same bog in the UK reported that cottongrass cover was similar in plots burned every 10 or 20 years. The study in Germany also found that burning reduced purple moor grass cover but had mixed effects, amongst sites, on cover of other grass-like plants and forbs. Tree/shrub cover (5 studies): Three replicated, paired studies in a bog in the UK found that heather cover was lower in plots burned more often. One replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in Germany found that heather cover was lower in burned than unburned plots. Two replicated, controlled studies in the bogs in Germany and fens in the USA found that burning (sometimes along with other interventions) did not affect cover of other shrubs. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the UK found that plots burned more frequently contained more biomass of grass-like plants than plots burned less often, but contained less total vegetation, shrub and bryophyte biomass. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomized and paired) in the fens in the USA and a bog in the UK found that burning reduced or limited plant species richness. In the USA, burning was carried out along with other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1774https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1774Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:43:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use covers/barriers to control problematic plants We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using covers or barriers to control problematic plants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1775https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1775Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:44:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to control problematic plants One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of using herbicide to control problematic plants. The study was in fens. Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in fens in the USA found that applying herbicide to shrubs (along with other interventions) changed the overall plant community composition. Tree/shrub cover (1 study): The same study found that applying herbicide to shrubs (along with other interventions) could not prevent increases in shrub cover over time. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that applying herbicide to shrubs (along with other interventions) prevented increases in plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1776https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1776Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:44:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce an organism to control problematic plants 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1777https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1777Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:44:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean waste water before it enters the environment One study evaluated the effect, on peatland vegetation, of cleaning waste water before it enters the environment. The study was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a floating fen in the Netherlands found that after input water began to be cleaned (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased. Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study found that after input water began to be cleaned (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), vascular plant biomass decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1778https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1778Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:13:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/replace polluted water source(s) Three studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of diverting or replacing polluted water source(s). Two studies were in bogs and one was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a fen in the Netherlands found that after a nutrient-enriched water source was replaced (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after) in bogs in the UK and Japan reported that after polluting water sources were diverted (sometimes along with other interventions), Sphagnum moss cover increased. Both studies reported mixed effects on herb cover, depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1779https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1779Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:14:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Slow down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed One study evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of slowing down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed. The study was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One before-and-after study in a floating fen in the Netherlands found that after input water was rerouted on a longer path (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased. Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study found that after input water was rerouted on a longer path (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), vascular plant biomass decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1780https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1780Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:14:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or create buffer zones between pollution sources and peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of retaining or creating buffer zones between pollution sources and peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1781https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1781Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:14:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use artificial barriers to prevent pollution entering peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using artificial barriers to prevent pollution entering peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1782https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1782Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:15:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reducing fertilizer or herbicide use in adjacent areas. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1783https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1783Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:15:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage fertilizer or herbicide application near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of managing fertilizer or herbicide use in adjacent areas. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1784https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1784Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:16:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Convert to organic agriculture or aquaculture near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of converting to organic agriculture or aquaculture near peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1785https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1785Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:16:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the density of livestock on farmland near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of limiting the density of livestock on farmland near peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1786https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1786Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:16:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use biodegradable oil in farming machinery We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using biodegradable oil in farming machinery. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1787https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1787Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:17:12 +0000
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue