Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors in developed areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of maintaining or creating habitat corridors in developed 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%2F1720https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1720Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:22:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors in farmed areas One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of retaining or creating habitat corridors in farmed areas.This study was in a tropical peat swamp. Vegetation structure (1 study): One study in Indonesia found that a peat swamp forest corridor contained 5,819 trees/ha. This included 331 large trees/ha, 1,360 saplings/ha and 4,128 seedlings/ha. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study recorded 18–29 tree species in the peat swamp forest corridor (the number of species depending on the size class). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1730https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1730Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:09:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use barriers to keep livestock off ungrazed peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using barriers to keep livestock off peatlands that have never (or not recently) been grazed. ‘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%2F1733https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1733Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:20:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining We found no studies that evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of retaining/creating habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining. ‘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%2F1739https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1739Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:23:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low impact harvesting techniques (for wild biological resources) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using low impact harvesting techniques (for wild biological resources). ‘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%2F1745https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1745Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:27:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low impact vehicles for harvesting (wild biological resources) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using specialized low impact vehicles for harvesting (wild biological resources). ‘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%2F1746https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1746Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:28:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear snowshoes to prevent trampling We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of wearing snowshoes to prevent trampling. ‘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%2F1754https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1754Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:32:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peatland (raise water table) Thirty-six studies evaluated the effects of rewetting (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Fifteen studies were in bogs (two being restored as fens). Fifteen studies were in fens or fen meadows (two were naturally forested). Six studies were in general or unspecified peatlands. Some studies were based on the same experimental set-up or sites as each other: two studies in Germany, three studies in Sweden, two studies in west Finland and two studies in south Finland. Plant community composition (13 studies): Six before-and-after studies (four also replicated) in peatlands in Finland, Hungary, Sweden, Poland and Germany reported changes in the overall plant community composition following rewetting. Typically, drier grassland communities were replaced by more wetland- or peatland-characteristic communities. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the Czech Republic found that rewetted plots developed a different plant community to drained plots. Three site comparison studies in Finland and Canada reported that rewetted peatlands contained a different plant community to natural peatlands. Three replicated studies in peatlands in the UK and fens in Germany reported that rewetting typically had no effect, or insignificant effects, on the plant community. Characteristic plants (11 studies): Five studies (including one replicated site comparison) in peatlands in Canada, the UK, China and Poland reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased the abundance of wetland- or peatland-characteristic plants. Two replicated site comparison studies in fens or fen meadows in central Europe found that rewetting reduced the number of fen-characteristic plant species. Two studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in fens in Sweden reported that rewetting had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic plants. Two before-and-after studies in fens in the USA and New Zealand reported that upland plant cover decreased following rewetting. Moss cover (19 studies): Twelve studies (five replicated, two also paired and controlled) in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Latvia, Canada and Spain reported that rewetting bogs, fens or other peatlands (sometimes along with other interventions) increased Sphagnum moss cover or abundance. Three of these studies reported mixed responses by species. Two additional replicated studies, in bogs in Latvia and forested fens in Finland, reported that rewetting had no effect on Sphagnum cover. Five studies (one paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Finland, Sweden and Canada reported that rewetting bogs or fens had no effect on cover of non-Sphagnum mosses (or mosses/lichens). However, two controlled studies in bogs in Ireland and the UK reported that rewetting reduced cover of non-Sphagnum mosses or bryophytes. One site comparison study in Finland reported that a rewetted peatland had similar moss cover (Sphagnum and total) to a natural peatland, but another site comparison study in Canada reported that a rewetted bog had lower moss cover (Sphagnum and other) than nearby target peatlands. Herb cover (25 studies): Twenty-one studies (including four replicated, paired, controlled) reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased cover of at least one group of herbs. These studies were in bogs, fens or other peatlands in the UK, Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, the USA, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, China, Latvia, Poland, Canada and Spain. Specifically, rewetting increased other/total sedge cover in 13 of 15 studies, increased cottongrass cover in eight of nine studies, and increased reed/rush cover in five of seven studies. Three of four before-and-after studies in peatlands in the UK and Sweden reported that rewetting reduced purple moor grass cover; the other study reported no effect. One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland reported that rewetting had no effect on total herb cover. Two site comparison studies in Europe reported greater herb cover in rewetted than natural peatlands (overall and sedges/rushes, but not forbs). Tree/shrub cover (13 studies): Ten studies (including two paired and controlled) in peatlands in Finland, the UK, Germany, Latvia and Canada reported that rewetting typically reduced (seven studies) or had no effect (six studies) on tree and/or shrub cover. Two before-and-after studies in fens in Sweden and Germany reported that rewetting increased tree/shrub cover. One before-and-after study in a bog in the UK reported mixed effects of rewetting on different tree/shrub species. Overall vegetation cover (4 studies): Of four before-and-after studies (three also controlled) that examined the effect of rewetting on overall vegetation cover, two in bogs in Ireland and Sweden reported that rewetting increased it. One study in a fen in New Zealand reported that rewetting reduced vegetation cover. One study in a peatland in Finland reported no effect. Overall plant richness/diversity (14 studies): Six studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Sweden, Germany and the UK reported that rewetting increased total plant species richness or diversity in bogs, fens or other peatlands. However, five studies found no effect: in bogs in the Czech Republic and Latvia, fens in Sweden and Germany, and forested fens in Finland. One study in fen meadows in the Netherlands found scale-dependent effects. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a peatland in Finland reported that rewetting reduced plant diversity. Of four studies that compared rewetted and natural peatlands, two in Finland and Germany reported lower species richness in rewetted peatlands, one in Sweden found higher species richness in rewetted fens, and one in Europe found similar richness in rewetted and natural fens. Growth (1 study): One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found that rewetting increased Sphagnum moss growth to natural levels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:33:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing to maintain or restore disturbance Four studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using grazing to maintain or restore disturbance. All four studies were in fens or fen meadows. N.B. Grazing in peatlands with no history of disturbance is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found that the overall plant community composition differed between grazed and mown fen meadows. Characteristic plants (3 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Germany reported that the abundance of bog/fen-characteristic plants was similar in grazed and ungrazed fen meadows. One replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that cover of fen-characteristic mosses did not change after grazers were introduced. One replicated, paired, site comparison study, also in Germany, found that grazed fen meadows contained fewer fen-characteristic plant species than mown meadows. Herb cover (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK reported that grazing increased cover of some herb groups (cottongrasses, sedges or all grass-like plants). One of the studies found that grazing reduced purple moor grass cover, but the other found that grazing typically had no effect. Moss cover (2 studies): One replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that cover of fen-characteristic mosses did not change after grazers were introduced. One controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the UK found that grazing reduced Sphagnum moss cover. Tree/shrub cover (2 studies): Of two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK, one found that grazing reduced shrub cover but the other found that grazing typically had no effect on shrub cover. Overall plant richness/diversity (3 studies): Of two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK, one found that plant species richness increased after grazing was reinstated but the other reported that there was typically no effect. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found that grazed fen meadows contained fewer plant species than mown meadows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1762https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1762Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:36:40 +0000Collected 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Roughen peat surface to create microclimates (without planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of roughening the peat surface to create microclimates (without planting afterwards). ‘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%2F1808https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1808Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:30:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize 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). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1815Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:43:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peatland (before/after planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of rewetting (by raising the water table) areas planted with peatland 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%2F1831https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1831Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:52:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fences or barriers to protect planted vegetation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fences or barriers to protect planted peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1839Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:19 +0000