Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement ‘mosaic management’ of agriculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of implementing mosaic management in agricultural systems. ‘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%2F1729https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1729Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:08:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/remove/thin forest plantations Four studies evaluated the effect on peatland vegetation of cutting/removing forest plantations: one in bogs and three in fens. The studies in the fens were all based, at least in part, on the same experimental set-up. Herb cover (3 studies): Three replicated studies (two also paired and controlled) in bogs in the UK and fens in Sweden reported that tree removal increased cover of some herb species including cottongrasses and sedges. One of the studies reported no effect of tree removal on other herb species. Moss cover (3 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in the UK reported that tree removal reduced cover of forest-characteristic mosses. One replicated before-and-after study in a drained rich fen in Sweden reported that Sphagnum moss cover decreased over three years following tree removal. However, one replicated, paired, controlled study in partly rewetted rich fens reported that Sphagnum cover increased over eight years following tree removal. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in rich fens in Sweden reported that tree removal increased total plant species richness. However, one of these studies reported a much smaller effect of tree removal in rewetted plots than in drained plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1731https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1731Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:16:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat Eleven studies evaluated the effects of cutting/removing trees and rewetting peat (in combination): six in fens, two in bogs, and three in both fens and bogs. In four of the studies, the peatlands naturally contained some trees. Three studies were based on one experimental set-up, and two studies were based on another. Plant community composition (5 studies): Of three replicated studies in fens, two in Finland found that removing trees/rewetting had no effect on the overall plant community composition whilst one in Sweden reported only a small effect. Two site comparison studies in bogs and fens in Finland found that removing trees/rewetting changed the overall plant community composition. It became less like sites that remained drained and forested. Characteristic plants (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one site comparison, one controlled) in bogs and fens in Finland and Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting increased the abundance of wetland-characteristic plants. Moss cover (6 studies): Of five studies that examined the effect of removing trees/rewetting on Sphagnum moss, two replicated, paired studies in bogs and fens in Sweden and Finland found that the intervention increased Sphagnum cover. One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found no effect. Two before-and-after studies in a bog in Finland and a fen in Sweden found mixed effects depending on site or species. Additionally, three studies (two replicated and paired) in peatlands in the UK and Finland found that removing trees/rewetting reduced cover of non-Sphagnum or forest-characteristic mosses. However, one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found no effect of thinning trees/rewetting on forest mosses. Herb cover (7 studies): Seven studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled) in bogs and fens in the UK, Finland and Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting increased cover of at least one group of herbs, including cottongrasses and sedges. However, one of these studies reported loss of cottongrass from a fen where it was rare before intervention, along with reduced purple moor grass cover. Vegetation structure (4 studies): One replicated site comparison study in a bog in the UK found that removing trees/rewetting increased ground vegetation height. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen in Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting had no effect on canopy height after eight years. Two replicated, paired, site comparison studies in bogs and fens in Finland found that thinning trees/rewetting reduced the number of tall trees present for 1–3 years (although not to the level of natural peatlands). Overall plant richness/diversity (4 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in rich fens in Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting increased plant species richness. However, two replicated studies in fens in Finland found that removing trees/rewetting had no effect on total plant species richness or diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1732https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1732Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:16:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or remove livestock from degraded peatlands Ten studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of excluding or removing livestock from degraded peatlands. Seven studies were in bogs, two in fens and one in an unspecified peatland. Three studies were based on the same experimental set-up in the UK. Plant community composition (2 studies): Of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in the UK, one found that excluding sheep had no effect on the development of the plant community. The other found no effect in wetter areas of the bog, but that in drier areas excluding sheep favoured dry moorland plants. Herb cover (9 studies): Seven studies (including six replicated, paired, controlled) in bogs in the UK and Australia and fens in the USA found that excluding or removing livestock typically had no effect on cover of key herb groups. Five of five studies found that excluding livestock typically had no effect on cottongrass cover. Two of two studies reported no effect on sedge cover. However, one before-and-after study in a poor fen in Spain reported that rush cover increased after cattle were excluded (along with other interventions). One site comparison study in Chile found that excluding livestock (along with other interventions) increased overall herb cover, but one replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in Australia found that excluding livestock had no effect on overall herb cover. Moss cover (6 studies): Five replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in the UK and Australia found that excluding livestock typically had no effect on Sphagnum moss cover. Responses sometimes varied between species and sites. Three of the studies in the UK also found no effect on cover of other mosses. One before-and-after study in a poor fen in Spain reported that Sphagnum moss appeared after excluding cattle (and rewetting). Tree/shrub cover (8 studies): Four replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in the UK and Australia found that excluding livestock had no effect on shrub cover (specifically heather or a heathland community). One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the UK found that excluding sheep had no effect on heather cover in wetter areas, but increased heather cover in drier areas. Three studies (including two site comparisons) in bogs in the UK, fens in the USA and a peatland in Chile found that excluding or removing livestock increased shrub cover. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the UK found that excluding sheep increased total vegetation, shrub and bryophyte biomass but had no effect on biomass of grass-like herbs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1734https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1734Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:21:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement ‘mosaic management’ when harvesting wild biological resources We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of implementing mosaic management when 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%2F1747https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1747Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:28:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance Fourteen studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of cutting/mowing to maintain or restore disturbance. All 14 studies were in fens or fen meadows. Most studies examined the effect of annual mowing regimes, but three examined the effect of single cuts. N.B. Cutting/mowing in peatlands with no history of disturbance is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (7 studies): Six replicated studies in fens and fen meadows in the UK, Belgium, Germany and the Czech Republic reported that mowing altered the overall plant community composition (compared to no mowing, before mowing or grazing). One site comparison study in Poland reported that mowing a degraded fen (along with other interventions) made the plant community more similar to a target fen meadow. Characteristic plants (5 studies): Four studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in fens and fen meadows in Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland found that cutting/mowing increased cover of fen- or wet meadow-characteristic plants. One replicated before-and-after study in fens in the UK found that a single mow typically had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic plants. In Poland and the UK, the effect of mowing was not separated from the effects of other interventions. Moss cover (6 studies): Of six studies (five replicated, paired, controlled) in fens or fen meadows, four in Belgium, Switzerland and the Czech Republic found that mowing increased total moss or bryophyte cover. Two studies in Poland and the UK found that a single mow typically had no effect on bryophyte cover (total or hollow-adapted mosses). Herb cover (8 studies): Six replicated studies (three also randomized and controlled) in fens and fen meadows in Belgium, Germany, Poland and the UK found that mowing reduced cover or abundance of at least one group of herbs (including bindweed, reeds, sedges, purple moor grass and grass-like plants overall). One before-and-after study in a fen in Poland found that mowing (along with other interventions) increased sedge cover. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in fen meadows in Switzerland found that mowing had no effect on overall herb cover. Tree/shrub cover (3 studies): Of three replicated studies in fens, two in the UK found that a single mow (sometimes along with other interventions) reduced shrub cover. However, one study in Poland found that a single mow had no effect on shrub cover. Vegetation structure (7 studies): In the following studies, vegetation structure was measured 6–12 months after the most recent cut/mow. Three replicated studies in fens in Poland and the UK reported that a single mow (sometimes along with other interventions) had no, or no consistent, effect on vegetation height. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in fen meadows in Switzerland found that mowing reduced vegetation height. Three studies (including two replicated, paired, site comparisons) in fen meadows in Switzerland, Poland and Italy found mixed effects of mowing on vegetation biomass (total, sedge/rush, moss or common reed). One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany reported that mown fen meadows had similar vegetation structure to grazed meadows. Overall plant richness/diversity (11 studies): Eight studies in fens and fen meadows in the UK, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland found that mowing/cutting increased plant species richness (compared to no mowing, before mowing or grazing). Three studies (including two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in fens in Poland and the UK found that a single mow (sometimes along with other interventions) typically had no effect on plant species richness and/or diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1759https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1759Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:35:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of cutting large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance. One study was in a forested fen and one was in an open fen. N.B. Cutting large trees/shrubs in peatlands with no history of disturbance is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in a fen in Poland found that in an area where shrubs were removed (along with other interventions), the plant community composition became more like a target fen meadow. Characteristic plants (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in a fen in Poland found that in an area where shrubs were removed (along with other interventions), the abundance of fen meadow plant species increased. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in forested fen in the USA found that cutting and removing trees increased herb cover, but had no effect on shrub cover. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a peat swamp in the USA found that cutting and removing trees increased herb biomass and height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1761https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1761Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:36:20 +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: 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: 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: Drain/replace acidic water Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of draining/replacing acidic surface water. Both studies were in fens. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two controlled studies in fens in the Netherlands reported that draining acidic water had mixed effects on cover of Sphagnum moss and herbs after 4–5 years, depending on the species and whether moss was also removed. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Netherlands reported that draining and replacing acidic water increased plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1791https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1791Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:18:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create legislation for ‘no net loss’ of wetlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland habitats, of creating legislation for no net loss of wetlands. ‘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%2F1797https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1797Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for peatland plants (without planting) Three studies evaluated the effects of filling or blocking ditches (without planting) on peatland vegetation within them. Two studies were in bogs and one was in a fen. Vegetation cover (3 studies): Two studies in a bog in the UK and a fen in the USA reported that blocked or filled ditches were colonized by herbs and bryophytes within 2–3 years. In the USA, vegetation cover (total, bryophyte, forb, grass and sedge) was restored to natural, undisturbed levels. One replicated study in bogs in the UK reported that plants had not colonized blocked gullies after six months. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in a fen in the USA found that a filled ditch contained more plant species than adjacent undisturbed fen, after two years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1805https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1805Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:29:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate pools (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of excavating pools (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Both studies were based on the same experimental set-up in bogs in Canada. Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that excavated pools were colonized by peatland vegetation over 4–6 years, but contained different plant communities to natural pools. In particular, cattail was more common in created pools. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after four years, created pools had less cover than natural pools of Sphagnum moss, herbs and shrubs. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after six years, created pools contained a similar number of plant species to natural pools. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:30:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb peatland surface to encourage growth of desirable plants (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of disturbing the peat surface (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Both studies were in fens. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies (one also randomized) in fens in Germany and Sweden reported that soil disturbance affected development of the plant community over 2–3 years. In Germany, disturbed plots developed greater cover of weedy species from the seed bank than undisturbed plots. In Sweden, the community in disturbed and undisturbed plots became less similar over time. Characteristic plants (2 studies): The same two studies reported that wetland- or fen-characteristic plant species colonized plots that had been disrturbed (along with other interventions). The study in Germany noted that peat-forming species did not colonize the fen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1811https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1811Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with organic mulch (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of covering a peatland with organic mulch (without planting). Both studies were in bogs (but in one study, being restored as a fen). Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch did not affect cover of fen-characteristic plants. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Australia reported that plots mulched with straw had similar Sphagnum moss cover to unmulched plots. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch increased the number of fen characteristic plants present, but did not affect their cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1813Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:38:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with something other than mulch (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of covering a peatland with something other than mulch (without planting). Both studies were in bogs. Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany reported that covering bare peat with fleece or fibre mats did not affect the number of seedlings of five herb/shrub species. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in bogs in Australia reported that recently-burned plots shaded with plastic mesh developed greater cover of native plants, forbs and Sphagnum moss than unshaded plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1814https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1814Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:39:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant peatland mosses Seven studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of planting mosses. Six studies were in bogs and one was in a fen. Survival (1 study): One study in Lithuania reported that of 50 Sphagnum-dominated sods planted into a rewetted bog, 47 survived for one year. Growth (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in a fen in the Netherlands and bog pools in the UK reported that mosses grew after planting. Moss cover (5 studies): Five before-and-after studies in a fen in the Netherlands and bogs in Germany, Ireland, Estonia and Australia reported that after planting mosses, the area covered by moss increased in at least some cases. The study in the Netherlands reported spread of planted moss beyond the introduction site. The study in Australia was also controlled and reported that planted plots developed greater Sphagnum moss cover than unplanted plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1818https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1818Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:44:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant peatland herbs Five studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of planting herbaceous plants. Three studies were in fens or fen meadows and two were in bogs. Survival (3 studies): Three replicated studies in a fen meadow in the Netherlands and fens in the USA reported that planted herbs survived over 2–3 years. However, for six of nine species only a minority of individuals survived. Growth (2 studies): Two replicated before-and-after studies in a bog in Germany and fens in the USA reported that individual planted herbs grew. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that planting herbs had no effect on moss, herb or shrub cover in created bog pools relative to natural colonization. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1819https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1819Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:44:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant peatland trees/shrubs Eleven studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of planting trees/shrubs to restore or create forested/shrubby peatland. Seven studies were in tropical peat swamps, three in bogs and one in a fen. Survival (10 studies): Eight studies (seven replicated) in peat swamp forests in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia and bogs in Canada reported that the majority of planted trees/shrubs survived over periods between 10 weeks and 13 years. Species with <50% survival included Dacryodes, poplar and katok. One replicated study in a fen in the USA reported that most planted willow cuttings died within two years. One study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia reported <5% survival of planted trees after five months, following unusually deep flooding. Growth (5 studies): Four studies (including two replicated, before-and-after) in peat swamp forests in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia reported that planted trees grew. One replicated before-and-after study in bogs in Canada reported that planted shrubs grew. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1820https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1820Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:45:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with organic mulch (after planting) Twelve studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding organic mulch after planting peatland plants. Nine studies were in bogs (one being restored as a fen). Two studies were in fens. One was in a tropical peat swamp. Germination (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany found that mulching after sowing seeds increased germination rates for two species (a grass and a shrub), but had no effect on three other herb species. Survival (3 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in a fen in Sweden and a bog in the USA reported that mulching increased survival of planted vegetation (mosses or sedges). One replicated, paired, controlled study in Indonesia reported that mulching with oil palm fruits reduced survival of planted peat swamp tree seedlings. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the USA reported that mulching increased growth of transplanted sedges. Cover (9 studies): Six studies (including four replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in Canada and the USA and a fen in Sweden found that mulching after planting increased vegetation cover (specifically total vegetation, total mosses/bryophytes, Sphagnum mosses or vascular plants after 1–3 growing seasons). Three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in degraded bogs in Canada found that mulching after planting had no effect on vegetation cover (Sphagnum mosses or fen-characteristic plants). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1828Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:51:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with something other than mulch (after planting) Eight studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding covers (other than mulch) after planting peatland plants. Five studies involved bog plants, two involved fen plants and one involved peat swamp plants. Two of the studies were in greenhouses or nurseries. Germination (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany reported mixed effects of fleece and fibre mats on germination of sown herb and shrub seeds (positive or no effect, depending on species). Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies examined the effect, on plant survival, of covering planted areas. One study in a fen in Sweden reported that shading with plastic mesh increased survival of planted mosses. One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that shading with plastic mesh typically had no effect on survival of peat swamp tree species, but increased survival of some. Growth (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies examined the effect, on plant growth, of covering planted areas. One study in a greenhouse in Switzerland found that covering planted Sphagnum mosses with transparent plastic sheets or shading mesh increased their growth. One study in a fen in Sweden found that shading with plastic mesh reduced growth of planted fen mosses. One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that seedlings shaded with plastic mesh grew taller and thinner than unshaded seedlings. Cover (4 studies): Two replicated, paired studies in a fen in Sweden and a bog in Australia reported that shading plots with plastic mesh increased cover of planted mosses. One study in a bog in Canada found that covering sown plots with plastic mesh, not transparent plastic sheets, increased the number of Sphagnum moss shoots. Another study in a bog in Canada reported that shading sown plots with plastic mesh had no effect on cover of vegetation overall, vascular plants, Sphagnum or other moss. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1829Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:51:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows (before planting) 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1834https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1834Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:53:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encapsulate planted moss fragments in beads/gel We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encapsulating moss fragments on their performance, relative to loose moss fragments, when introduced to 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%2F1838https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1838Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of physically excluding wild herbivores. The study was in a fen meadow. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen meadow in Poland reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on vascular plant and moss cover depended on other treatments applied to plots. Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on total vegetation biomass depended on other treatments applied to plots. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on plant species richness depended on other treatments applied to plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1860https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1860Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:07:26 +0000