Study

Effects of restoration measures on nutrient availability in a formerly nutrient-poor floating fen after acidification and eutrophication

  • Published source details Beltman B., van den Broek T., Bloemen S. & Witsel C. (1996) Effects of restoration measures on nutrient availability in a formerly nutrient-poor floating fen after acidification and eutrophication. Biological Conservation, 78, 271-277

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Drain/replace acidic water

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Physically remove problematic plants

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Drain/replace acidic water

    A controlled study in 1989–1993 in a degraded floating fen in the Netherlands (Beltman et al. 1996) reported that draining acidic surface water increased herb cover, but only when moss was also removed. These results were not tested for statistical significance. Drainage alone had no effect on vegetation cover. After four years, a drained and undrained plot had similar vegetation cover (total moss: 93%; Sphagnum: 62%; herbs: 3%). However, drainage in combination with moss removal favoured herbs. A plot drained and cleared of moss developed 76% herb cover with 0% moss cover. In contrast, a plot cleared of moss but not drained regained high moss cover (total moss: 96%; Sphagnum: 53%; herbs: <1%). In 1989, a ditch was built to drain surface water from two 16 m2 plots in an acidified, nutrient-enriched fen. Two other plots were not drained. In 1991, the moss carpet was also cleared from one drained and one undrained plot. In 1995, vegetation cover was recorded in six 1 m2 quadrats/plot.

  2. Physically remove problematic plants

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1989–1993 in a degraded floating fen in the Netherlands (Beltman et al. 1996) reported that the effect of moss removal on vegetation cover after two years depended on whether plots were previously drained. These results were not tested for statistical significance. All plots were initially dominated by mosses (moss cover: 83–96%; herb cover: <1–2%). Of two drained plots, one cleared of moss developed herb cover after two years (moss cover: 0%; herb cover: 76%) whereas one from which moss was not removed remained dominated by mosses (total moss cover: 99%; Sphagnum cover: 64%; herb cover: 3%). In two undrained plots, moss removal had no effect on vegetation cover. Plots with and without moss removal developed similar vegetation cover (total mosses: 93–96%; Sphagnum: 53–62%; herbs: 1–3%). In 1991, the moss carpet was cleared from two 16 m2 plots in an acidified, nutrient-enriched fen. Two adjacent plots were not cleared. One cleared and one uncleared plot were also drained (by a ditch dug in 1989). In 1991 (before moss removal) and 1993, vegetation cover was recorded in six 1 m2 quadrats/plot.

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 18

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust