Study

Vegetation recovery after multiple-site experimental fen restorations

  • Published source details Hedberg P., Kotowski W., Saetre P., Mälson K., Rydin H. & Sundberg S. (2012) Vegetation recovery after multiple-site experimental fen restorations. Biological Conservation, 147, 60-67.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cut/remove/thin forest plantations

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Rewet peatland (raise water table)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Cut/remove/thin forest plantations

    A replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2002–2010 in three tree-colonized rich fens in Sweden (Hedberg et al. 2012) found that following tree removal, there were increases in plant species richness and bryophyte, grass and sedge cover, but not cover of fen-characteristic plants. In cleared plots, plant species richness increased from 9 plant species/0.25 m2 before tree removal to 11 species/0.25 m2 eight years after, although it peaked at 12 species/0.25 m2 after three years. Cover increased of Sphagnum mosses (from 10% before tree removal to 15% eight years after), wetland-characteristic bryophytes (from 27 to 37%), grasses (from 2 to 4%) and sedges (from 1 to 3%). There was no significant change in cover of fen-characteristic mosses or vascular plants (data not reported). In plots that remained forested, there was no change in species richness or vegetation cover. In winter 2002/2003, in each of three forested fens, trees were removed from one 50 x 300 m plot whilst an adjacent plot was left forested. Half of each plot remained drained whilst half was rewetted. Between 2002 (before intervention) and 2010, cover of every plant species was estimated at 40 points/plot, in 0.25 m2 quadrats. This study was based on the same experimental set-up as (2) and (4).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat

    A replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2002–2010 in three drained, tree-colonized, rich fens in Sweden (Hedberg et al. 2012) reported that following tree removal and rewetting, there were increases in plant species richness, bryophyte cover and sedge cover. These results are not based on tests of statistical significance. There were 9 plant species/0.25 m2 before intervention but 13 species/0.25 m2 eight years after. Cover of wetland-characteristic bryophytes was 33% before and 46% after, Sphagnum mosses 23% before and 33% after, sedges 1% before and 5% after. Similar changes in cover occurred in plots that were rewetted (without tree removal) or had trees removed (without rewetting). In control plots that remained both drained and forested, there was no change in the number of plant species or vegetation cover. In winter 2002/2003, four restoration treatments were applied in each drained and tree-colonized fen, in adjacent 50 x 150 m plots: cutting and removal of all trees, rewetting (by ditch blocking; water table raised by 12–25 cm), tree removal and rewetting, or none. Between 2002 (before intervention) and 2010, cover of every plant species was estimated at 20 points/plot, in 0.25 m2 quadrats. This study was based on the same experimental set-up as (4) and (8).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Rewet peatland (raise water table)

    A replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2002–2010 in three degraded rich fens in Sweden (Hedberg et al. 2012) found that following rewetting bryophyte and sedge cover increased, but there was no change in species richness, fen-characteristic plant cover or grass cover. Cover of wetland-characteristic bryophytes increased from 33% before rewetting to 46% eight years after. Sphagnum moss cover increased from 10 to 18%. Sedge cover increased from 1 to 3%. There was no significant change in cover of fen-characteristic plants or grasses (data not reported) or plant species richness (from 8 to 10 species/0.25 m2). In plots that remained drained, none of the metrics changed significantly over the eight years. In winter 2002/2003, one 100 x 150 m plot in each drained fen was rewetted by blocking a drainage ditch (water table raised by 12–25 cm). An adjacent plot in each fen remained drained. Trees were also removed from half of each plot. Between 2002 (before intervention) and 2010, cover of every plant species was estimated at 40 points/plot, in 0.25 m2 quadrats. This study was based on the same experimental set-up as (13) and (23).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references
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