Study

Factors affecting re-vegetation dynamics of experimentally restored extracted peatland in Estonia

  • Published source details Karofeld E., Müür M. & Vellak K. (2016) Factors affecting re-vegetation dynamics of experimentally restored extracted peatland in Estonia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 13706-13717

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reprofile/relandscape peatland (before planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Restore/create peatland vegetation (multiple interventions)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Add mixed vegetation to peatland surface

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Reprofile/relandscape peatland (before planting)

    A controlled study in 2012–2014 in a historically mined bog in Estonia (Karofeld et al. 2016) found that reprofiling peat before sowing vegetation fragments did not significantly affect vegetation cover, with the exception of some Sphagnum moss species. After 1–2 years, plots with and without reprofiling had similar cover of vascular plants (23 vs 24%), total bryophytes (57 vs 50%) and Sphagnum moss (54 vs 47%; not statistically tested). However, the reprofiled plot had significantly greater cover of rusty bog moss Sphagnum fuscum (31 vs 21%) and significantly less cover of red bog moss Sphagnum rubellum (11 vs 17%). Sheathed cottongrass Eriophorum vaginatum and sedge Carex sp. were present at low cover (<1%) in both plots. In spring 2012, one of two adjacent bare peat plots was reprofiled (top 20 cm of peat pushed into ridges around the plot). Both plots were rewetted (drainage ditch blocked), sown with vegetation fragments from a nearby bog and mulched with straw. In June and September 2013 and 2014, vegetation cover was estimated in ten 50 x 50 cm quadrats/plot.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Restore/create peatland vegetation (multiple interventions)

    A replicated, controlled, site comparison study in 2012–2014 in a historically mined bog in Estonia (Karofeld et al. 2016) found that restoration by multiple interventions increased cover of bryophytes and vascular plants, and created a plant community more like the natural donor bog. After 1–2 years, restored plots had greater cover than an unrestored plot of all bryophytes combined (52–65% vs <1%), Sphagnum mosses (50–54% vs <1%) and vascular plants (17–23% vs 11%). Sheathed cottongrass Eriophorum vaginatum and sedge Carex sp. were present in at least one restored plot (cover <1%), but not in the unrestored plot. After two years, the overall plant community in restored plots was 40–67% similar to the unmined donor bog, compared to 21–29% similarity between the unrestored plot and donor bog. In spring 2012, three plots of almost-bare peat were restored by reprofiling (top 20 cm of peat pushed into ridges around the plot), rewetting (blocking a drainage ditch), adding plant fragments (mostly Sphagnum mosses) from the surface of a nearby bog and mulching with straw. One adjacent plot received no intervention. In June and September 2013 and 2014, vegetation cover was estimated in ten 50 x 50 cm quadrats in each plot and the donor bog.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Add mixed vegetation to peatland surface

    A replicated, controlled study in 2012–2014 in a historically mined bog in Estonia (Karofeld et al. 2016) found that plots sown with vegetation fragments developed greater cover of bryophytes and vascular plants than an unsown plot, and had plant communities more like the donor bog. After 1–2 years, sown plots had greater cover than an unsown plot of total bryophytes (52–65% vs 5%), Sphagnum mosses (50–54% vs 2%) and vascular plants (17–21% vs 12%). Sheathed cottongrass Eriophorum vaginatum and sedge Carex sp. were present in at least one sown plot (cover <1%), but not in the unsown plot. After two years, the overall plant community in sown plots was 40–67% similar to the donor bog, compared to 28–45% similarity between the unsown plot and donor bog. In spring 2012, three plots were sown with plant fragments (mostly Sphagnum mosses) from the surface of a nearby bog. One additional plot was not sown. All plots had been reprofiled (top 20 cm of peat pushed into ridges around the plot) and rewetted and were mulched with straw. In June and September 2013 and 2014, vegetation cover was estimated in ten 50 x 50 cm quadrats/plot.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

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

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 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