Study

Rapid recovery of invertebrate communities after ecological restoration of boreal mires

  • Published source details Noreika N., Kotiaho J.S., Penttinen J., Punttila P., Vuori A., Pajunen T., Autio O., Loukola O.J. & Kotze D.J. (2015) Rapid recovery of invertebrate communities after ecological restoration of boreal mires. Restoration Ecology, 23, 566-579.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore or create peatland

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Restore or create peatland

    A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2007 in nine boreal mires in Central Finland and Northern Karelia, Finland (Noreika et al. 2015, same experimental set-up as 5) found that mires restored by ditch-filling and tree cutting had moth communities which were intermediate between those found on drained and pristine mires. One–three years after restoration, the moth community on restored mires was intermediate between the communities found on drained and pristine mires (data presented as model results). One of three mire specialist micro-moths (rush marble Bactra lancealana) and one of two specialist macro-moths (Manchester treble-bar Carsia sororiata) were more numerous in restored than drained sites, but were most abundant in pristine sites. However, one specialist micro-moth (Crambus alienellus) and one specialist macro-moth (Arichanna melanaria) were more abundant in the drained sites than restored sites. A third specialist micro-moth (pearl-band grass-veneer Catoptria margaritella) did not differ in abundance between restored, drained and pristine sites (see paper for details). In the 1960s and 1970s, parts of nine mires were drained for forestry. From 2003–2006, some drained areas were restored by filling ditches with peat, damming the ends with logs and peat, and cutting trees. Each mire also contained a pristine, undrained area. In 2007, moths were sampled along two 250-m transects in each restored, drained and pristine area (six transects/mire). From May–August, micro-moths were sampled weekly using 100 sweeps/transect of a 28-cm diameter net at all nine mires. From May–July, macro-moths were counted weekly along each transect at five of the mires.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

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

    A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2003–2007 in nine bogs and fens in Finland (Noreika et al. 2015) reported that areas restored by tree thinning and rewetting had moss cover and tree structure intermediate between degraded (forested and drained) and natural (sparse trees, never drained) areas. After 1–3 years, restored areas had greater Sphagnum moss cover but less cover of other mosses than degraded areas, but less Sphagnum moss cover and greater cover of other mosses than natural areas. Restored areas had fewer tall trees (>3 m) than degraded areas, but more tall trees than natural areas. All data were reported as graphical analyses and differences were not tested for statistical significance. Between 2003 and 2006, in each of nine degraded peatlands, one area was managed by removing excess trees (above the natural tree density) and blocking drainage ditches. In each peatland, one degraded and one pristine area were also monitored. In 2007, vegetation cover was visually estimated in twenty-four 1 m2 quadrats/area (72 quadrats/peatland). Trees were counted and measured in six 100 m2 plots/area (18 plots/peatland). This study was based on the same experimental set-up as (11).

    (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