Study

Ditch restoration in a large Northern Michigan fen: vegetation response and basic porewater chemistry

  • Published source details Bess J.A., Chimner R.A. & Kangas L.C. (2014) Ditch restoration in a large Northern Michigan fen: vegetation response and basic porewater chemistry. Ecological Restoration, 32, 260-274.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for peatland plants (without planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Introduce seeds of peatland herbs

Action Link
Peatland Conservation
  1. Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for peatland plants (without planting)

    A site comparison study in 2009–2011 in a fen in Michigan, USA (Bess et al. 2014) found that a ditch filled with peat spoil developed similar vegetation cover to undisturbed areas of the fen, but contained more plant species. After two years, the filled ditch and adjacent areas of undisturbed fen had similar cover of total vegetation (165 vs 180%), sedges (81 vs 80%), grasses (15 vs 10%), forbs (33 vs 20%) and bryophytes (29 vs 40%). However, there were more plant species in the filled ditch (49 species) than undisturbed fen (40 species). Results after one year were similar, except that the ditch had lower total vegetation cover than undisturbed fen (126 vs 188%) and lower bryophyte cover (18 vs 40%). In 2009, a ditch (dug in 2007 as a fire break) was filled with adjacent spoil (still moist and containing fen plant seeds). In 2010 and 2011, vegetation cover was recorded in sixty 1 m2 quadrats along the length of the ditch: 20 within it and 20 on either side. These were placed in areas not sown with additional seeds.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2009–2011 in a fen in Michigan, USA (Bess et al. 2014) found that plots sown with shrub (and herb) seeds developed more vegetation cover overall than unsown plots, but similar cover of all monitored plant groups and similar species richness. After two years, sown plots had greater total vegetation cover (214%) than unsown plots (165%). Cover of individual plant groups did not differ significantly between sown and unsown plots (although it tended to be higher in the former): shrubs (4 vs 4%), sedges (120 vs 81%), grasses (27 vs 15%), forbs (28 vs 33%), bryophytes (33 vs 29%). The same was true for plant species richness (45 vs 43 species across all quadrats). Patterns were similar, but cover lower, one year after intervention. In 2009, twenty pairs of 9 m2 plots were established, in a ditch recently refilled with seed-rich fen spoil. Twenty plots (one random plot/pair) were sown with a mixture of shrub and herb seeds. The other 20 plots were not sown. The study does not distinguish between the effects of sowing shrubs and herbs. In 2010 and 2011, vegetation cover was recorded in one 1 m2 quadrat/plot.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Introduce seeds of peatland herbs

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2009–2011 in a fen in Michigan, USA (Bess et al. 2014) found that plots sown with herb (and shrub) seeds developed more vegetation cover overall than unsown plots, but similar cover of all monitored plant groups and similar species richness. After two years, sown plots had greater total vegetation cover (214%) than unsown plots (165%). Cover of individual plant groups did not differ significantly between sown and unsown plots (although it tended to be higher in the former): sedges (120 vs 81%), grasses (27 vs 15%), forbs (28 vs 33%), mosses (33 vs 29%), shrubs (4 vs 4%). The same was true for plant species richness (45 vs 43 species across all quadrats). Patterns were similar, but cover lower, one year after intervention. In 2009, twenty pairs of 9 m2 plots were established, in a ditch recently refilled with seed-rich fen spoil. Twenty plots (one random plot/pair) were sown with a mixture of herb (grasses, rushes, sedges, forbs) and shrub seeds. The other 20 plots were not sown. The study does not distinguish between the effects of sowing herbs and shrubs. In 2010 and 2011, vegetation cover was recorded in one 1 m2 quadrat/plot.

    (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 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