Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Individual study: Evaluation of impacts of management in an anthropogenic peatland using field and remote sensing data

Published source details

Cabezas J., Galleguillos M., Valdés A., Fuentes J.P., Pérez C. & Perez-Quezada J.F. (2015) Evaluation of impacts of management in an anthropogenic peatland using field and remote sensing data. Ecosphere, 6, 1-24


This study is summarised as evidence for the intervention(s) shown on the right. The icon shows which synopsis it is relevant to.

Legally protect peatlands Peatland Conservation

A site comparison study in 2014 in a peatland in Chile (Cabezas et al. 2015) found that a protected area had greater vegetation cover and taller vegetation, but lower vascular plant richness and diversity, than an adjacent grazed and harvested area. The protected area had greater cover than the unprotected area of total vegetation (87 vs 62%), herbs (68 vs 51%) and shrubs (19 vs 11%) and contained taller vegetation (65 vs 13 cm). The protected area had lower vascular plant species richness than the unprotected area (7 vs 11 species/4 m2) and lower diversity (reported as a diversity index), but also contained fewer non-native species (<0.1 vs 1.9 species/4 m2). In 2014, vegetation cover and height were recorded in forty-four 2 x 2 m quadrats. Fifteen quadrats were in a protected part of a peatland (5.5 ha owned by a research station, fenced to exclude livestock for eight years and with no moss harvesting for at least 20 years). Twenty-nine quadrats were in an unprotected part (10.5 ha, grazed by four oxen and harvested every month).

(Summarised by Nigel Taylor)

Exclude or remove livestock from degraded peatlands Peatland Conservation

A site comparison study in 2014 in a peatland in Chile (Cabezas et al. 2015) found that a protected area (fenced to exclude livestock and where moss harvesting was prohibited) had greater vegetation cover and taller vegetation, but lower vascular plant richness and diversity, than an adjacent unprotected (grazed and harvested) area. The protected area had greater cover than the unprotected area of total vegetation (87 vs 62%), herbs (68 vs 51%) and shrubs (19 vs 11%) and contained taller vegetation (65 vs 13 cm). The protected area had lower vascular plant species richness than the unprotected area (7 vs 11 species/4 m2) and lower diversity (reported as a diversity index), but also contained fewer non-native species (<0.1 vs 1.9 species/4 m2). In 2014, vegetation cover and height were recorded in forty-four 2 x 2 m quadrats. Fifteen quadrats were in 5.5 ha of protected peatland, fenced to exclude oxen for eight years and with no moss harvesting for at least 20 years. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions. Twenty-nine quadrats were in 10.5 ha of unprotected peatland, grazed by four oxen and harvested monthly.

(Summarised by Nigel Taylor)