Reprofile/relandscape peatland (without planting)

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

20%
Harms

10%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Large scale relandscaping of a degraded peatland may create a more suitable environment for vegetation growth. In particular, local moisture levels could be raised by reprofiling the peat surface into basins (removing <30 cm of surface peat, and pushing this into ridges) or flat terraces (removing mounds that are too dry for colonization). Steep gully sides or eroding slopes can be reprofiled into shallower, more stable slopes.

Caution: Heavy machinery used for landscaping may churn and compress the peat soil, damaging its structure. Removing surface peat from bogs may expose fen peat, which has different chemical properties to bog peat and will not (in the short term) support bog vegetation (Lindsay & Clough 2016).

Key peatland types where this action may be appropriate: bogs, fens/fen meadows, tropical peat swamps.

Related actions: rewetting, without altering the level of the peat surface; removing upper layer of peat/soil with no other landscaping; reprofiling/relandscaping before planting.

_{Lindsay R.A. & Clough J. (2016) A review of the influence of ombrotrophic peat depth on the successful restoration of bog habitat. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 925.}

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of reprofiling/relandscaping peatlands (without planting) on peatland vegetation. The study was in degraded bogs (being restored as fens).
Plant community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Canada reported that after five years, reprofiled (and rewetted) bogs contained a different plant community to nearby natural fens.
Vegetation cover (1 study): The same study reported that after five years, reprofiled (and rewetted) bogs had lower vegetation cover (Sphagnum moss, other moss and vascular plants) than nearby natural fens.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A site comparison study in 2008–2014 in a historically mined bog in Quebec, Canada (Rochefort et al. 2016) reported that areas restored by creating terraces and embankments (and raising the water table) developed a different plant community to nearby natural fens, with less vegetation cover. These results were not tested for statistical significance. Note that the aim of this study was to create a fen, as the post-mining peat chemistry was more like a fen than a bog. Five years after intervention, the overall plant community composition of the restored areas was different from three nearby natural fens (data reported as a graphical analysis). In the restored areas, Sphagnum moss was absent (vs 15–25% in natural fens), other moss cover only 1% (vs 12–55%) and vascular plant cover only 24% (vs 59–86%). In winter 2009/2010, parts of a historically mined bog (abandoned for nine years) were reprofiled (pushing the top 30 cm of degraded peat into embankments) and rewetted (by blocking drainage ditches). The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions. Vegetation cover was estimated in 2008 (donor fen; in 16 quadrats along a transect) or 2014 (restored areas: in five 25 m² plots).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Rochefort L., LeBlanc M.-C., Bérubé V., Hugron S., Boudreau S. & Pouliot R. (2016) Reintroduction of fen plant communities on a degraded minerotrophic peatland. Canadian Journal of Botany, 94, 1041-1051.

Please cite as:

Taylor, N.G., Grillas, P. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Peatland Conservation. Pages 367-430 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Cover peatland with something other than mulch (without planting) Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Remove upper layer of peat/soil (without planting) Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	10	Synopsis Link