Action

Irrigate peatland (without planting)

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    55%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    1%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of irrigation (without planting) on peatland vegetation. One study was in a bog and one was in a fen.
  • Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that irrigation increased the number of Sphagnum moss shoots present after one growing season, but had no effect after two. One before-and-after study in Germany reported that an irrigated fen was colonized by wetland- and fen-characteristic herbs, whilst cover of dryland grasses decreased.

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

  1. A replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1993–1994 in a historically mined bog in Quebec, Canada (Rochefort & Bastien 1998) found that irrigated plots contained more Sphagnum moss shoots than unirrigated plots after one growing season, but a similar number of Sphagnum shoots after two. After one growing season there were more Sphagnum shoots in irrigated plots (210 shoots/m2) than plots that were not irrigated (75 shoots/m2). However, after two growing seasons the number of moss shoots did not significantly differ between treatments (irrigated: 80; not irrigated: 50 shoots/m2). In spring 1993, three pairs of plots were established on slightly drained, bare peat. Three plots (one plot/pair) were irrigated during the summer, using sprinklers and water stored on the bog. The other plots were not irrigated. In autumn 1993 and 1994, all Sphagnum shoots were counted in forty 30 x 30 cm quadrats/plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 1996–1998 in a degraded fen in Germany (Richert et al. 2000) reported that irrigated plots developed cover of wetland- and fen-characteristic herbs at the expense of dry grassland species. All data were reported as graphical analyses and the results were not tested for statistical significance. Over two years of irrigation, cover of fen-characteristic forbs increased. The same was true for cover of wetland-characteristic species like cattail Typha latifolia and common rush Juncus effusus. Meanwhile, cover of dry grassland species such as tall fescue Festuca arundinacea decreased. No colonisation by sedges Carex spp. or common reed Phragmites australis was observed. Within the irrigated fen, plant communities differed between drier areas (high water table but never flooded) and wetter areas (sometimes flooded). In 1996, the surface of a drained fen was irrigated with lake water. Vegetation cover was recorded before irrigation (1996) and after one or two years or irrigation (1997, 1998) in four representative 16 m2 plots.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor N.G., Grillas P. & Sutherland W.J. (2019) Peatland Conservation. Pages 375-438 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Peatland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation
Peatland Conservation

Peatland Conservation - Published 2018

Peatland Conservation

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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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