Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change type of livestock We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of changing livestock type. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1736https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1736Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:21:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of livestock grazing We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of changing the season or timing of livestock grazing. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1737https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1737Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:22:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Backfill trenches dug for pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of backfilling pipeline trenches. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1740https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1740Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:24:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt ecotourism principles/create an ecotourism site We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adopting ecotourism principles or creating an ecotourism site. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1755https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1755Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:33:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fire breaks We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of building fire breaks. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1766https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1766Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:40:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of cutting/mowing Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of mowing or cutting in different seasons. One study was in a fen meadow and one was in a peatland with mixed vegetation. Plant community composition (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, before-and after study in a fen meadow in the UK reported that changes in plant community composition were typically similar in spring-, summer- and autumn-mown plots. However, one study in a peatland in the Netherlands reported that summer- and winter-mown areas developed cover of different plant community types. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, before-and after study in a fen meadow in the UK found that plant species richness increased more, over two years, in summer-mown plots than spring- or autumn-mown plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1771https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1771Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:42:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean waste water before it enters the environment One study evaluated the effect, on peatland vegetation, of cleaning waste water before it enters the environment. The study was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a floating fen in the Netherlands found that after input water began to be cleaned (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased. Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study found that after input water began to be cleaned (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), vascular plant biomass decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1778https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1778Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:13:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime to reduce acidity and/or increase fertility One study evaluated the effects of liming (without planting) on peatland vegetation. The study was in a fen meadow. N.B. Liming is considered in different contexts here and here. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a fen meadow in the Netherlands found that liming increased overall vegetation biomass (mostly grass). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1790https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1790Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:18:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add water to peatlands to compensate for drought We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding water to peatlands to compensate for drought. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1792https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1792Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:19:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build barriers to protect peatlands from the sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of building barriers to protect peatlands from seawater damage. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1794https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1794Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:19:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt voluntary agreements to protect peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland habitats, of adopting voluntary agreements to protect them. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1798https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1798Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow sustainable use of peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland habitats, of allowing sustainable use. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1801https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1801Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:28:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury upper layer of peat/soil (without planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of burying the upper layer of peat or soil (without planting afterwards). ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1810https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1810Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add inorganic fertilizer (without planting) Three studies evaluated the effects of adding inorganic fertilizer (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Two studies were in bogs and one was in a fen meadow. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in New Zealand reported that fertilizing typically increased total vegetation cover. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen meadow in the Netherlands found that fertilizing with phosphorous typically increased total above-ground vegetation biomass, but other chemicals typically had no effect. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in New Zealand reported that fertilizing typically increased plant species richness. Growth (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany found that fertilizing with phosphorous typically increased herb and shrub growth rate, but other chemicals had no effect. Other (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies in a fen meadow in Germany and bogs in Germany and New Zealand reported that effects of fertilizer on peatland were more common when phosphorous was added, than when nitrogen or potassium were added. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1812https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1812Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:37:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build artificial bird perches to encourage seed dispersal One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of building artificial bird perches. The study was in a tropical peat swamp. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia found that artificial bird perches had no significant effect on seedling abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1817https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1817Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:44:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add mosses to peatland surface Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of adding mosses or moss fragments onto peatland surfaces. Eleven were in bogs and two in were in fens. One study was a continuation of an earlier study. Three of the studies involved sowing moss in gel beads. Sphagnum moss cover (12 studies): Eleven studies in bogs in the UK, Canada, Finland and Germany and fens the USA reported that Sphagnum moss was present, after 1–4 growing seasons, in at least some plots sown with Sphagnum. Cover ranged from negligible to >90%. Six of these studies were controlled and found that Sphagnum cover or abundance was higher in sown than unsown plots. One of the studies reported that Sphagnum only survived in one of three sites, and only when plots were mulched. One additional study in Canada found that adding Sphagnum to bog pools did not affect Sphagnum Other moss cover (4 studies): Four studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in Canada and fens in Sweden and the USA reported that mosses or bryophytes other than Sphagnum were present, after 2–3 growing seasons, in at least some plots sown with moss fragments. Cover ranged from negligible to 76%. In the fens in Sweden and the USA, moss cover was low (<1%) unless the plots were mulched, shaded or limed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1821https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1821Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:45:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add mixed vegetation to peatland surface Eighteen studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of spreading mixed vegetation onto the peatland surface. All 18 studies were in bogs (two being restored as fens). One study was a continuation of an earlier study. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a degraded bog in Canada found that adding fen vegetation increased the number and cover of fen-characteristic plant species. Sphagnum moss cover (17 studies): Seventeen replicated studies (five also randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in Canada, the USA and Estonia reported that Sphagnum moss was present, after 1–6 growing seasons, in at least some plots sown with vegetation containing Sphagnum. Cover ranged from <1 to 73%. Six of the studies were controlled and found that Sphagnum cover was higher in sown than unsown plots. Five of the studies reported that Sphagnum cover was very low (<1%) unless plots were mulched after spreading fragments. Other moss cover (8 studies): Eight replicated studies (seven before-and-after, one controlled) in bogs in Canada, the USA and Estonia reported that mosses or bryophytes other than Sphagnum were present, after 1–6 growing seasons, in at least some plots sown with mixed peatland vegetation. Cover was <1–65%. Vascular plant cover (10 studies): Ten replicated studies in Canada, the USA and Estonia reported that vascular plants appeared following addition of mixed vegetation fragments to bogs. Two of the studies were controlled: one found that vascular plant cover was significantly higher in sown than unsown plots, but one found that sowing peatland vegetation did not affect herb cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1822https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1822Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:45:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime (before/after planting) Six studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of liming areas planted with peatland plants. Four studies involved fen plants, one involved bog plants and one involved peat swamp plants. Two of the studies were in greenhouses/nurseries. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that liming typically reduced survival of planted fen herbs after two growing seasons. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Sweden found that liming increased survival of planted fen mosses over one growing season. Growth (3 studies): Two controlled, before-and-after studies found that liming did not increase growth of planted peatland vegetation. Liming reduced or had no effect on Sphagnum moss growth in bog pools in the UK, and reduced growth rates for the majority of peat swamp tree seedlings in a nursery in Indonesia. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Sweden found that liming increased growth of planted fen mosses. Cover (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in Sweden found that liming increased cover of sown mosses. However, one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a bog in Canada found that liming plots sown with fen vegetation fragments had no effect on total vegetation, vascular plant or bryophyte cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1825https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1825Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:50:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting) Nine studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding inorganic fertilizer to areas planted with peatland plants. Eight studies were in bogs (two being restored as fens). One study was in a tropical peat swamp nursery. Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in bogs in Canada examined the effect, on plant survival, of adding inorganic fertilizer to areas planted with peatland plants. One study reported that fertilizer increased survival of two planted tree species. The other study found that fertilizer had no effect on three planted tree species and reduced survival of one. Growth (6 studies): Five studies (three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in bogs in the UK, Germany and Canada found that fertilizer typically increased growth of planted mosses, herbs or trees. However, for some species or in some conditions, fertilizer had no effect on growth. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in a nursery in Indonesia found that fertilizer typically had no effect on growth of peat swamp tree seedlings. Cover (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies examined the effect, on vegetation cover, of fertilizing areas planted with peatland plants. One study in a bog in Canada found that fertilizer increased total vegetation, vascular plant and bryophyte cover. Another study in a bog (being restored as a fen) in Canada found that fertilizer increased sedge cover but had no effect on total vegetation cover, total herb cover or Sphagnum moss cover. One study in a bog in New Zealand reported that fertilizer typically increased cover of a sown shrub and rush, but this depended on the chemical in the fertilizer and preparation of the peat. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1826https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1826Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:50:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add organic fertilizer (before/after planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding organic fertilizer to areas planted with peatland plants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1827https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1827Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:51:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of burying the upper layer of peat or soil before planting peatland plants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1836https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1836Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add fresh peat to peatland (before planting) One study evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding fresh peat before planting peatland plants. The study was in a bog. Cover (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog New Zealand reported that plots amended with fine peat supported higher cover of two sown plant species than the original (tilled) bog surface. However, for one species fertilization cancelled out this effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1837https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1837Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add root-associated fungi to plants (before planting) Three studies evaluated the effects of adding root-associated fungi to planted peatland vegetation. All three studies involved peat swamp tree seedlings: two in the wild and one in a nursery. Survival (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, paired, before-and-after) in peat swamps in Indonesia found that adding root fungi did not affect survival of planted red balau or jelutong in all or most cases. However, one fungal treatment increased red balau survival in one study. Growth (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies (one also paired) of peat swamp trees in Indonesia found that adding root fungi to seedlings had no effect on growth: for red balau and jelutong or the majority of 15 tested species. However, one controlled study in Indonesia found that adding root fungi increased growth of red balau seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1841https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1841Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt zero burning policies near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adopting zero burning policies near peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1856https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1856Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:54:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild herbivores We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of controlling populations of wild herbivores. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1861https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1861Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:17:42 +0000
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