Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 49–62 | Cite as

Is rewetting enough to recover Sphagnum and associated peat-accumulating species in traditionally exploited bogs?

  • E. GonzálezEmail author
  • S. W. Henstra
  • L. Rochefort
  • G. E. Bradfield
  • M. Poulin
Original Paper

Abstract

When restoring ecosystems, the simple removal of stresses causing degradation may seem preferable over other more costly and time consuming approaches. However, some restoration techniques can be implemented at reasonable cost and with increased efficiency in certain cases. We examined the successional trajectories of vegetation within abandoned block-cut peatlands in a major peat-producing region of Eastern Canada to evaluate whether the use of rewetting as a restoration technique can assist in the recovery of a typical bog plant community dominated by Sphagnum compared to spontaneous recolonization alone. We surveyed a total of 55 trenches in 6 peatlands twice, ~25 and ~35 years after the cessation of peat extraction. Canonical ordinations evidenced a generalized process of afforestation during the decade studied, partially driven by agricultural drainage in the surrounding landscape. Plant communities were dominated by ericaceous shrubs that hampered the spontaneous recovery of a Sphagnum-dominated system typical of bogs in the short and medium-term. Three of the six peatlands surveyed were partially restored by blocking drainage ditches. There, we surveyed plant composition in rewetted (28) and non-rewetted (26) trenches and observed that rewetting mitigated the increase in tree dominance, decreased the dominance by ericaceous shrubs, and favored the spread of non-vascular species with a wet habitat preference (notably Sphagnum species from the Cuspidata section). We conclude that the use of low intervention restoration techniques in block-cut bogs, such as the blockage of former drainage ditches, can re-orient undesired vegetation trajectories driven by spontaneous recolonization alone.

Keywords

Ecosystem recovery Mires Ombrotrophic peatlands Partial redundancy analysis Vegetation change Wetland restoration Rehabilitation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Department of Natural Resources of New Brunswick, the Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association and its members. We would like to thank Stéphanie Boudreau for databank management. Thanks also to the members of the Peatland Ecology Research Group and the numerous students who assisted in field surveys and laboratory data management.

References

  1. Andersen R, Rochefort L, Landry J (2011) La chimie des tourbières du Québec: une synthèse de 30 années de données. Le Naturaliste Canadien 135:5–14Google Scholar
  2. Bonham CD (1989) Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell DR, Rochefort L, Lavoie C (2003) Determining the immigration potential of plants colonizing disturbed environments: the case of milled peatlands in Quebec. J Appl Ecol 40:78–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clements WH, Vieira NKM, Church SE (2010) Quantifying restoration success and recovery in a metal-polluted stream: a 17 year assessment of physicochemical and biological responses. J Appl Ecol 47:899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Desrochers A, Rochefort L, Savard JPL (1998) Avian recolonization of eastern Canadian bogs after peat mining. Can J Zool 76:989–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dray S, Dufour AB (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Statistical Softw 22:1–20Google Scholar
  7. Dray S, Legendre L, Blanchet G (2009) packfor: Forward selection with permutation (Canoco p. 46). R package version 0.0-7/r58. Available at: http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/sedar/
  8. Dufour S, Piégay H (2009) From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural references and focus on human benefits. River Res Appl 25:568–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Environment Canada (2013) Past Wheather. www.ec.gc.ca
  10. Farrell CA, Doyle GJ (2003) Rehabilitation of industrial cutaway Atlantic blanket bog in County Mayo, North-West Ireland. Wetlands Ecol Manag 11:21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fay E, Lavoie C (2009) The impact of birch seedlings on evapotranspiration from a mined peatland: an experimental study in Southern Québec, Canada. Mires Peat 5:1–7Google Scholar
  12. Gergel SA, Dixon MD, Turner MG (2002) Consequences of human-altered floods: levees, floods, and floodplain forests along the Wisconsin River. Ecol Appl 12:1755–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Girard M, Lavoie C, Thériault M (2002) The regeneration of a highly disturbed ecosystem: a mined peatland in Southern Québec. Ecosystems 5:274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. González E, Rochefort L, Boudreau S, Hugron S, Poulin M (2013) Can indicator species predict restoration outcomes early in the monitoring process? A case study with peatlands. Ecol Ind 32:232–238Google Scholar
  15. González E, Rochefort L, Poulin M (in press) Trajectories of plant recovery in block-cut peatlands 35 years after peat extraction. Appl Ecol Environ ResGoogle Scholar
  16. Graf M, Bérubé V, Rochefort L (2012) Restoration of peatlands after peat extraction. In: Vitt D, Bhatti J (eds) Restoration and reclamation of boreal ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs RJ, Hallett LM, Ehrlich PR, Mooney HA (2011) Intervention ecology: applying ecological science in the twenty-first century. Bioscience 61:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ketcheson SJ, Price JS (2011) The impact of peatland restoration on the site hydrology of an abandoned block-cut bog. Wetlands 31:1263–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Konvalinkova P, Prach K (2010) Spontaneous succession of vegetation in mined peatlands: a multi-site study. Preslia 82:423–435Google Scholar
  20. Laberge A (1993) D’un territoire inoccupé à un espace saturé. In: Laberge A (ed) Histoire de la Côte-du-Sud. Institut québécois de recherche sur la culture, Québec, pp 53–84Google Scholar
  21. Lavoie C, Rochefort L (1996) The natural revegetation of a harvested peatland in southern Quebec: a spatial and dendroecological analysis. Ecoscience 3:101–111Google Scholar
  22. Lavoie C, Saint-Louis A (1999) The spread of gray birch (Betula populifolia Marsh.) in Eastern Quebec: landscape and historical considerations. Can J Bot 77:859–868Google Scholar
  23. Lavoie C, Grosvernier P, Girard M, Marcoux K (2003) Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands: a useful restoration tool? Wetlands Ecol Manag 11:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Loydi A, Zalba SM, Distel RA (2012) Vegetation change in response to grazing exclusion in montane grasslands, Argentina. Plant Ecol Evol 145:313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McIver J, Starr L (2001) Restoration of degraded lands in the interior Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. For Ecol Manag 153:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oksanen J, Guillaume Blanchet F, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Wagner H (2011) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0–2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  29. Pellerin S, Lavoie C (2000) Peatland fragments of southern Quebec: recent evolution of their vegetation structure. Can J Bot 78:255–265Google Scholar
  30. Pellerin S, Lavoie C (2003) Reconstructing the recent dynamics of mires using a multitechnique approach. J Ecol 91:1008–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poulin M, Rochefort L, Quinty F, Lavoie C (2005) Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands in Eastern Canada. Can J Bot 83:539–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pouliot R, Rochefort L, Karofeld E (2011) Initiation of microtopography in revegetated cutover peatlands. Appl Veg Sci 14:158–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pouliot R, Rochefort L, Karofeld E (2012) Initiation of microtopography in revegetated cutover peatlands: evolution of plant species composition. Appl Veg Sci 15:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  35. Risi J, Brunette CE, Spence D, Girard H (1953) Étude chimique des tourbes du Québec. Service des laboratoires, Ministère des Mines du Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  36. Robroek BJM, van Ruijven J, Schouten GC, Breeuwer A, Crushell PH, Berendse F, Limpens J (2009) Sphagnum re-introduction in degraded peatlands: the effects of aggregation, species identity and water table. Basic Appl Ecol 10:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rochefort L (2000) Sphagnum—a keystone genus in habitat restoration. Bryologist 103:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rochefort L (2001a) Restauration écologique. In: Payette S, Rochefort L (eds) Écologie des tourbières du Québec-Labrador. Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, pp 449–504Google Scholar
  39. Rochefort L (2001b) Les Sphaignes. In: Payette S, Rochefort L (eds) Écologie des tourbières du Québec-Labrador. Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, pp 91–128Google Scholar
  40. Rochefort L, Quinty F, Campeau S, Johnson K, Malterer T (2003) North American approach to the restoration of Sphagnum dominated peatlands. Wetlands Ecol Manag 11:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rochefort L, Lode E (2006) Restoration of degraded boreal peatlands. In: Wieder RK, Vitt DH (eds) Boreal peatland ecosystems, Berlin edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 381–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rochefort L, Isselin-Nondedeu F, Poulin M, Boudreau S (2013) Comparing survey methods for monitoring vegetation change throughtime in a restored peatland. Wetlands Ecol Manag 21:71–85Google Scholar
  43. Rood SB, Gourley CR, Ammon EM, Heki LG, Klotz JR, Morrison ML, Mosley GD, Scoppettone GG, Swanson S, Wagner PL (2003) Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. Bioscience 53:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sjörs H (1952) On the relation between vegetation and electrolytes in north Swedish mire waters. Oikos 2:241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smart PJ, Wheeler BD, Willis AJ (1989) Revegetation of peat excavations in a derelict raised bog. New Phytol 111:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smolders AJP, Tomassen HBM, van Mullekon M, Lamers LPM, Roefols JGM (2003) Mechanisms involved in the re-establishment of Sphagnum-dominated vegetation in rewetted bog remnants. Wetlands Ecol Manag 11:403–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soro A, Sundberg S, Rydin H (1999) Species diversity, niche metrics and species associations in harvested and undisturbed bogs. J Veg Sci 10:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stromberg JC, Beauchamp VB, Dixon MD, Lite SJ, Paradzick C (2007) Importance of low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid south-western United States. Freshw Biol 52:651–679Google Scholar
  49. Toth LA, van der Valk A (2012) Predictability of flood pulse driven assembly rules for restoration of a floodplain plant community. Wetlands Ecol Manag 20:59–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tuittila ES, Vasander H, Jukka L (2000a) Impact of rewetting on the vegetation of a cut-away peatland. Appl Veg Sci 3:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tuittila ES, Rita H, Vasander H, Laine J (2000b) Vegetation patterns around Eriophorum vaginatum L. tussocks in a cut-away peatland in southern Finland. Can J Bot 78:47–58Google Scholar
  52. Tuittila ES, Vasander H, Laine J (2003) Success of re-introduced Sphagnum in a cut-away peatland. Boreal Environ Res 8:245–250Google Scholar
  53. Van Seters TE, Price JS (2001) The impact of peat harvesting and natural regeneration on the water balance of an abandoned cutover bog, Québec. Hydrol Processes 15:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Warner BG, Buteau P (2002) The early peat industry in Canada, 1864–1945. Geosci Can 27:57–66Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. González
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. W. Henstra
    • 2
  • L. Rochefort
    • 1
  • G. E. Bradfield
    • 2
  • M. Poulin
    • 1
  1. 1.Peatland Ecology Research Group and Centre d’Études NordiquesUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations