Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 11, Issue 1–2, pp 3–20 | Cite as

North American approach to the restoration of Sphagnum dominated peatlands

  • Line Rochefort
  • François Quinty
  • Suzanne Campeau
  • Kurt Johnson
  • Thomas Malterer


Sphagnum dominated peatlands do not rehabilitate well after being cutover (mined) for peat and some action needs to be taken in order to restore these sites within a human generation. Peatland restoration is recent and has seen significant advances in the 1990s. A new approach addressing the North American context has been developed and is presentedin this paper. The short-term goal of this approach is to establish a plant cover composed of peat bog species and to restore a water regime characteristic of peatland ecosystems. The long-term objective is to return the cutover areas to functional peat accumulating ecosystems. The approach developed for peatland restoration in North America involves the following steps: 1)field preparation, 2) diaspore collection, 3) diaspore introduction, 4) diaspore protection, and 5) fertilization. Field preparation aims at providing suitable hydrological conditions for diaspores through creation of microtopography and water retention basins, re-shaping cutover fields and blocking ditches. It is site specific because it depends largely onlocal conditions. The second step is the collection of the top 10 centimetres of the living vegetation in a natural bog as a source of diaspores. It is recommended to use a ratio of surface collected to surface restored between 1: 10 and 1: 15 in order to minimize the impact on natural bogs and to insure rapid plant establishment in less than four years. Diaspores are then spread as a thin layer on the bare peat surfaces to be restored. It has been demonstrated that too scant or too thick a layer decreases plant establishment success. Diaspores are then covered by a straw mulch applied at a rate of 3 000 kg ha-1 which provides improved water availabilityand temperature conditions. Finally, phosphorus fertilization favours more rapid substrate colonization by vascular plants, which have been shown to help stabilize the bare peat surface and act as nurse plants to the Sphagnum mosses.

bog ecological engineering mire peat moss rehabilitation revegetation technique 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beets, C.P. 1992. The relation between the area of open water in bog remnants and storage capacity with resulting guidelines for bog restoration. In: Bragg, O.M., Hulme, P.D., Ingram, H.A.P. and Robertson, R.A. (eds.), Peatland Ecosystems and Man: An Impact Assessment. pp. 133–139. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Dundee, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Boudreau, S. and Rochefort, L. 1999. Établissement de sphaignes réintroduites sous diverses communautés végétales recolonisant les tourbières après l'exploitation. Écologie 30 (1): 53–62.Google Scholar
  3. Brakenhielm, S. and Qinghong, L. 1995. Comparison of field methods in vegetation monitoring. Water, Air, and Soil Poll. 79: 75–87.Google Scholar
  4. Bugnon, J.L., Rochefort, L. and Price, J.S. 1997. Field experiment of Sphagnum reintroduction on a dry abandoned peatland in eastern Canada. Wetlands 17(4): 513–517.Google Scholar
  5. Campeau, S. and Rochefort, L. 1996. Sphagnum regeneration on bare peat surfaces: field and greenhouse experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 599–608.Google Scholar
  6. Chirino, C.C. and Rochefort, L. 2000. Comportement des sphaignes en phase d'établissement dans une tourbière résiduelle / Establishment response of four Sphagnum species on cutover peatland. In: Rochefort, L. and Daigle, J.-Y. (eds.), Sustaining our Peatlands. Proceedings of the 11th International Peat Congress. Québec City, Canada. August 6–12, 2000. Vol. lI. pp. 694–698.Canadian Society of Peat and Peatlands and International Peat Society, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Clymo, R.S. and Duckett, J.G. 1986. Regeneration of Sphagnum. New Phytol. 102: 589–614.Google Scholar
  8. Crum, H. 1988. A Focus on Peatlands and Peat Mosses. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Harbor, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Desrochers, A., Savard, J.P.L. and Rochefort, L. 1998. Avian recolonization in eastern Canadian bogs after peat mining. Can. J. Zool. 76: 989–997.Google Scholar
  10. Ferland, C. and Rochefort, L. 1997. Restoration techniques for Sphagnum-dominated peatlands. Can. J. Bot. 75: 1110–1118.Google Scholar
  11. Grosvernier, P. Matthey, Y. and Buttler, A. 1995. Microclimate and physical properties of peat: New clues to the understanding of bog restoration processes. In: Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S.C., Fojt, W.J. and Robertson, R.A. (eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. pp. 435–449.John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Grosvernier, P., Matthey, Y. and Buttler, A. 1997. Growth of three Sphagnum species in relation to water table level and peat properties with implications for their restoration in cut-over bogs. J. Appl. Ecol. 34: 471–483.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, K.W. and Maly, C.C. 1998. Greenhouse studies of Sphagnum papillosum for commercial harvest and peatland restoration in Minnesota. In: Malterer, T.J., Johnson, K.W. and Stewart, J. (eds.), Peatland Restoration and Reclamation. Techniques and Regulatory Considerations. Proceedings of the 1998 International Peat Symposium, Duluth 14–18 July 1998. pp. 49–55. International Peat Society, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, K.W., Maly, C.C. and Malterer, T.J. 2000. Effects of mulch, companion species, and planting time on restoration of post-harvested Minnesota peatlands, U.S.A. In: Rochefort, L. and Daigle, J.-Y. (eds.), Sustaining our Peatlands. Proceedings of the 11th International Peat Congress. Québec City, Canada. August 6–12, 2000. Vol. II. pp. 699–704. Canadian Society of Peat and Peatlands and International Peat Society. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  15. LaRose, S., Price, J.S. and Rochefort, L. 1997. Rewetting of a cutover peatland: hydrologic assessment.Wetlands 17: 416–423.Google Scholar
  16. Lavoie, C., Grosvernier, P., Girard, M. and Marcoux, K. (this issue). Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands: an useful restoration tool? Wetl. Ecol. & Manag.Google Scholar
  17. Milliken, G.A. and Johnson, D.E. 1989. Analysis of Messy Data. Volume 1: Designed experiments. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA. 473 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Money, R.P. 1995. Re-establishment of a Sphagnum-dominated flora on cut-over lowland raised bogs. In: Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S.C., Fojt, W.J. and Robertson, R.A. (eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. pp. 405–422. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Money, R.P. and Wheeler, B.D. 1999. Some critical questions concerning the restorability of damaged raised bogs. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2: 107–116.Google Scholar
  20. National Wetland Working Group (NWWG). 1988. Wetlands of Canada. Ecological land classification series, No. 24. Environment Canada and Polyscience Publications Inc. Ottawa, Ontario. 452 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Paavilainen, E. and Päivänen, J. 1995. Peatland Forestry. Ecology and Principles. Series Ecological Studies, Vol. 111. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA. 248 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Poschlod, P. and Pfadenhauer, J. 1989. Regeneration of vegetative parts of peat mosses – A comparative study of nine Sphagnum species. Telma 19: 77–88.Google Scholar
  23. Price, J.S., Rochefort, L. and Campeau, S. (2002). On the use of shallow trenches to restore cutover peatlands: 1. Hydrology. Restoration Ecology 10: 259–266.Google Scholar
  24. Price, J.S., Heathwaite, A.L. and Baird, A. (this issue). Hydrological processes in abandoned and restored peatlands. Wetl. Ecol. & Manag.Google Scholar
  25. Price, J.S., Rochefort, L. and Quinty, F. 1998. Energy and moisture considerations on cutover peatlands: surface microtopography, mulch cover and Sphagnum regeneration. Ecol. Eng. 10: 293– 312.Google Scholar
  26. Proctor, M.C.F. 1992. Regional and local variation in the chemical composition of ombrogenous mire waters in Britain and Ireland. J. Ecol. 80: 719–736.Google Scholar
  27. Quinty, F. and Rochefort, L. 1997. Plant reintroduction on a harvested peat bog. In: Trettin, C.C., Jurgensen, M.F., Grigal, D.F., Gale, M.R. and Jeglum, J.K. (eds.), Northern Forested Wetlands. pp. 133–145. Lewis publishers, Boca Raton, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Rochefort, L. 2000. Sphagnum – A keystone genus in habitat restoration. The Bryologist 103: 503–508.Google Scholar
  29. Rochefort, L. and Bastien, D. 1998. Réintroduction de sphaignes dans une tourbière exploitée: Évaluation de divers moyens de protection contre la dessiccation. Écoscience 5: 117–127.Google Scholar
  30. Rochefort, L. and Campeau, S. (in press). Does prolonged flooding prevent or enhance regeneration and growth of Sphagnum? Aquatic Botany.Google Scholar
  31. Rochefort, L., Gauthier, R. and LeQuéré, D. 1995. Sphagnum regeneration Towards an optimisation of bog restoration. In: Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S.C., Fojt, W.J. and Robertson, R.A. (eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. pp. 423–434. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  32. Rochefort, L., Quinty, F. and Campeau, S. 1997. Restoration of peatland vegetation: The case of damaged or completely removed acrotelm. Int. Peat J. 7: 20–28.Google Scholar
  33. Rochefort, L., Vitt, D.H. and Bailey, S.E. 1990. Growth, production and decomposition dynamics of Sphagnum under natural and experimental acidified conditions. Ecology 71: 1986–2000.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, N.J., Blad, B.L. and Verma, S.B. 1983. Microclimate: The Biological Environment, 2nd edn., John Wiley & Sons, 495 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Rudolph, H., Kirchhoff, M. and Gliesmann, S. 1988. Sphagnum culture techniques. In: Glime J.M. (ed.), Methods in Bryology. Proceedings of the Bryological Methods Workshop, Mainz. pp 25–34. Hattori Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, Japan.Google Scholar
  36. Sagot, C. and Rochefort, L. 1996. Tolérance des sphaignes à la dessiccation. Cryptogamie, Bryologie et Lichénologie 17: 171–183.Google Scholar
  37. Salonen, V. 1992. Effects of artificial plant cover on plant colonization of a bare peat surface. J. Veg. Sci. 3: 109–112.Google Scholar
  38. Salonen, V. and Laaksonen, M. 1994. Effects of fertilization, liming, watering and tillage on plant colonization of bare peat surfaces. Annales Botanici Fennici 31: 29–36.Google Scholar
  39. Speight, M.C.D. and Blackith, R.E. 1983. The animals. In: Gore, A.J.P. (ed.), Ecosystems of the World. Vol. 4: Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor. pp. 349–365. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. van Breemen, N. 1995. How Sphagnum bogs down other plants. Tree 10 (7 July).Google Scholar
  41. Wheeler, B.D. and Shaw, S.C. 1995. Restoration of Damaged Peatlands. Department of the Environment, Her Majesty Stationary Office, London.Google Scholar
  42. Wind-Mulder, H.L., Rochefort, L. and Vitt, D.H. 1996. Water and peat chemistry comparisons of natural and post-harvested peatlands across Canada and their relevance to peatland restoration. Ecol. Enging. 7: 161–181.Google Scholar
  43. Wind-Mulder, H.L. and Vitt, D.H. 2000. Comparisons of water and peat chemistries of a postharvested and undisturbed peatland with relevance to restoration. Wetlands 20(4): 616–628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Line Rochefort
    • 1
  • François Quinty
    • 1
  • Suzanne Campeau
    • 1
  • Kurt Johnson
    • 2
  • Thomas Malterer
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre d'Études Nordiques and Groupe de Recherche en Écologie des TourbièresUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Natural Resources Research InstituteUniversity of MinnesotaDuluthU.S.A

Personalised recommendations