Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 11, Issue 1–2, pp 65–83

Hydrological processes in abandoned and restored peatlands: An overview of management approaches

  • J.S. Price
  • A.L. Heathwaite
  • A.J. Baird
Article

Abstract

Mined peatlands do not readily recover their hydrological function, mainly because the dominant peat-forming plant genus, Sphagnum, cannot easily reestablish on the degraded surface peat found on cutover sites. Drainage and removal of the acrotelm can result in surface subsidence of up to3.7 cm y-1 m-1 of peat shortly after drainage (compression), and long-term rates up to 0.3 cm y-1 m-1 (compression and oxidation). This can decrease the hydraulic conductivity by over 75%, and decrease thewater retention capacity and specific yield. In old abandoned systems, drainage ditches may continue to facilitate a significant seasonal water loss.Colonization of abandoned sites by trees may increase the evapotranspirative losses by as much as 25%, and interception losses can be as high as 32% of rainfall. Without natural or planned occlusion of ditches, some peatlands become drier over time. Blocking ditches may largely restore water balance components, although the hydrological regime requires years to stabilise sufficiently for Sphagnum recolonization, especially where residualpeat is well decomposed, having inadequate water storage capacity. Consequently,winter precipitation (Europe) and spring snowmelt (North America) are criticalrecharge periods. Over the long term, consolidation of the peat due to drainageand methane production (where drainage systems are blocked and soils reflooded)decreases hydraulic conductivity, thereby reducing lateral seepage losses. This may actually assist in Sphagnum recolonization. A regenerated cover ofSphagnum increases soil wetness and reduces water tension (increases pore-water pressure) in the substrate, thus ameliorating its own environment. However, natural recolonization and recovery of many hydrological and ecological processes may not occur, or may require many decades. Water management and selective plant reintroduction can accelerate this. Water management options such as blocking ditches, constructing bunds, reconfiguring the surface and managing microclimate have met with varying degrees of success. No standard management prescription can be made because each site presents unique challenges.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong, A.C. 2000. DITCH: A model to simulate field conditions in response to ditch levels managed for environmental aims. Agric. Ecosyst. & Envir. 77(3): 179–192.Google Scholar
  2. Baden, W. and Eggelsmann, R. 1968. The hydrologic budget of the highbogs in the Atlantic regions. Proceedings of the 3rd International Peat Congress, pp. 206–211, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, A.J. 1997. Field estimation of macropore functioning and surface hydraulic conductivity in a fen peat. Hydrol. Proc. 11: 287–295.Google Scholar
  4. Baird, A.J., Beckwith, C.W. and Heathwaite, A.L. 1997. Water movement in undamaged blanket peats. In: Tallis, J.H., Meade, R. and Hulme, P.D. (eds.), Blanket Mire Degradation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges, pp. 128–139, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  5. Baird, A.J., Mason, T. and Horn, D.P. 1998. Validation of a Boussinesq model of beach ground water behaviour. Marine Geol. 148: 55–69.Google Scholar
  6. Bay, R.R. 1969. Runoff from small peatland watersheds. J. Hydrol. 9: 90–102.Google Scholar
  7. 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. 133–140, International Peat Society/ Department of Biological Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Birdsall, K.R. 2001. Evapotranspiration from a Damaged Raised Mire: Water Table and Vegetation Control. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Boelter, D.H. 1965. Hydraulic conductivity of peats. Soil Sci. 100: 227–231.Google Scholar
  10. Boelter, D.H. 1972. Water table drawdown around an open ditch in organic soils. J. Hydrol. 15: 329–340.Google Scholar
  11. Boudreau, S. and Rochefort, L.L. 1998. Restoration of post-mined peatlands: Effect of vascular pioneer species on Sphagnum establishment. In: Malterer, T.J. Johnson, K. and Stewart, J. (eds.), Proc. International Peat Society, International Peat Symposium, Peatland Restoration and Reclamation: Techniques and Regulatory Considerations, pp. 39–43, Duluth, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  12. 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: 513–517.Google Scholar
  13. Burke, W. 1972. Aspects of the hydrology of blanket peat in Ireland. In: Unknown (eds.), Hydrology of Marsh Ridden Areas, pp. 171–183, Proceedings of the Minsk Symposium, UNESCOIAHS, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Burt, T.P., Heathwaite A.L. and Labadz, J.C. 1990. Runoff from peat covered catchments. In: Anderson, M.G. and Burt, T.P. (eds.), Process Studies in Hillslope Hydrology, pp. 463–501, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  15. Chason, D.B. and Siegel, D.I. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and related physical properties of peat, Lost River Peatland, Northern Minnesota. Soil Sci. 142: 91–99.Google Scholar
  16. Clymo, R.S. and Hayward, P.M. 1989. The Ecology of Sphagnum. In: Heal, O.W. Perkins, D.F and Brown, W.M. (eds.), Bryophyte Ecology, pp. 229–288, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  17. Conway, V.M. and Millar, A. 1960. The hydrology of some small peat-covered catchments in the N. Pennines. J. Inst.Water Engin. 14: 415–424.Google Scholar
  18. CSPMA, 2002. Canadian Peat Harvesting and the Environment, http://www.peatmoss.com/pmme3.html, Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association.Google Scholar
  19. Eggelsmann, R.R.F. 1988. Rewetting for protection and renaturation/ regeneration of peatland after or without peat winning. Proceedings of the Eighth International Peat Congress, Leningrad, 2, pp. 251–260.Google Scholar
  20. Eggelsmann, R. and Blankenburg, J. 1993. Moor und wasser – Leegmoorprojekt, Naturschutz Landschaftpfl. Niedersachs., Heft 29: 19–48.Google Scholar
  21. Famous. N.C., Spencer, M.S, and Nilsson, H. 1991. Revegetation patterns in harvested peatlands in central and eastern North America. In: Grubich, D.N. and Malterer, T.J. (eds.), Peat and Peatlands: The Resource and Its Utilization, pp. 48–66, Proceedings of the International Peat Symposium, Duluth.Google Scholar
  22. Ferland, C. and Rochefort, L. 1997. Restoration techniques for Sphagnum dominated peatlands. Can. J. Botany 75: 1110–1118.Google Scholar
  23. Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. 1979. Groundwater, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. p. 604.Google Scholar
  24. Giller, K.E. and Wheeler, B.D. 1988. Acidification and succession in a floodplain mire in the Norfolk Broadland, UK. J. Ecol. 76: 849–866.Google Scholar
  25. Gilman. K., 1994. Hydrology and Wetland Conservation. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, p. 101.Google Scholar
  26. Girard, M. 2000. The Natural Regeneration of Highly Disturbed Wetlands: Mined Peatlands of Southern Québec. M.Sc. Thesis. Département Geography, Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Gorham, E. 1991. Northern peatlands: Role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol. Appl. 1: 182–195.Google Scholar
  28. Groeneveld, E. 2002. Le polytrichum strictum comme stabilisateur de substrat et plant compagne pour les sphaignes dans la restauration des tourbières exploitées par aspiratuer. M.Sc. Thesis, Département de Phytologie, Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  29. Gottlich, Kh., Richard, K.-H., Kuntz, H., Eggelsmann, R., Gunther, J., Eichelsdorfer, D. and Briemle, G. 1993. Mire Utilization. In: Heathwaite, A.L. and Gotlich, Kh. (eds.), Mires: Processes, Exploitation and Conservation, pp. 417–484, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  30. Grosvernier, Ph., 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. and Robertson, R.A. (eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands, pp. 435–450, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  31. Hayward, P.M. and Clymo, R.S. 1982. Profiles of water content and pore size in Sphagnum peat and their relation to peat bog ecology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B215: 299–325.Google Scholar
  32. Heathwaite, A.L. 1991. Solute transfer from drained fen peat.Water, Air & Soil Poll. 55: 379–395.Google Scholar
  33. Heathwaite, A.L. 1993. Disappearing peat: regenerating peat? The impact of climate change on British peatlands. Geogr. J. 15: 203– 208.Google Scholar
  34. Heathwaite, A.L. 1994. Hydrological management of a cutover peatland. Hydrol. Proc. 8: 245–262.Google Scholar
  35. Heathwaite, A.L. 1995. The impact of disturbance on mire hydrology. In: Hughes, J.M.R. and Heathwaite, A.L. (eds.), Hydrology and Hydrochemistry of British Wetlands, pp. 401–417, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  36. Heathwaite, A.L., Eggelsmann, R. and Gottlich, Kh. 1993. Ecohydrology, mire drainage and mire conservation. In: Heathwaite, A.L. and Gotlich, Kh. (eds.), Mires: Processes, Exploitation and Conservation, pp. 417–484, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  37. Hoag, R.S. and Price, J.S. 1995. A field scale natural gradient solute transport experiment in peat at a Newfoundland blanket bog. J. Hydrol. 172: 171–184.Google Scholar
  38. Ingram, H.A.P. 1978. Soil layers in mires: Function and terminology. J. Soil Sci. 29: 224–227.Google Scholar
  39. Ingram, H.A.P. 1983. Hydrology. In: Gore, A.J.P. (ed.), Ecosystems of the World 4A: Moores: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor, pp. 67– 224, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Ingram, H.A.P. 1992. Introduction to the ecohydrology of mires in the context of cultural perturbation. In: Bragg, O.M., Hulme, P.D., Ingram, H.A.P. and Roberstson, R.A. (eds), Peatland Ecosystems and Man: An Impact Assessment, pp. 67–93, British Ecological Society/International Peat Society, Dundee.Google Scholar
  41. Ivanov, K.E. 1981.WaterMovement in Mirelands. Thomson, A. and Ingram. H.A.P. (Tr.) Academic Press, London, p. 276.Google Scholar
  42. Joosten, J.H.J. 1992. Bog regeneration in The Netherlands: A review. In: Bragg, O.M., Hulme, P.D., Ingram, H.A.P. and Roberstson, R.A. (eds), Peatland Ecosystems and Man: An Impact Assessment, pp. 367–373, British Ecological Society/International Peat Society, Dundee.Google Scholar
  43. Joosten, J.H.J. 1995. Time to regenerate: Long-term perspectives of raised bog regeneration with special emphasis on paleoecological studies. In: Wheeler, B.D. Shaw, S.C. Fojt, W. and Robertson R.A. (eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands, pp. 379–404. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  44. Lafleur, P.M. 1990. Evapotranspiration from sedge-dominated wetland surfaces. Aq. Botany 37: 341–353.Google Scholar
  45. Lambert, J.M., Jennings, J.N., Smith, C.T., Green, C. and Hutchinson, J.N. 1960. The Making of the Broads: A Reconsideration of Their Origin in the Light of New Evidence, Royal Geographical Society Research Series No. 3, Royal Geographical Society, London.Google Scholar
  46. LaRose, S., Price, J.S. and Rochefort, L. 1997. Rewetting of a cutover bog. Hydrological Assessment. Wetlands 17: 416–423.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Lavoie, C. and Rochefort, L. 1996. The natural vegetation of a harvested peatland in southern Québec: A spatial and dendroecological analysis. Ecoscience 3: 101–111.Google Scholar
  49. Lindsay, R. 1988. The raised mires of Britain: a conservation perspective. In: Fojt, W. and Meade, R. (eds), Cutover Lowland Raised Mires, pp. 15–21. Nature Conservancy Council publication No. 24, Peterborough.Google Scholar
  50. Marcoux, K. 2000. Les invasions biologiques: aide ou frein à la restauration des tourbières (Biological invasions: Do they Help or Impede Peatland Restoration?). M.Sc. Thesis, Université Laval, Québec.Google Scholar
  51. Mikulski, Z. and Lesniak, E. 1975. Hydrological research on a peatbog in the upper Suprasl basin. In: Hydrology of Marsh Ridden Areas, Proceedings of the Minsk Symposium, pp. 55–67, The UNESCO Press, Paris.Google Scholar
  52. Money, R.P. 1995. Re-establishment of a Sphagnum dominated flora on cut-over lowland raised mires. In: Wheeler, B.D. Shaw, S.C. Fojt, W. and Robertson, R.A. (eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands, pp. 405–422, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  53. Mulqueen, J. 1989. Hydrology and drainage of peatland. Envir. Geol. & Water Sci. 9: 15–22.Google Scholar
  54. Nicholson, I.A., Robertson, R.A. and Robinson, M. 1989. The effects of drainage on the hydrology of a peat bog. Int. Peat J. 3: 59–83.Google Scholar
  55. Okruszko, H. 1995. Influence of hydrological differentiation of fens on their transformation after dehydration and on possibilities for restoration. In: Wheeler, B.D. Shaw, S.C. Fojt, W. and Robertson, R.A. (eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands, pp. 113–120, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  56. Prevost, M., Belleau, P. and Plamondon, A.P. 1997. Substrate conditions in a treed peatland: Responses to drainage. Ecoscience 4: 543–544.Google Scholar
  57. Price, J.S. 1992. Blanket bog in Newfoundland: 2. Hydrological processes. J. Hydrol. 135: 103–119.Google Scholar
  58. Price, J.S. 1997. Soil moisture, water tension, and water table relationships in a managed cutover bog. J. Hydrol. 202: 21–32.Google Scholar
  59. Price, J.S. 1996. Hydrology and microclimate of a partly restored cutover bog, Québec. Hydrol. Proc. 10: 1263–1272.Google Scholar
  60. Price, J.S. 1998. Methods for restoration of a cutover peatland, Québec, Canada. In: Malterer, T.J., Johnson, K. and Stewart, J. (eds.), Proc. International Peat Society, International Peat Symposium, Peatland Restoration and Reclamation: Techniques and Regulatory Considerations, pp. 149–154, Duluth, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  61. Price, J.S., Rochefort, L. and Campeau, S. 2002. On the use of shallow basins to restore cutover peatlands: Hydrology. Restoration Ecology 10: 259–266.Google Scholar
  62. Price, J.S., Rochefort, L. and Quinty, F. 1998. Energy and moisture considerations on cutover peatlands: Surface microtopography, mulch cover and Sphagnum regeneration. Ecol. Engin. 10: 293– 312.Google Scholar
  63. Price, J.S. and Schlotzhauer, S.M. 1999. Importance of shrinkage and compression in determining water storage changes in peat: The case of a mined peatland. Hydrol. Proc. 13: 2591–2601.Google Scholar
  64. Price, J.S. and Whitehead, G. 2002. The influence of past and present hydrological conditions on Sphagnum recolonization and succession in a bloc-cut bog, Québec. Hydrol. Proc., accepted (August 2002).Google Scholar
  65. Price, J.S. and Whitehead, G. 2001. Developing hydrological thresholds for Sphagnum recolonization on an abandoned cutover bog. Wetlands 21: 32–42.Google Scholar
  66. Quinty, F. and Rochefort, L. 1997. Peatland restoration guide – Guide de restauration des tourbières. Québec, Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association, p. 21.Google Scholar
  67. Quinty, F. and Rochefort, L. 1996. Plant Reintroduction on a Harvested Peat Bog. Northern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management, pp. 133–145, CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  68. Ratcliffe, D. 1977. A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  69. Robinson, M. 1985. The hydrological effects of moorland gripping: a re-appraisal of the Moor House research. J. Envir. Manag. 21: 205–211.Google Scholar
  70. Rochefort, L. and Bastien, D. 1998. Réintroduction de sphaignes dans une tourbière exploitée et abandonnée: évaluation de divers moyens de protection contre la dessiccation. Ecoscience 5: 117– 127.Google Scholar
  71. Rochefort, L., Quinty, F., Campeau, S. Johnson, K.W., Vitt, D.H. and Malterer, T.J. this issue. North American approach to the restoration of Sphagnum dominated peatlands. Wetl. Ecol. & Manag.Google Scholar
  72. Romanov, V.V. 1968. Hydrophysics of Bogs. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, p. 299.Google Scholar
  73. Rothwell, R.L., Silins, U. and Hillman, G.R. 1996. The effects of drainage on substrate water content at several forested Alberta peatlands. Can. J. Forest Res. 26: 53–62.Google Scholar
  74. Sacot, C. and Rochefort, L. 1996. Tolèrance des sphaignes à la dessiccation. Cryptogamie, Bryologie et Lichenologie 17: 171–183.Google Scholar
  75. Schlotzhauer, S.M. and Price, J.S. 1999. Soil water flow dynamics in a managed cutover peat field, Québec: 1. Field and laboratory investigations. Water Res. Res. 35: 3675–3683.Google Scholar
  76. Schothorst, C.J. 1977. Subsidence of low moor peat soil in the western Netherlands. Geoderma 17: 265–291.Google Scholar
  77. Schothorst, C.J. 1982. Drainage and behaviour of peat soils. In: de Bakker, H. and van den Berg, M.W. (eds.), Proceedings off the Symposium on Peatlands Below Sea Level. ILRI Publication 30: 130–163. Institute of Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  78. Schouwenaars, J.M. 1993. Hydrological differences between bogs and bog relicts and consequences for bog restoration. Hydrobiologia 265: 217–224.Google Scholar
  79. Schouwenaars, J.M. 1990. A study on the evapotransiration of Molini caerulea and Sphagnum papilosum, using all weighable lysimeters. In: Schouwenaars, J.M. (ed.), Problem Oriented Research on Plant-Soil-Water Relations. PhD. Thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  80. Schouwenaars, J.M. 1988. The impact of water management on groundwater fluctuations in a disturbed bog relict. Agric. Water Manag. 14: 439–449.Google Scholar
  81. Schouwenaars, J.M. 1988a. Hydrological research in disturbed bogs and its role in decisions on water management in the Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Hydrology of Wetlands in Temperate and Cold Regions. Publications of the Academy of Finland 4/1988, Vol. 1: 170–177.Google Scholar
  82. Schouwenaars, J.M. and Vink, J.P.M. 1992. Hydrophysical properties of peat relicts in a former bog and perspectives (sic) for Sphagnum regrowth. Int. Peat J. 5: 15–28.Google Scholar
  83. Siegel, D.I., Reeve, A.S. Glaser, P.H. and Romanowicz, E.A. 1995. Climate-driven flushing of pore water in peatlands. Nature 374: 531–533.Google Scholar
  84. Smart, J. 1983. The Plant Ecology of Revegetated Peat Cuttings in Ombrotrophic Mires with Special Reference to Thorne Moors, South Yorkshire. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.Google Scholar
  85. Spieksma, J.F.M., Moors, E.J., Dolman, A.J. and Schouwenaars, J.M. 1997. Modelling evaporation demand from a drained and rewetted peatland. J. Hydrol. 199: 252–271.Google Scholar
  86. Spieksma, J.F.M. 1999. Changes in the discharge pattern of a cutover raised bog during rewetting. Hydrol. Proc. 13: 1233– 1246.Google Scholar
  87. Tallis, J.H. and Meade, R. 1997. Blanket mire degradation and management, In: Tallis, J.H., Meade, R. and Hulme, P.D. (eds.), Blanket Mire Degradation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges, pp. 212–216, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  88. Van Seters, T.E. and Price, J.S. 2001. The impact of peat harvesting and natural regeneration on the water balance of an abandoned cutover bog, Québec. Hydrol. Proc. 15: 233–248.Google Scholar
  89. Van Seters, T.E. and Price, J.S. 2002. Towards a conceptual model of hydrological change on an abandoned cutover bog, QÚébec. Hydrol. Proc. 16: 1965–1981.Google Scholar
  90. Van Wirdum, G. 1991. Vegetation and Hydrology of Floating Rich-Fens, doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  91. Vasander, H., Tuittila, E.-S., Lode, E., Lundin, L., Ilomets, M., Sallantaus, T., Heikkilä, R., Pitkänen, M.-L. and Laine, J. this issue. Restoration of peatlands in Northern Europe. Wetl. Ecol. & Manag.Google Scholar
  92. Verry, E.S. 1988. The hydrology of wetland and man's influence on it. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Hydrology of Wetlands in Temperate and Cold Regions, pp. 41–61, Academy of Finland, Joensuu.Google Scholar
  93. Waddington, J.M. and Warner, K.D. 2001. Atmospheric CO, sequestration in restored mined peatlands. Ecoscience 8: 359–368.Google Scholar
  94. Waddington, J.M. and Price, J.S. 2001. Effect of peatland drainage, harvesting, and restoration on atmospheric water and carbon exchange. Phys. Geogr. 21: 433–451.Google Scholar
  95. Wheeler, B.D. 1988. Chemical conditions and revegetation of cutover raised mires. In: Fojt, W. and Meade, R. (eds.),Cutover lowland raised mires. pp. 48–58. Nature Conservancy Council publication No. 24, Peterborough.Google Scholar
  96. Wheeler, B.D. 1999. Water and plants in freshwater wetlands. In: Baird, A.J. and Wilby, R.L. (eds.), Eco-Hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments, pp. 127–180, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  97. Wheeler, B.D. and Shaw, S.C. 1995. Restoration of Damaged Peatlands. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, p. 211.Google Scholar
  98. Whinam J., Hope, G.S., Clarkson, B.R., Buxton, R.P., Alspach, P.A. and Adam, P. this issue. Sphagnum in peatlands of Australia: Their distribution, utilization and management. Wetl. Ecol. & Manag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.S. Price
    • 1
  • A.L. Heathwaite
    • 2
  • A.J. Baird
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geography, and Wetlands Research CentreUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Sheffield Wetlands Research Centre (SWeRC), and Department of GeographyUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldU.K

Personalised recommendations