Wetlands

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 28–39 | Cite as

Spontaneous revegetation of cutwaway peatlands of North America

Article

Abstract

Modern extraction methods permit peat to be extracted to the minerotrophic layer of ombrotrophic peatlands (bogs). As the environmental conditions of these harvested peatlands are similar to minerotrophic peatlands (fens), such sites should be restored towards a fen system. However, it is not known whether fen species would recolonize such harvested sites on their own. We surveyed vegetation and environmental variables in 28 harvested peatlands with minerotrophic residual peat across Canada and in Minnesota, USA, and compared them to 11 undisturbed fens. Compared to harvested bogs previously studied, the harvested fens sampled in this study revegetated remarkably quickly (50%–70% vegetation cover) when the hydrological conditions were suitable. However, revegetation was less extensive for sites that were still drained (25% vegetation cover). A high water table and a thin layer of residual peat were the most important factors contributing to rapid recolonization rates. Although the harvested fens were rapidly recolonized, species composition was not the same as observed on undisturbed fens. Carex and Sphagnum, dominant in undisturbed fens, generally did not recolonize harvested fens. Thus, whether the goal is to increase species richness or to ensure the return of peat accumulating functions, fen species may have to be actively introduced.

Key Words

fens milled peatlands restoration succession vacuum-harvest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Andersen, R., A.-J. Francez, and L. Rochefort. 2006. The physicochemical and microbial status of a restored bog in Québec: identification of relevant criteria to monitor success. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38: 1375–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. E. 1990. A checklist of Sphagnum in North America north of Mexico. Bryologist 93: 500–01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. E., H. A. Crum, and W. R. Buck. 1990. List of the mosses of North America north of Mexico. Bryologist 93: 448–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bedford, B. L. and K. S. Godwin. 2003. Fens of the United States: distribution, characteristics, and scientific connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands 23: 608–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogren, K. and S. Hofer. 2001. Determination of orthophosphate in Bray or Mehlich extracts of soils by flow injection analysis. In Zellweger Analytics Lachat Instruments. Methods Manual. Quick-Chem Method 12-115-01-1-A. Zellweger Analytics, Milwaukee, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Bradshaw, A. 2000. The use of natural processes in reclamation-advantages and difficulties. Landscape and Urban Planning 51: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray, R. L. and L. T. Kurtz. 1945. Determination of total organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science 59: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobbaert, D., L. Rochefort, and J. Price. 2004. Experimental restoration of a fen plant community after peat mining. Applied Vegetation Science 7: 209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, D. and L. MacDonald. 2000. Restoring the vegetation of mined peatlands in the southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado, USA. Restoration Ecology 8: 103–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Environment Canada. 2002. Canadian climate normals 1971–2000. Atmospheric Environment Service, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  11. Famous, N. C., M. Spencer, and H. Nilsson. 1991. Revegetation patterns in harvested peatlands in central and eastern North America. p. 48–66. In D. N. Grubich and T. J. Malterer (eds.) Peat and Peatlands: The Resource and its Utilization. Proceedings of the International Peat Symposium Duluth, Minnesota, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Girard, M., C. Lavoie, and M. Thériault. 2002. The regeneration of a highly disturbed ecosystem: a mined peatland in southern Québec. Ecosystems 5: 274–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorham, E. and J. A. Janssens. 1992. Concepts of fen and bog reexamined in relation to bryophyte cover and the acidity of surface waters. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 61: 7–20.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, S., S. J. Ross, and J. H. Lawton. 1992. Beta diversity on geographic gradients in Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 151–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, D., L. Kerschaw, and A. MacKinnon. 1995. Plants of the Western Boreal Forest and Aspen Parkland. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, AB, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhry, P., B. Nicholson, L. Gignac, D. Vitt, and S. E. Bayley. 1993. Development of Sphagnum-dominated peatlands in boreal continental Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 71: 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanta, V., J. Dolezal, and J. Samata. 2004. Vegetation patterns in a cut-away peatland in relation to abiotic and biotic factors: a case study from the Sumava Mts., Czech Republic. Suo 55: 33–43.Google Scholar
  19. Lavoie, C., P. Grosvernier, M. Girard, and K. Marcoux. 2003. Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands: a useful restoration tool? Wetlands Ecology and Management 11: 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavoie, C. and L. Rochefort. 1996. The natural revegetation of a harvested peatland in southern Québec: a spatial and dendroecological analysis. Écoscience 3: 101–11.Google Scholar
  21. Legendre, P. and E. Gallagher. 2001. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129: 271–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magurran, A. E. 2003. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
  23. Malterer, T. J., E. S. Verry, and J. Erjavec. 1992. Fiber content and degree of decomposition in peats: review of national methods. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56: 1200–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marie-Victorin, F. 1995. Flore Laurentinne (3éme Edition). Gaëtan Morin Éditeur, Boucherville, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Mehlich, A. 1984. Mehlich-3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich-2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 15: 1409–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Climatic Data Center. 2001. US climate normals, 1971–2000. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html.Google Scholar
  27. Newmaster, S., A. Harris, and L. Kershaw. 1996. Wetland Plants of Ontario. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, AB, Canada.Google Scholar
  28. O’Connell, C. (ed.). 2000. Cutover and Cutaway Bogs Education Pack. Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  29. Patzelt, A., U. Wild, and J. Pfadenhauer. 2001. Restoration of wet fen meadows by topsoil removal: vegetation development and germination biology of fen species. Restoration Ecology 9: 127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poulin, M., L. Rochefort, F. Quinty, and C. Lavoie. 2005. Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 83: 539–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prach, K., B. Sandor, P. Pysek, R. van Diggelen, and G. Wiegleb. 2001. The role of spontaneous vegetation succession in ecosystem restoration: a perspective. Applied Vegetation Science 4: 111–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Price, J., A. L. Healthwaite, and A. J. Baird. 2003. Hydrological processes in abandoned and restored peatlands: an overview of management approaches. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11: 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rochefort, L. 2000. Sphagnum-a keystone genus in habitat restoration. New Frontiers in Bryology and Licehnology 103: 505–08.Google Scholar
  34. Rochefort, L., F. Quinty, S. Campeau, K. W. Johnson, and T. J. Malterer. 2003. North American approach to the restoration of Sphagnum dominated peatlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11: 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roth, S., T. Seeger, P. Poschlod, J. Pfadenhauer, and M. Succow. 1999. Establishment of helophytes in the course of fen restoration. Applied Vegetation Science 2: 131–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowlands, R. 2001. The ecological restoration through natural revegetation of industrial cutaway peatlands in Ireland. Ph.D. Dissertation. University College, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  37. Salonen, V. 1992. Plant colonization of harvested peat surfaces. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.Google Scholar
  38. Schoch, W. H. 1988. Botanical Macro-remains. Paul Haupt Berne. Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  39. Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The Flora of Canada. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  40. Sjörs, H. 1952. On the relation between vegetation and electrolytes in north Swedish mire waters. Oikos 2: 241–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sliva, J. 1997. Renaturierung von industriell abgeforften Hochmooren am Beispiel der Kendlmühlfilzen. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  42. Sliva, J. and J. Pfadenhauer. 1999. Restoration of cut-over raised bogs in southern Germany- a comparison of methods. Applied Vegetation Science 2: 137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soro, A., S. Sundberg, and H. Rydin. 1999. Species diversity, niche metrics and species associations in harvested and undisturbed bogs. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 549–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Duren, I. C., R. K. Strykstra, A. P. Grootjans, G. N. J. ter Heerdt, and D. M. Pegtel. 1998. A multidisciplinary evaluation of restoration measures in a degraded Cirsio-Molinietum fen meadow. Applied Vegetation Science 1: 115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vitt, D. H. 2006. Functional characteristics and indicators of boreal peatlands. p. 9–24. In R. K. Wieder and D. H. Vitt (eds.) Boreal Peatland Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vitt, D. H. and W.-L. Chee. 1990. The relationship of vegetation to surface water chemistry and peat chemisty in fens of Alberta, Canada. Vegetatio 89: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wind-Mulder, H. L., L. Rochefort, and D. H. Vitt. 1996. Water and peat chemistry comparisons of natural and post-harvested peatlands across Canada and their relevance to peatland restoration. Ecological Engineering 7: 161–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wind-Mulder, H. L. and D. H. Vitt. 2000. Comparison of water and peat chemistries of a post-harvested and undisturbed peatland with relevance to restoration. Wetlands 20: 616–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha D. Graf
    • 1
  • Line Rochefort
    • 1
  • Monique Poulin
    • 1
  1. 1.Peatland Ecology Research Group and Centre d’études nordiques Département de phytologieUniversité LavalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations