Restoration of Degraded Boreal Peatlands

  • Line Rochefort
  • Elve Lode
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 188)

17.6 Conclusions

Even though Sphagnum mosses are not easy plants to manipulate on artificial substrates or in nonnatural environments, it is possible to revegetate large expanses of cutover peatland at a relatively low cost (in the range of US $900–1400 per hectare). Only long term monitoring of the current restoration projects will confirm if it is possible to restore the ecological functions of the cutover peatland to bring it back to a peat-accumulating ecosystem. Fen restoration of peat fields used for agriculture has been mostly studied in central Europe but much research is needed to develop sound restoration procedures for cutover peatlands and learn how to grow true mosses. Sphagnum farming (cultivation in nurseries) is promising and research in that area should be promoted.Not only would it be useful for supplying plant material for reintroduction in countries with low supply, but it could prove a useful source of biomass to ameliorate growing substrates.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous (1995) EC Wetlands Communication. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/docum.htmGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastien DF (1996) Établissement et croissance des sphaignes dans une tourbière exploitée et abandonnée. MSc thesis, Université Laval, Sainte-FoyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bérubé MÈ, Lavoie C (2000) The natural revegetation of a vacuum-mined peatland: Eight years of monitoring. Can Field Nat 114:279–286Google Scholar
  4. Blankenburg J, Tonnis W (eds) (2004) Guidelines for wetland restoration of peat cutting areas — results of the BRIDGE-PROJECT. Geological Survey of Lower Saxony, Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudreau S, Rochefort L (1999) Établissement des sphaignes réintroduites sous diverses communautés végétales recolonisant les tourbières après exploitation. Ecologie 30:53–62Google Scholar
  6. Brooks S, Stoneman R (eds) (1997) Conserving bogs. The management handbook. The Stationary Office, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  7. Bugnon JL, Rochefort L, Price JS (1997) Field experiments of Sphagnum reintroduction on a dry abandoned peatland in eastern Canada. Wetlands 17:513–517Google Scholar
  8. Buttler A, Warner BG, Grosvernier P, Matthey Y (1996) Vertical patterns of testate amoebae (Protozoa: Rhizopoda) and peat-forming vegetation on cutover bogs in the Jura, Switzerland. New Phytol 134:371–382Google Scholar
  9. Campbell D (2002) Comprendre la mécanique du processus de recolonisation végétale des tourbières exploitées. PhD thesis, Département de phytologie, FSAA. Université Laval, Sainte-FoyGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell DR, Rochefort L, Lavoie C (2000) The colonisation potential of peatland plants recolonising post-vacuum-extracted bogs. In: Rochefort L, Daigle JY (eds) Sustaining our peatlands. Proceedings of the 11th international peat congress, vol II. Canadian Society of Peat and Peatlands, International Peat Society, Quebec City, pp 670–674Google Scholar
  11. Campbell DR, Lavoie C, Rochefort L (2002) Wind erosion and surface stability in abandoned milled peatlands. Can J Soil Sci 82:85–95Google Scholar
  12. Campbell DR, Rochefort L, Lavoie C (2003) Determining the immigration potential of plants colonizing disturbed environments: the case of milled peatlands in Québec. J Appl Ecol 40:78–91Google Scholar
  13. Campeau S, Rochefort L (1996) Sphagnum regeneration on bare peat surfaces: field and greenhouse experiments. J Appl Ecol 33:599–608Google Scholar
  14. Campeau S, Rochefort L (2002) Possibilities and limits to Sphagnum farming. In: Schmilewski G, Rocheford L (eds) Proceedings of the international peat symposium: peat in horticulture — quality and environmental challenges. A joint symposium of Commission II (industrial utilization of peat and peatlands) and Commission V (after-use of cut-over peatlands) of the International Peat Society, Pärnu, Estonia, 3–6 September 2002. International Peat Society, Jyväskylä 264–269Google Scholar
  15. Campeau S, Rochefort L, Price JS (2004) On the use of shallow basins to restore cutover peatlands: plant establishment. Restor Ecol 12:471–482Google Scholar
  16. Charman D (2002) Peatlands and environmental change. Wiley., ChicesterGoogle Scholar
  17. Chirino C, Rochefort L (2000) Establishment response of four Sphagnum species on cutover peatland. In: Rochefort L, Daigle JY (eds) Sustaining our peatlands. Proceedings of the 11th international peat congress, Quebec City, Canada, 6–12 August 2000, vol II. Canadian Society of Peat and Peatlands and the International Peat Society. Edmonton, pp 694–698Google Scholar
  18. Chirino C, Campeau S, Rochefort L (2006) Peatland restoration: are climatic variability and Sphagnum richness important? Appl Veget Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Clymo RS (1983) Peat. In: Gore AJP (ed) Ecosystems of the world 4A. Mires: swamp, bog, fen and moor. General studies. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 159–224Google Scholar
  20. Clymo RS (1987) The ecology of peatlands. Sci Prog Oxford 71:593–614Google Scholar
  21. Clymo RS, Duckett JG (1986) Regeneration of Sphagnum. New Phytol 102:589–614Google Scholar
  22. Cobbaert D, Rochefort L, Price JS (2004) Experimental restoration of a fen plant community after peat mining. Appl Veg Sci 7:209–220Google Scholar
  23. Cooper DJ, Macdonald LH, Wenger SK, Woods SW (1998) Hydrologic restoration of a fen in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Wetlands 18:335–345Google Scholar
  24. Daigle JY, Gautreau-Daigle H (2001) Canadian peat harvesting and the environment, 2nd edn. Sustaining wetlands issues paper no 2001-1. North American Wetlands Conservation Council Committee, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  25. Desrochers A, Rochefort L, Savard JP (1998) Avian recolonization of eastern Canadian bogs after peat mining. Can J Zool 76:989–997Google Scholar
  26. Dupieux N (1998) La gestion conservatoire des tourbières de France: premiers éléments scientifiques et techniques. Espaces Naturels de France, OrleansGoogle Scholar
  27. Eggelsmann R, Heathwaite AL, Grosse-Baukmann G, Küster E, Naucke W, Schuch M, Schweickle V (1993) Physical processes and properties of mires. In: Heathwaite AL, Göttlich K (eds) Mires. Process, exploitation and conservation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 171–262Google Scholar
  28. Enz JW, Brun LJ, Larsen JK (1988) Evaporation and energy balance for bare and stubble covered soil. Agric For Meteorol 43:59–70Google Scholar
  29. Farrell CA, Doyle GJ (2003) Rehabilitation of industrial cutaway Atlantic blanket bog in County Mayo, north-eest Ireland. Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:21–35Google Scholar
  30. Franzen L (1985) Peat in Sweden: a method to calculate the resources. GUNI report 21, Göteborg University, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  31. Faubert P, Rochefort L (2002) Response of peatland mosses to burial by wind-dispersed peat. Bryologist 105:96–103Google Scholar
  32. Gaudig G, Joosten H (2002) Peat loss (Sphagnum) as a renewable resource — an alternative to Sphagnum peat in horticulture? In: Schmilewsky G, Rochefort L (eds) Peat in horticulture. Quality and environmental challenges. International Peat Society, Pärnu, pp 117–126Google Scholar
  33. Gauthier R (2001) Les sphaignes. In: Payette S, Rochefort L (eds) Écologie des tourbières du Québec-Labrador. Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, Canada, pp 91–127Google Scholar
  34. Girard M, Lavoie C, Thériault M (2002) The regeneration of a highly disturbed ecosystem: a mined peatland in southern Québec. Ecosystems 5:274–288Google Scholar
  35. Glaser PH, Janssens JA (1986) Raised bogs in eastern North America: transitions in landforms and gross stratigraphy. Can J Bot 64:395–415Google Scholar
  36. Gorham E, Rochefort L (2003) Peatland restoration: a brief assessment with special reference to Sphagnum bogs. Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:109–119Google Scholar
  37. Groeneveld EVG, Rochefort L (2002) Nursing plants in peatland restoration: on their potential use to alleviate frost heaving problems. Suo 53:73–85Google Scholar
  38. Groeneveld EVG, Rochefort L (2005) Polytrichum strictum as a solution to frost heaving in disturbed ecosystems: a case study with milled peatlands. Restor Ecol 13:1–9Google Scholar
  39. Grosvernier P, Matthey Y, Buttler A (1995) Microclimate and physical properties of peat: new clues to the understanding of bog restoration processes. In: Wheeler BD, Shaw SC, Fojt WJ, Robertson RA (eds) Restoration of temperate wetlands. Wiley, Chichester, pp 434–450Google Scholar
  40. Hayward PM, Clymo RS (1982) Profiles of water content and pore size in Sphagnum and peat, and their relation to peat bog ecology. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 215:299–325Google Scholar
  41. Heathwaite AI, Eggelsmann R, Göttlich KH, Kaule G (1993) Ecohydrology, mire drainage and mire conservation. In: Heathwaite AL, Göttlich KH (eds) Mires: process, exploitation and conservation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 418–484Google Scholar
  42. Hughes PDM, Cymayne-Peaty L (2002) Testing theories of mire development for nutrient balance of the cotton sedge, Eriophorum vaginatum L. Oecologia 67:511–518Google Scholar
  43. Ingram HAP (1983) Hydrology. In: Gore AJP (ed) Mires: swamp, bog, fen and moor. Elsevier, New-York, pp 67–158Google Scholar
  44. Joosten H (1998) Peat as a renewable resource: the road to paludiculture. In: Maltere T, Johnson K, Stewart J (eds) Peatland restoration and reclamation, Proccedings of the 1998 international peat symposium, Duluth, Minnesota, 14–18 July 1998. International Peat Society, JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  45. Joosten H, Clarke D (2002) Wise use of mires and peatlands — background and principles including a framework for decision-making. International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society, Finland. http://www.mirewiseuse.comGoogle Scholar
  46. Kennedy GW, Price JS (2004) Simulating soil water dynamics in a cutover bog. Water Resour Res 40:W12410.DOI 10.1029/2004WR003099Google Scholar
  47. Lafleur PM (1990) Evapotranspiration from sedge-dominated wetland surfaces. Aquat Bot 37:341–353Google Scholar
  48. Lamers LPM, Smolders AJP, Roelofs JGM (2002). The restoration of fens in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 478:107–130Google Scholar
  49. Lappalainen E (1996) General review on world peatland and peat resources. In: Lappalainen E (ed) Global peat resources. International Peat Society, Jyväskylä 53–56Google Scholar
  50. Lavoie C, Zimmermann C, Pellerin S (2001) Peatland restoration in southern Québec (Canada): a paleoecological perspective. Écoscience 8:247–258Google Scholar
  51. Lavoie C, Grosvernier P, Girard M, Marcoux K (2003) Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands: an useful restoration tool? Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:97–197Google Scholar
  52. Lavoie C, Saint-Louis A, Lachance D (2005a) The vegetation dynamics of a poorly regenerated mined peatland: five years of monitoring. Wetlands Ecol Manage 13:621–633Google Scholar
  53. Lavoie C, Marcoux K, Saint-Louis A, Price JS (2005b) The dynamics of a cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum L.) cover expansion in a vacuum-mined peatland, southern Québec, Canada. Wetlands 25:64–75Google Scholar
  54. Lode E (2001) Natural mire hydrology in restoration of peatland functions. Doctoral thesis, Acta Universitatis Agrivuturae Sueciae, Silvestria 234, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  55. Lynch-Stewart P (1992) No net loss — implementing “no net loss” goals to conserve wetlands in Canada. Sustaining wetlands issues paper 1992-2. North American Wetlands Conservation Council, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  56. Malterer TJ (1996) Peat resources of the United States. In: Lappalainen E (ed) Global peat resources. International Peat Society, Jyskä, pp 253–266Google Scholar
  57. Matthey Y (1996) Conditions écologiques de la régénération spontanée du Sphagnion magellanici dans le Jura suisse. Typologie, pédologie, hydronamique et micrométéorologie. PhD dissertation, Université de Neuchatel, Neuchatel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  58. Mazerolle MJ (2001) Amphibian activity, movement patterns, and body size in fragmented peat bogs. J Herpetol 35:13–20Google Scholar
  59. Mazerolle MJ (2003) Detrimental effects of peat mining on amphibian abundance and species richness in bogs. Biol Conserv 113:215–223Google Scholar
  60. Mazerolle M, Cormier M (2003) Effects of peat mining intensity on green frog (Rana clamitans) occurrence in bog ponds. Wetlands 23:709–716Google Scholar
  61. McNeil P, Waddington JM (2003) Moisture controls on Sphagnum growth and CO2 exchange on a cutover bog. J Appl Ecol 40:354–367Google Scholar
  62. McNeil P, Waddington JM, Lavoie C, Price JS, Rochefort L (2000) Contemporary and long-term peat oxidation rates in a post-vacuum harvested peatlands. In: Rochefort L, Daigle JY (eds) Sustaining our peatlands. Proceedings of the 11th international peat congress, vol II. Canadian Society of Peat and Peatlands and the International Peat Society, Quebec City, pp 732–741Google Scholar
  63. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Money R (1995) Restoration of cut-over peatlands: the role of hydrology in determining vegetation quality. In: Hughes J, Heathwaite L (eds) Hydrology and hydrochemistry of British wetlands. Wiley, Chichester, pp 383–400Google Scholar
  65. Murray KJ, Tenhunen JD, Nowak RS (1993). Photoinhibition as a control on photosynthesis and production of Sphagnum mosses. Oecologia 96:200–207Google Scholar
  66. Noguchi A, Muraoka S (1959) Sporelings and regenerants in some mosses, 4. Kumamoto J Sci Ser B Sect 2 4:118–149Google Scholar
  67. Oehlmann V (1898) Vegetative Fortpflanzung der Sphagnaceen nebst ihrem Verhalten gegen Kalk. Inaugural-Dissertation. Der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Freiburg in der SchweizGoogle Scholar
  68. Pellerin S, Lavoie C (2000) Peatland fragments of southern Quebec: recent evolution of their vegetation structure. Can J Bot 78:255–26Google Scholar
  69. Pfadenhauer J, Schneekloth H, Schneider R, Schneider S (1993) Mire distribution. In: Heathwaite AL, Göttlich K (eds) Mires. Process, exploitation and conservation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 77–121Google Scholar
  70. Poschlod P, Pfadenhauer J (1989) Regeneration of vegetative parts of peat mosses — a comparative study of nine Sphagnum species. Telma 19:77–88Google Scholar
  71. Poulin M, Rochefort L, Desrochers A (1999) Conservation of bog plant species assemblages: assessing the role of natural remnants in mined sites. Appl Veg Sci 2:169–180Google Scholar
  72. Poulin M, Rochefort L, Quinty F, Lavoie C (2005) Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands in eastern Canada. Can J Bot 83:539–557Google Scholar
  73. Price J (1997) Soil moisture, water tension, and water table relationships in a managed cutover bog. J Hydrol 202:21–32Google Scholar
  74. Price JS, Schlotzhauer SM (1999) Importance of shrinkage and compression in determining water storage changes in peat: the case of a mined peatland. Hydrol Process 13:2591–2601Google Scholar
  75. Price JS, Whitehead GS (2001) Developing hydrologic thresholds for Sphagnum recolonization on an abandoned cutover bog. Wetlands 21:32–40Google Scholar
  76. Price JS, Rochefort L, Quinty F (1998) Energy and moisture considerations on cutover peatlands: surface microtopography, mulch cover and Sphagnum regeneration. Ecol Eng 10:293–312Google Scholar
  77. Price JS, Rochefort L, Campeau S (2002) Use of shallow basins to restore cutover peatlands: hydrology. Restor Ecol 10:259–266Google Scholar
  78. Price JS, Heathwaite AL, Baird AJ (2003) Hydrological processes in abandoned and restored peatlands: an overview of management approaches. Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:65–83Google Scholar
  79. Quinty F, Rochefort L (1997) Plant reintroduction on a harvested peat bog. In: Trettin CC, Jurgenses MF, Griga DF, Gale MR, Jeglum JK (eds) Northern forested wetlands: ecology and management. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 133–145Google Scholar
  80. Quinty F, Rochefort L (2000) Bare peat substrate instability in peat land restoration: problems and solutions. In: Rochefort L, Daigle JY (eds) Sustaining our peatlands. Proceedings of the 11th international peat congress, vol II. Canadian Society of Peat and Peatlands and International Peat Society, Quebec City, pp 751–756Google Scholar
  81. Quinty F, Rochefort L (2003) Peatland restoration guide, 2nd edn. Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Quebec, Canada. http://www.peatmoss.com/pm-resre.htmlGoogle Scholar
  82. Rochefort L (2000) Sphagnum — a keystone genus in habitat restoration. Bryologist 103:503–508Google Scholar
  83. Rochefort L (2001) Restauration écologique. In: Payette S, Rochefort L (eds) Écologie des tourbières du Québec-Labrador. Presses de l’Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, pp 449–504Google Scholar
  84. Rochefort L, Campeau S (2002) Recovery of donor sites used for peatland restoration. In: Schmilewski G, Rochefort L (eds) Proceedings of the international peat symposium: peat in horticulture — quality and environmental challenges. A joint symposium of Commission II (industrial utilization of peat and peatlands) and Commission V (after-use of cut-over peatlands) of the International Peat Society, Pärnu, Estonia, 3–6 September 2002. International Peat Society, Jyväskylä, pp 244–250Google Scholar
  85. Rochefort L, Price J (2003) Restoration of Sphagnum dominated peatlands. Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:1–2Google Scholar
  86. Rochefort L, Gauthier R, LeQuéré D (1995) Sphagnum regeneration — toward an optimisation of bog restoration. In: Wheeler BD, Shaw SC, Fojt WJ, Robertson RA (eds) Restoration of temperate wetlands. Wiley, Chichester, pp 423–434Google Scholar
  87. Rochefort L, Campeau S, Bugnon JL (2002) Does prolonged flooding prevent or enhance regeneration and growth of Sphagnum? Aquat Bot 74:327–341Google Scholar
  88. Rochefort L, Quinty F, Campeau S, Johnson K, Malterer T (2003) North American approach to the restoration of Sphagnum dominated peatlands. Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:3–20Google Scholar
  89. Rosenberg NJ, Blad BL, Verma SB (1983) Microclimate: the biological environment, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  90. Rubec C (1996) The status of peatland resources in Canada. In: Lappalainen E (ed) Global peat resources. International Peat Society, Jyväskylä, pp 243–252Google Scholar
  91. Sagot C, Rochefort L (1996) Tolérance des sphaignes à la dessication. Cryptogamie Bryol Lichénol 17:171–183Google Scholar
  92. Salonen V (1987) Relationship between the seed rain and the establishment of vegetation in two areas abandoned after peat harvesting. Holarct Ecol 10:171–174Google Scholar
  93. Schlotzhauer SM, Price JS (1999) Soil water flow dynamics in a managed cutover peat field, Quebec: field and laboratory investigations. Water Resour Res 35:3675–3683Google Scholar
  94. Schothorst CJ (1997) Subsidence of low moor peat soil in the western Netherlands. Geoderma 17:265–291Google Scholar
  95. Schouten MGC (ed) (2002) Conservation and restoration of raised bogs; geological, hydrological and ecological studies. Geological, hydrological and ecological studies. Department of the Environment and Local Government Ireland, Geological Survey of Ireland, Staatsbosbeheer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  96. Schouten MGC, Streefkerk JG, van der Schaaf S, Ryan JB (2002) General conclusions: implications for management and restoration. In: Schouten MGC (ed) Conservation and restoration of raised bogs; geological, hydrological and ecological studies. Geological, hydrological and ecological studies. Department of the Environment and Local Government Ireland, Geological Survey of Ireland, Staatsbosbeheer, The Netherlands, pp 210–217Google Scholar
  97. Sliva J (1998) Regeneration of milled peat bog: a large scale approach in Kollerfilze (Bavaria, southern Germany). In:Malterer T, Johnson K, Stewart J (eds) Peatland restoration and reclamation: proceedings of the 1998 international peat symposium, Duluth, 14–18 July. International Peat Society, Duluth, pp 82–87Google Scholar
  98. Sobotka D (1976) Regeneration and vegetative propagation of Sphagnum palustre as factor of population stability. Acta Soc Bot Pol 45:357–368Google Scholar
  99. Society for Ecological Restoration Science, Policy Working Group (2004) The SER international primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson. http://www.ser.org/Google Scholar
  100. Soro A, Sundberg S, Hakan R (1999) Species diversity, niche metrics and species associations in harvested and undisturbed bogs. J Veg Sci 10:549–560Google Scholar
  101. Sottocornola M, Boudreau S, Rochefort L (2002) Fertilisation aspects in peatland restoration. In: Schmilewski G, Rocheford L (eds) Proceedings of the international peat symposium: peat in horticulture–quality and environmental challenges. A joint symposium of Commission II (industrial utilization of peat and peatlands) and Commission V (after-use of cut-over peatlands) of the International Peat Society, Pärnu, pp 256–261Google Scholar
  102. Spieksma JFM, Moors EJ, Dolman AJ, Schouwenaars JM (1997) Modelling evaporation demand from a drained and rewetted peatland. J.Hydrol. 199:252–271Google Scholar
  103. Standen V, Tallis JH, Meade R (eds) (1998) Patterned mires and mire pools. Origin and development; flora and fauna. British Ecological Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  104. Streefkerk JG, Casparie WA (1989) The hydrology of bog ecosystems. Guidelines for management. Staatsbosbeheer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  105. Sundberg S (2000) The ecological significance of sexual reproduction in peat mosses (Sphagnum). PhD thesis, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 581, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  106. Tallis JH, Meade R, Hulme PD (eds) (1997) Blanket mire degradation–causes, consequences and challenges. Proceedings of the Mires Research Group meeting, Manchester, 9–11 April 1997. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  107. Tuittila ES, Rita H, Vasander H, Laine J (2000) Vegetation patterns around Eriophorum vaginatumL. tussocks in a cut-away peatland in southern Finland. Can J Bot 78:47–58Google Scholar
  108. Tuittila ES, Vasander H, Laine L (2003) Success of re-introduced Sphagnum in a cutaway peatland. Boreal Envir Res 8:245–250Google Scholar
  109. Tuittila ES, Vasander H, Laine J (2004) Sensitivity of C sequestration in reintroduced Sphagnum to water-level variation in a cutaway peatland. Restor Ecol 12:483–493Google Scholar
  110. van Breemen N (1995) How Sphagnum bogs down other plants. Tree 10:270–275Google Scholar
  111. van Seters TE, Price JS (2001) The impact of peat harvesting and natural regeneration on the water balance of an abandoned cutover bog, Quebec. Hydrol Process 15:233–248Google Scholar
  112. van Seters TE, Price J (2002) Towards a conceptual model of hydrological change on an abandoned cutover bog, Quebec. Hydrol Process 16:1965–1981Google Scholar
  113. Vasander H, Tuittila ES, Lode E, Lundin L, Ilomets M, Sallantaus T, Heikkilä R, Pitkänen ML, Laine J (2003) Status and restoration of peatlands in northern Europe. Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:51–63Google Scholar
  114. Waddington JM, McNeil P (2002) Peat oxidation in an abandoned cutover peatland. Can J Soil Sci 82:279–286Google Scholar
  115. Waddington JM, Greenwood MJ, Petrone RM, Price JS (2003) Mulch decomposition impedes recovery of net carbon sink function in a restored peatlands. Ecol Eng 20:199–210Google Scholar
  116. Wheeler BD (1995) Introduction: Restoration and wetlands. In: Wheeler BD, Shaw SC, Fojt WJ, Robertson RA (eds) Restoration of temperate wetlands. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  117. Wheeler BD (1999) Water and plants in freshwater wetlands. In: Baird AJ, Wiby RL (eds) Eco-hydrology. Plants and water in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Routledge, London, pp 127–180Google Scholar
  118. Wheeler BD, Shaw SC (1995) Restoration of damaged peatlands. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  119. Wheeler BD, Shaw SC, Fojt WJ, Robertson RA (eds) (1995) Restoration of temperate wetlands. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  120. Woesler A (1934) Beitrag zur Kenntnis der vegetativen Vermehrung von Sphagnum cymbifolium Ehrh. Beitr Biol Pflanzen 22:13–24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Line Rochefort
    • 1
  • Elve Lode
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Peatland Ecology Research Group and Centre d’études Nordiques, Pavillon Paul-ComtoisUniversité LavalCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Ecology at Tallinn Pedagogical UniversityTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.Department of Forest SoilsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations