Date post: | 14-Sep-2014 |
Category: |
Education |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Gully blocking & revegetation:Exploring the evidence
Mark Reed, Jim Rouquette and Dylan Young
1 Introduction
Purpose
• Explore evidence re: effects of undertaking Peatland Code projects on different ecosystem services
• Stimulate discussion and inform decisions about what might be a fair price to charge for undertaking Peatland Code projects
Types of peatland condition addressed by Peatland Code (and this talk):
2 Changes in ecosystem services(based on perceptions of previous workshop participants)
Increase drink water qual
Peat in carbon code
WFD
Safeguard zones
Decreased AE payments
More droughts
More storm events
Increased wildfire
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Agricultural produce
Wild produce
Water provision
Climate regulation
Natural hazard regula-tion
Water purification
Erosion prevention
Recreation and tourism
Aesthetic value
Intellectual, scientific etc.
Provision of habitat
Cumulative indicator score
Impact on most important ecosystem services
Agricultural produceWild produce
Fibre and fuel
Water provision
Genetic resources
Biochemicals etc.
Ornamental resources
Energy harvesting
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation
Natural hazard regulation
Water purificationErosion preventionPollination
Pest and disease control
Noise and light regulation
Recreation and tourism
Aesthetic value
Inspiration
Intellectual, scientific etc.
Spiritual, ethical, religious
Cultural heritage
Social relations
Provision of habitat
-3.0
2.0
7.0
Adoption of peat in carbon code
Predicted impact of adopting peat in carbon code on ecosystem services
3 Effects of gully blocking & revegetation(based on perceptions of previous workshop participants)
Managed burning
Grouse numbers
Stream ecology
Heather cover
Water Framework
Directive
Sphagnum cover
Water storage
Depth of peat
Extent of gulleying
Water- table
Wildlifeabundance
Peat accumulatio
n
Water movement
Palatable grasses
Vegetation diversity
Erosion
Gulley blocking
Water quality
Bare peat
Access
Drainage
Increase
Decrease
A little
Some
A lot
Relationships related to managed burning and gulley blocking
Note: preliminary data. Direct relationships
Heather cutting
Managed burning
Grouse numbers
Stream ecology
Heather cover
Water Framework
Directive
Sphagnum cover
Water storage
Depth of peat
Extent of gulleying
Water- table
Wildlifeabundance
Peat accumulatio
n
Water movement
Palatable grasses
Vegetation diversity
Erosion
Gulley blocking
Water quality
Bare peat
Access
Drainage
Increase
Decrease
A little
Some
A lot
Relationships related to managed burning and gulley blocking
Note: preliminary data. Including indirect strong relationships.
Heather cutting
Pipe networks
4 Other evidence(based on published literature)
A brief overview
Based on:• Recent evidence reviews: IUCN Commission of
Inquiry; Natural England Upland Evidence Review• Peak District projects: Defra’s Ecosystem Services of
Peat project; Sustainable Uplands project; Making Space for Water
• Other peer-reviewed sources of evidence
A brief overview
Evidence for effects of peatland restoration on ecosystem services• Greenhouse Gas emissions• Water• Biodiversity• Other benefits
Note: contested evidence over effects of burning
Burning
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Bare soil & revegetation Drains
Cutting
Gullies
Courtesy of Fred Worrall, University of Durham
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Heather Grasses Mosses
Forest
Sedge
Courtesy of Fred Worrall, University of Durham
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Current GHG emissions 2030 emissions with- 2030 emissions without grazing/burning targeted burning/grazingcessation, gully blocking and revegetation
Reed et al. (2013) Anticipating and managing future trade-offs and complementarities between ecosystem services. Ecology & Society 18(1): 5 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04924-180105
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Take home message:• Look over appropriate time-horizons• Targeted action, following best practice – different
measures in different places
Water
• Gully block/revegetation reduces sediment production and loss of Particulate Organic Carbon
• Reduces export of heavy metals• Evidence for reduction in Dissolved Organic Carbon is
patchy/contradictory– Data collection too
site-specific and
short-term
Courtesy of Mike Billet, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
Water
Revegetation slows rate at which water runs off and reduces flood peaks
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.001 0.01 0.1
depth, m
velo
city
, m .
s-1
UnvegetatedEriophorumSphagnum
Holden et al (2008) Water Resources Research
Green = Bare peat
Red = Sphagnum
Water
Gully blocking may reduce or increase flood peaks
Biodiversity
• Depends what “bit” of biodiversity you’re
interested in• Healthy bogs support a
range of important bird, plant and moss
species• Both intensifying and extensifying management is
likely to be bad for biodiversity – need a healthy balance, which includes active management
Other benefits
• Accessibility and aesthetic benefits of blocking gullies and revegetating bare and eroding peat for recreation/tourism
• Protecting archaeological artefacts
Bronze age axe found during peat cutting in Orkney
Burning
• All agree: no need for burning on true blanket bog – questions over dry heath vegetation on deep peat
• "Weight of evidence” against burning on deep peat• Contradictory evidence exists
Next steps
• Best practice restoration guidelines being developed as part of Peatland Code pilot phase – online consultation later this year– Menu approach, avoiding being too prescriptive where
possible– Will include guidance on burning
• Need to work with the landowning community• Need to generate evidence
– e.g. experimental track under Peatland Code?– e.g. in this workshop on the effects of proscribing burning
on likely prices charged by landowners