Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41358498›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025

Restoration of formerly afforested blanket bog: Estimating time for vegetation recovery.

Knut Rydgren, Roxane Andersen, Rune Halvorsen, Mark H Hancock, Robert D Hughes, Alice Martin-Walker, Joachim P Töpper, Neil Cowie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Restoration of formerly afforested blanket bog: Estimating time for vegetation recovery.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Knut RydgrenDepartment of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8910-2465
Roxane AndersenEnvironmental Research Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso, UK.
Rune HalvorsenGeo-Ecology Research Group, Section of Research and Collections, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Mark H HancockRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds, Centre for Conservation Science, Inverness, Scotland, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6437-7278
Robert D HughesEnvironmental Research Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso, UK.
Alice Martin-WalkerRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds, Centre for Conservation Science, Inverness, Scotland, UK.
Joachim P TöpperNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Bergen, Norway.
Neil CowieRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds, Centre for Conservation Science, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Funding

Conservation Volunteers Natural Talent SchemeEU LIFELeverhulme Trust RL-2019-002Norges Forskningsråd 326645Scottish Government
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peatland restoration aims to restore hydrology and peat-forming vegetation, supporting other ecosystem functions. However, the time required for complete vegetation recovery is generally unknown. Here, we investigate this in an experimentally restored, formerly afforested blanket bog in northern Scotland, which was plowed, fertilized, and planted with non-native conifers in the mid-1980s. Plowing created three "microforms": Ridges, Original surface, and Furrows. Restoration management took place in two stages: trees were felled and drains blocked in 1998 (Standard treatment); then parts of the area were further rewetted with additional drain-blocking in 2015/2016 (Enhanced treatment). We recorded plant species composition in permanent quadrats 0, 5, 13, and 24 years after the start of restoration. Here we use an ordination-regression-based approach (ORBA) to predict time to plant species compositional recovery compared with a reference (comparable nearby intact blanket bog). For the first 13 years, plant species composition diverged from the reference, then later started to converge. If the current speed and direction of vegetation change were maintained, predicted time to recovery varies between 50-100 years and 120-285 years applying a relaxed or strict criterion for restoration success, respectively. Seven growing seasons after Enhanced treatment, recovery speed increased only for the driest microform, Ridge. Surprisingly, this microform was not predicted to take longer to recover than other microforms under either treatment. On the landscape scale, sloping areas were harder to restore than flatter areas, having longer predicted times to recovery. Complete vegetation restoration may take a long time because of legacies from the afforestation (e.g., increased nutrient availability) and the time taken to fully restore surface morphology and water table. On the other hand, other research has already demonstrated that the site is currently acting as a net carbon sink, despite the incomplete vegetation recovery. We argue that functions may be restored without full recovery of species composition. However, approaching the full suite of species may be desirable to support long-term resilience. Successful peatland restoration needs a strong science-practice partnership, where learning gained from monitoring both damaged and comparable intact peatlands can be used to adapt management interventions.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationWetlandsPlantsScotlandTime Factorsbryophytesdynamic referencelong‐term monitoringORBA (ordination‐regression based approach)peatland restorationplant species compositionpredictionrestoration ecology

Identifiers

PMID41358498
PMCPMC12683703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.