N. G. Taylor, P. Grillas, Fennessy, E. Goodyer, Llb Graham, E. Karofeld, R. Lindsay, David A. Locky, N. Ockendon, A. Rial, S.. Ross, Rebecca K. Smith, R. Diggelen, J. Whinam, W. Sutherland
{"title":"A synthesis of evidence for the effects of interventions to conserve peatland vegetation : overview and critical discussion","authors":"N. G. Taylor, P. Grillas, Fennessy, E. Goodyer, Llb Graham, E. Karofeld, R. Lindsay, David A. Locky, N. Ockendon, A. Rial, S.. Ross, Rebecca K. Smith, R. Diggelen, J. Whinam, W. Sutherland","doi":"10.19189/MAP.2018.OMB.379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Peatlands are valuable but threatened ecosystems. Intervention to tackle direct threats is often necessary, but should be informed by scientific evidence to ensure it is effective and efficient. Here we discuss a recent synthesis of evidence for the effects of interventions to conserve peatland vegetation - a fundamental component of healthy, functioning peatland ecosystems. The synthesis is unique in its broad scope (global evidence for a comprehensive list of 125 interventions) and practitioner-focused outputs (short narrative summaries in plain English, integrated into a searchable online database). Systematic literature searches, supplemented by recommendations from an international advisory board, identified 162 publications containing 296 distinct tests of 66 of the interventions. Most of the articles studied open bogs or fens in Europe or North America. Only 36 interventions were supported by sufficient evidence to assess their overall effectiveness. Most of these interventions (85 %) had positive effects, overall, on peatland vegetation - although this figure is likely to have been inflated by publication bias. We discuss how to use the synthesis, critically, to inform conservation decisions. Reflecting on the content of the synthesis we make suggestions for the future of peatland conservation, from monitoring over appropriate timeframes to routinely publishing results to build up the evidence base.","PeriodicalId":48721,"journal":{"name":"Mires and Peat","volume":"24 1","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mires and Peat","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19189/MAP.2018.OMB.379","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19
Abstract
Peatlands are valuable but threatened ecosystems. Intervention to tackle direct threats is often necessary, but should be informed by scientific evidence to ensure it is effective and efficient. Here we discuss a recent synthesis of evidence for the effects of interventions to conserve peatland vegetation - a fundamental component of healthy, functioning peatland ecosystems. The synthesis is unique in its broad scope (global evidence for a comprehensive list of 125 interventions) and practitioner-focused outputs (short narrative summaries in plain English, integrated into a searchable online database). Systematic literature searches, supplemented by recommendations from an international advisory board, identified 162 publications containing 296 distinct tests of 66 of the interventions. Most of the articles studied open bogs or fens in Europe or North America. Only 36 interventions were supported by sufficient evidence to assess their overall effectiveness. Most of these interventions (85 %) had positive effects, overall, on peatland vegetation - although this figure is likely to have been inflated by publication bias. We discuss how to use the synthesis, critically, to inform conservation decisions. Reflecting on the content of the synthesis we make suggestions for the future of peatland conservation, from monitoring over appropriate timeframes to routinely publishing results to build up the evidence base.
期刊介绍:
Mires and Peat is a peer-reviewed internet journal focusing specifically on mires, peatlands and peat. As a truly “free-to-users” publication (i.e. NO CHARGES to authors OR readers), it is immediately accessible to readers and potential authors worldwide. It is published jointly by the International Peatland Society (IPS) and the International Mire Conservation Group (IMCG).
Mires and Peat is indexed by Thomson Reuters Web of Science (2017 Impact Factors: 1.326 [two-year] and 1.638 [five-year]), Elsevier Scopus, EBSCO Environment Complete, CABI Abstracts, CSA Proquest (including their Aquatic Science and Fisheries Abstracts ASFA, Ecology, Entomology, Animal Behavior, Aqualine and Pollution databases) and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Mires and Peat also participates in the CABI Full Text Repository, and subscribes to the Portico E-journal Preservation Service (LTPA).
Mires and Peat publishes high-quality research papers on all aspects of peatland science, technology and wise use, including:
ecology, hydrology, survey, inventory, classification, functions and values of mires and peatlands;
scientific, economic and human aspects of the management of peatlands for agriculture, forestry, nature conservation, environmental protection, peat extraction, industrial development and other purposes;
biological, physical and chemical characteristics of peat; and
climate change and peatlands.
Short communications and review articles on these and related topics will also be considered; and suggestions for special issues of the Journal based on the proceedings of conferences, seminars, symposia and workshops will be welcomed. The submission of material by authors and from countries whose work would otherwise be inaccessible to the international community is particularly encouraged.