An overview of peatland restoration in North America: where are we after 25 years?

Abstract

Peatland restoration in North America (NA) was initiated approximately 25 years ago on peat‐extracted bogs. Recent advances in peatland restoration in NA have expanded the original concepts and methodology. Restoration efforts in NA now include restoring peatlands from many diverse types of disturbances (e.g. roads, agriculture, grazing, erosion, forestry, and petrol industry infrastructure impacts) and occur in a greater array of peatland types (e.g. fens and swamps). Because fens are groundwater and surface flow driven, techniques to restore the hydrology of fens are generally more complicated than bogs. Restoring a greater variety of peatland types on a large‐scale basis (>10 ha) commands new techniques for reestablishing a broader array of plants other than Sphagnum spp., including non‐Sphagnum mosses, sedges, nonericaceous shrubs, and trees. The rationale for restoring peatlands has expanded to include legal requirements, wetland mitigation and banking, climate mitigation, water quality, and as part of responsible ecosystem management for industry or society. In the past 25 years, peatland restoration in NA has evolved from (1) trial and error to a more empirically based scientific approach, (2) small site‐specific experiments to landscape‐scale restoration (e.g. hydrological connectivity, ecological fragmentation), and (3) individual stakeholder (academic) to multiple stakeholders across jurisdictional boundaries (private, local, and regional governmental agencies, NGOs, and so on). However, many research gaps still exist that must be addressed to enhance our ability to restore peatlands successfully.

Tolerance of fen mosses to submergence, and the influence on moss community composition and ecosystem resilience

“…The restoration of peatlands disturbed by natural or anthropogenic flooding could expedite the recovery of natural structure and function (Falk, Palmer, & Zedler, ; Suding, ) and offset carbon losses (Andersen et al., ; Chimner, Cooper, Wurster, & Rochefort, ; Vasander et al., ). However, species selection must consider water chemistry and the potential for recurring floods, especially in future climate scenarios (Harris, Hobbs, Higgs, & Aronson, ; Price et al., ).…”

A common‐sense approach to tropical peat swamp forest restoration in Southeast Asia

“…Giesen and Page () record a total of 1,332 plant species, which includes 720 trees and shrubs. While few of these species are endemic to TPSF, most are adapted to the specific features of the ombrotrophic peatland environment, that is, to high water levels and low nutrient availability, as other studies of subtropical peatland vegetation have also demonstrated, for example in North America (Chimner et al ). Knowledge of those tree species capable of tolerating the altered environmental conditions that follow TPSF degradation is currently very limited.…”

Congo Basin peatlands: threats and conservation priorities

“…No studies have yet considered the specific impacts of these roads on the peat properties, hydrology or vegetation, although personally observed swamp forest die back following road construction suggests that roads could be having a negative impact on the wetlands of the region. Roads can act as a barrier to ground water and channel flow, diverting or impeding water, leading to the desiccation of peat on the downside, increased flooding on the upside and/or erosion, which can cause changes in the vegetation community and carbon cycling in the peat (Patterson and Cooper 2007;Grootjans et al 2010;Chimner et al 2016). As for roads built for logging access or hydrocarbon infrastructure, these direct effects may be much less important than the indirect effects of facilitating access to previously remote regions; studies throughout the tropics have shown that road-building almost invariably leads to immigration and land-use conversion (Laurance et al 2017).…”