A comparison of porewater chemistry between intact, afforested and restored raised and blanket bogs

Howson, Tim; Chapman, P. J.; Shah, Nadeem; Anderson, R.; Holden, Joseph

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144496

Cited by 11 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accelerated water-table recovery may occur where there is less available pore space for the water to fill (Meyer et al, 2011;Rezanezhad et al, 2016), but this is unlikely because of the similarity in specific yield (Howson et al, 2021). Overall, the water-table depth after forest-to-bog restoration was similar to that of the IB sites after 5-6 years at the blanket bog location.…”

Section: Streamflow Response and Water-table Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…The peat may also have experienced a loss in available pore space after drainage and compression by the trees (Anderson et al, 2000;Anderson & Peace, 2017). Differences in the physical peat properties between the raised bog and blanket bog locations (Howson et al, 2021) could explain the higher water tables in the blanket bog restoration sites.…”

Section: Streamflow Response and Water-table Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of forest‐to‐bog restoration on the hydrological functioning of raised and blanket bogs

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The carbon sequestration potential of peatlands has led to increasing interest in the restoration of bogs previously subjected to plantation forestry. However, little information exists about the effects on hydrological processes of what has become known as forest-to-bog restoration. The hydrological functioning of three afforested, two intact and four forest-to-bog restoration sites was compared at a raised bog and blanket bog location. For the raised bog location, the annual runoff/rainfall coefficient was 59.7% for the intact site, 41.0% for the afforested site and 53.1% for the oldest restoration site (9 years post-felling). At the blanket bog location, the coefficient was 80.6% for the intact site, 63.0% for the afforested site and 71.6% for the oldest restoration site (17 years post-felling). Compared with intact bog, median peak storm discharge was significantly greater in the restoration sites for the raised bog location but not for the blanket bog location. Water-table peak lag times were greatest, and water-table depths deepest in the afforested sites and the most recent raised bog restoration site and least in the oldest blanket bog restoration site. The estimated contribution of overland flow in the afforested sites was 2.9% for the raised bog and 11.9% for the blanket bog, increasing to 8.7% and 32.2% at the oldest restoration sites for the raised bog and blanket bog, respectively. Overall, hydrological functioning of the raised bog and blanket bog restoration sites was different from the intact sites but was most similar to intact bog in the oldest restoration sites.

show abstract

Section: Streamflow Response and Water-table Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Streamflow Response and Water-table Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of forest‐to‐bog restoration on the hydrological functioning of raised and blanket bogs

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would suggest that DOM leaching from plantations dominated by these tree types may be less easily treatable than DOM from blanket bogs. Similarly, samples taken from Scottish blanket and raised bog sites (Howson et al, 2021) found that SUVA254 values were lower from forested sites, again suggesting that forestry on peat results in less aromatic, hydrophobic DOM that may be less easily removed via conventional coagulation. Recently there have been attempts to restore previously afforested fen and bog peatlands in parts of Europe and North America under what is often referred to as 'forest-to-bog' restoration (Chimner et al, 2017;Andersen et al, 2017).…”

Section: Plantation Forestry / Deforestationmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Although still a relatively new practice within the UK, this type of restoration has been carried out for 18 years in the Flow Country in northern Scotland, and national policies on peat restoration may lead to its expansion in the future. Some of the studies listed in Table 2 (Muller and Tankere-Muller, 2012;Muller et al, 2015;Gaffney et al, 2018;Shah and Nisbet, 2019;Gaffney et al, 2020;Howson et al, 2021;Shah et al, 2021) monitored the impacts of felling as part of ongoing forest-to-bog restoration monitoring, with the main differences in management being that the trees were felled to waste (the practice of leaving felled trees in-situ to rot) and there was less ground disturbance at the site compared with the use of machinery to extract felled timber (Gaffney, 2017). However, the practice of felling trees to waste has been suggested to provide a potential additional DOM source as the trees slowly decompose (Muller et al, 2015), with mulched fallen trees providing a major source of water soluble DOM (Howson et al, 2021).…”

Section: Plantation Forestry / Deforestationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the impacts of peatland catchment management on DOM concentration and treatability

Williamson

Evans

Spears

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the UK most large reservoirs constructed for public water supply are in upland areas and situated in catchments that contain at least some organic-rich soils. Dissolved organic matter (DOM) leaching from these soils imparts a brownish colour to water and raises treatment challenges for the water industry since excessive post-treatment concentrations result in the generation of potentially harmful disinfection by-products in drinking water. The primary method for maintaining sufficiently low pre-disinfection DOM concentrations is chemical coagulation, but in the past 15 years water companies have increasingly considered the capacity for catchment interventions to improve raw water quality at source, reducing the need for costly and complex engineering solutions in treatment works. There remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these catchment engineering-based measures and a comprehensive overview of the research in this area remains lacking. Here we review the peer-reviewed evidence for the effectiveness of four management options for upland organic soil-dominated catchments that are being considered by the water industry as options for controlling DOM releases. These are ditch blocking, revegetation, reducing forest cover, and cessation of managed burning. Results of plot scale investigations into effects of ditch blocking on ditch-blocking are available but largely equivocal, while there is a paucity of information regarding impacts at spatial scales of more direct relevance to water managers. The presence of plantation forestry on peat soils is generally associated with increasing DOM concentrations, although canopy removal has little short-term benefit and can even further increase concentrations. Although not widely studied, the available evidence suggests that Sphagnum mosses produce DOM that is more easily removed via conventional treatment processes compared to vascular plants such as heather and grass species. We found surprisingly little published research around the extent to which manipulation of in-reservoir processes might be used to mitigate or exacerbate changes in inflowing DOM as part of a catchment management approach. This review concluded that catchment management measures have rarely been monitored with downstream water quality as the focus, and that restoration impacts vary across sites. To mitigate the uncertainty surrounding restoration effects on DOM, measures should be undertaken on a site-specific basis, where the scale, effect size and duration of the intervention are considered in relation to subsequent biogeochemical processing that occurs in the reservoir, the treatment capacity of the water treatment works and future projected DOM trends.

show abstract

“…Abbreviations: BD, bulk density; CLD = compact letter display (the same letters signify no significant difference between the bog types at the 95% confidence interval); EC, electrical conductivity; N = sample size; SE = standard error of the mean; von Post estimates are given as 1-10 for the degree of humification. conductivities at the afforested and restoration sites could be due to legacy effects of acid interception and sea salt scavenging (where sites were near the coast) by forest canopies (Curtis et al, 2014;Harriman & Morrison, 1982;Howson et al, 2021a), which enhances the inputs of solutes to the peat from throughfall and stemflow (Gaffney et al, 2018;Howson et al, 2021a;Neary & Gizyn, 2011). However, the pH was variable between afforested sites, despite the significant difference between treatments, which probably reflects different acid deposition rates between locations, the impact of which will be influenced by tree age.…”

Section: Differences Between Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of peat properties in intact, afforested and restored raised and blanket bogs

Howson

Chapman

Holden

et al. 2022

Soil Use and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A third of global soil carbon is thought to be stored in peatlands (Scharlemann et al., 2014;Yu et al., 2010), but their ability to act as carbon sinks depends on their condition. Worldwide, 12% of peatlands are degraded and potentially act as a carbon source for the atmosphere (Joosten, 2016). Continued global industrial development has led to the loss of former peat accumulating landscapes through land management and climate change. In particular,

show abstract

A comparison of porewater chemistry between intact, afforested and restored raised and blanket bogs

Cited by 11 publications

References 72 publications

The effect of forest‐to‐bog restoration on the hydrological functioning of raised and blanket bogs

The effect of forest‐to‐bog restoration on the hydrological functioning of raised and blanket bogs

Understanding the impacts of peatland catchment management on DOM concentration and treatability

A comparison of peat properties in intact, afforested and restored raised and blanket bogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About