Vegetation recovery on bare peat after restoration intervention: an analysis of nine years of monitoring data in the Dark Peak moorlands ( ).

Transcription

1 Vegetation recovery on bare peat after restoration intervention: an analysis of nine years of monitoring data in the Dark Peak moorlands ( ). Funded by: Prepared by Moors for the Future Partnership

2 Moors for the Future Partnership The Moorland Centre, Edale, Hope Valley, Derbyshire, S33 7ZA, UK T: E: W: Suggested citation: Proctor, S., Buckler, M., Walker, J. S., Maskill, R. (2013) Vegetation recovery on bare peat after restoration intervention: an analysis of nine years of monitoring data in the Dark Peak moorlands ( ). Moors for the Future Partnership, Edale. 2

3 Abstract The moorlands of the Peak District are the most extensive and heavily used in England. Their peat based uplands are dominated by blanket bog plant communities surrounded by moorland fringe habitats. Decades of polluted atmospheric deposition, agricultural and recreational land use have, amongst other causes, created large patches of degraded habitat and bare peat. The negative impact of biodiversity loss and increased instability of peat on these sites is becoming increasingly well-understood, as are the beneifts and opportunities they provide, including their importance for water quality regulation, natural risk mitigation and carbon cycling. For 10 years the Moors for the Future Partnership have been working toward the restoration of extensive areas of bare peat through substrate stabilisation and revegetation. In this report we present the impact this conservation work has had on two of the most extensively damaged moorlands in the UK: Bleaklow plateau and Holme Moss, Black Hill. Four years after initial restoration treatment, areas of almost 100% bare peat cover (96.12% ±1.36 mean cover) were successfully re-vegetated with peat stabilising nurse crops. After the establishment of introduced amenity grasses, moorland vegetation begins to recolonise and represents the dominant vegetation type (with 67.38% ±12.54 cover) five years after initial restoration. Understanding vegetation succession trajectories is an important aspect of biodiversity recovery. With data from five sites across nine years we present the succession of vegetation that may be expected following restoration of bare peat sites. 3

4 Table of contents Abstract... 3 Table of contents... 4 Index of figures... 4 Index of Tables... 5 List of Appendix... 5 Introduction... 6 Site descriptions... 9 Restoration methods... 9 Methods Data analysis RESULTS Reduction of bare peat cover Re-vegetation Discussion Conclusion References Appendices Index of figures Figure 1: Location of Bleaklow and Black Hill, Peak District Figure 2: Location of restoration areas and monitoring quadrats on Figure 3: Mean bare peat cover across individual restoration sites Figure 4: Mean vegetation cover across individual sites Figure 5: Mean cover of nurse crop Figure 6: Mean cover of individual nurse crop species across all restoration sites Figure 7: Mean percentage cover of moorland grasses, sedges and rushes across restoration sites Figure 8: Mean percentage cover of moorland dwarf shrubs and herbs across restoration sites Figure 9: Vegetation species introduced during restoration Figure 10: Mean percentage cover of bryophytes Figure 11: Snapshot of the first five years of restoration Figure 12: Monitoring the impact of landscape scale restoration: Showing approximately the same location on Joseph Patch facing north in 2004 and Figure 13: Mean percentage of the main ground-cover components across all restoration sites Figure 14: Vegetation trajectories of: all plant species; native moorland vegetation; artificially introduced species Figure 15: Change in proportion of total ground cover components nine years after restoration

5 Figure 16: Relative species diversity of vegetation at later stage restoration sites monitored in Index of Tables Table 1: Schedule of restoration treatments Table 2: Number of quadrats included in study Table 3: Summary of restoration monitoring methodologies List of Appendix Appendix I: Summary of vegetation classifications.43 Appendix II: Values of relative species diversity at later stage restoration sites 44 5

6 Introduction Peat moorlands are an internationally important resource, providing environmental, economic and social benefits including: carbon storage and sequestration; water regulation; biodiversity protection; natural risk mitigation and recreation opportunities, amongst others. UK peatland biodiversity includes plant and bird assemblages of national, European and international importance which are protected under UK and European conservation legislation including: UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP); Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) (Habitats Directive); Special Protection Areas (SPA) (Birds Directive) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The biodiversity of intact, functioning moorland not only has intrinsic value, it also supports natural cycling of water and carbon, provides land based products, pollinators and a natural seed bank, as well as inspiring recreational and economic opportunities which are costly to replace once ecosystems are degraded or lost. In England the largest expanses and deepest deposits of peat are found on the Pennine plateau between 190 and 893m above sea-level (Jarvis et al., 1984). This includes the plateaus of Bleaklow, Black Hill and Kinder Scout in the Peak District which are also amongst some of the oldest peatlands in the UK (Tallis, 1995). In the Peak District, the moorlands are predominantly concentrated in the Dark Peak and include extensive blanket bog communities amongst a mosaic of moorland habitats. Lying between Sheffield and Manchester the peatlands of the Peak District are locally important for recreational and economic opportunities as well as having a potentially key role in flood risk mitigation for surrounding villages and towns such as Glossop and Derby. They are nationally important in terms of their water regulation (with 70% of UK drinking water originating from often peat dominated uplands (Bain et al., 2011)) and have international importance for biodiversity and carbon cycling (Lindsey, 2010). 6

7 The blanket bogs of the South Pennine Moors are however in poor condition with only 4.33% of the Dark Peak SSSI considered to be in favourable condition and 93.74% in unfavourable recovering condition (Natural England, 2013). A variety of factors have led to the erosion of UK peatlands, in particular the moorlands of the Peak District (as detailed by e.g. Mackay and Tallis, 1996; Tallis, Meade and Hulme, 1997; Phillips, Yalden and Tallis, 1981; Tallis, 1987; Tallis, 1998). Whilst all vegetation has the potential to form peat the loss of the predominant peat-forming mosses, particularly species of Sphagnum across large areas of the South Pennine moors is widely accepted to be one of the main drivers of peat erosion (Tallis, 1964, 1997; Skeffington et al, 1997). In addition to precipitating the loss of Sphagnum mosses, historic atmospheric pollution emanating from the Industrial revolution also had a negative impact on ph levels of present peat, reducing the ph of some sites on Bleaklow to as low as ph 2.00 (Buckler, 2007). Alongside the physically poor conditions of peat and loss of Sphagnum moss species (which have an important role in ecosystem stabilisation as well as peat (carbon) accumulation), land management issues of overgrazing (Buckler, 2007, Tallis and Yalden, 1983), localized trampling damage from heavy visitor use (Pearce-Higgins and Yalden, 1997) and wildfires (non-prescribed burning) (Radley, 1965; Legg et al, 1992; Anderson, 1997) have created further instability and destruction of peat structure over large areas. Once the blanket of vegetation has been lost the remaining peat surface is highly mobile and susceptible to climatic drivers such as frost heave and desiccation which exacerbate degradation of the soils physical character and loss of peat (Buckler, 2007). Once vegetation has been lost and the peat exposed, erosion and oxidation of the peat inhibit natural plant re-colonisation. Re-vegetation of bare peat essentially provides the double benefit of: 1. stabilising the structure of the peat body, reducing erosion and its associated negative impacts on ecosystem services including water quality and carbon losses; 2. re-introducing the possibility of peat formation in the future. 7

8 Whilst restoration methods and funding streams have evolved since 2003 the overarching aim of Moors for the Future conservation land management work remains to conserve and reverse the degradation of blanket bog habitat in the Dark Peak and South Pennines, working towards the re-creation of active blanket bog, with an active sphagnum based acrotelm, and dominant surface vegetation based on the NVC community M19 Calluna vulgaris-eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire Empetrum nigrum ssp. nigrum sub-community. The vegetation monitoring that has been carried out by Moors for the Future over the past nine years was not designed to test the efficacy of the restoration process, constituent phases or combinations. The collection of projects were instead designed to monitor the outcomes of the restoration process and currently do so up to restoration phase 7 (see Buckler et al for details). Aims and objectives Since 2003 the Moors for the Future Partnership has been developing and delivering practical restoration techniques to reverse the degradation and halt the loss of blanket bog in the Dark Peak and South Pennine Moors. This report aims to: document the re-vegetation of bare peat areas over a nine year period; identify broad patterns across sites to evidence trajectories of vegetation change; explore whether, regardless of variability in the process (e.g. exact timings of interventions; weather during the restoration process; site specific environment conditions or quality of materials), that in the short-term (5 years) and mid term (9 years) restoration methods are robust and sites, in terms of vegetation cover and diversity end up in the same place ; develop an understanding of vegetation succession trajectories that may inform future conservation land management projects on other sites and provide an indication of expected vegetation cover at various stages of the restoration process. 8

9 The main objectives of this report are to: o Assess the medium term impact of initial restoration work undertaken on Bleaklow and Black Hill by the Moors for the Future Partnership on reduction of bare peat through revegetation; o To analyse evidence of HLF works on biodiversity recovery; o To create the opportunity to extend learning from Bleaklow to other sites moving into Higher Level Stewardship. Site descriptions Bleaklow (SK OS Grid Reference) summit (633m) lies within the Dark Peak area of the Peak District (Fig. 1), representing the second highest peak after Kinder Scout. Its plateau, formed of Namurian sandstone of the Millstone Grit series, slopes northwards towards the Longdendale Valley, with the northern edge dropping away from an altitude of approximately 480m to 210m in the valley below, within 1 kilometre (UK Ordnance Datum, OD). This site comprises a number of separate restoration sites that have received the restoration process over the last 10 years (see Fig. 2 and Table 1). Black Hill (SE ) standing at 583m above sea-level is 9km north of Bleaklow along the Pennine Way on the border between West Yorkshire and Derbyshire (see Fig. 1). It is Moors for the Future s most extensive and well monitored restoration site after Bleaklow and is included in this study to assess how well re-vegetation trajectories seen on Bleaklow transfer to other sites. Restoration methods Over the last ten years Moors for the Future have adopted, developed and modified practical restoration methods to achieve these aims. 7 key phases of bare peat restoration have been identified based on our work through-out the South Pennines (see Moors for the Future website ( for illustrated case studies). 9

10 Phase 1 Identifying causes and prevention Before embarking on targeted restoration actions the causes of habitat disturbance and peat loss must be identified and addressed. Creating a period of breathing space during which restoration actions can stimulate ecosystem recovery is crucial for preventing the same drivers of peat erosion from taking effect in future. Phase 2 Managing sheep Re-vegetation is a key step in restoring bare peat. Excluding stock removes grazing pressure on newly germinated grasses and dwarf shrubs, giving plants time to establish and create a stabilising layer of vegetation. Phase 3 Stabilising bare peat Once the drivers have been reduced, the problems can be addressed. The major issue on the areas of bare peat is the mobility of the substrate and the climatic conditions. Substrate stabilisation methods, including heather brash (cut heather in the form of double-chopped brash or baled brash) and geo-textiles (currently in the form of jute mesh) act as a skin on top of bare peat, reducing the effects of erosion and creating a protective microclimate, buffering seeds from harsh weather conditions. Heather brash also provides a source of heather seeds, spores and fungi, otherwise absent from bare peat areas. Phase 4 Lime, Seed and Fertiliser The materials added in phase 3 reduce the loss of peat in the short term. However, in order to ensure that this continues, vegetation must be re-established. To do this, favourable conditions for vegetation must be created and seeds supplied; exactly what is required will differ from site to site. The sown seeds (Agrostis, Festuca, Deschampsia, Lolium and heather (Calluna vulgaris and Erica tetralix)) grow through the stabilisation materials tying them together, creating a scab over the bare peat. This provides stabilisation for a longer period of time, allowing moorland vegetation to establish. Phase 5 Increasing diversity The steps above provide a breathing space, significantly reducing the erosion of bare peat. However, they do not create appropriate blanket bog communities, which require a completely different range of species. Deep burning wildfires have decimated viable seed banks on bare peat restoration sites and neighbouring areas, which may provide seed sources on the periphery, can be far from the centre of large areas of bare peat. The influx of seeds from stabilised or intact donor sites may happen over long timescales. However as little is known about how effective this process may be or even 10

11 how long there is before the reinstated vegetation degrades further, the partnership identified the need for research and development into diversifying the vegetation on restoration sites; re-introducing moorland plant species. To aid the succession of nurse crop to moorland vegetation five key moorland species were chosen for propagation to be planted out as individual plug plants: cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus; hare s-tail cotton-grass Eriophorum vaginatum; common cotton-grass E. angustifolium; bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus; and crowberry Empetrum nigrum. Phase 6 Gully blocking Blocking the flow of peat sediment along erosion channels reduces the loss of peat downstream and stimulates the recovery of a characteristically high water table, helping to re-wet degraded areas. Phase 7 Sphagnum moss The major factor that has created the blanket bogs of the Peak District and South Pennines are Sphagnum mosses. These have been lost to a significant degree, primarily due to historic industrial pollution. The Partnership has funded the research and development of innovative methods of re-introducing Sphagnum moss back to degraded areas in the Peak District that are either devoid of Sphagnum moss species or are very Sphagnum poor. Providing the mechanism for the return of key peat-forming vegetation is an essential stage in stabilising the peat structure, promoting a re-version to characteristic hydrological regimes and stimulating ecosystem stability. Full explanations of Moors for the Future Partnerships restoration techniques are detailed in Buckler et al

12 Figure 1: Location of Bleaklow and Black Hill, Peak District. Figure 2: Location of restoration areas and monitoring quadrats on Bleaklow and Black Hill. 12

13 Table 1: Schedule of restoration treatments (more details available from Buckler et al., 2013 and Buckler, 2007) Site Application Time of treatment Shining Clough 1 Sykes Moor 2 Heather brash then Lime, seed & fertiliser Winter 2002/03 1 / 2004/05 2 June / July/August Joseph Patch 3 Shelf Moor 4 Lime,seed & fertiliser then Heather brash June /4 / Winter 2003/04 3/4 / 2004/05 4 Black Hill Heather brash then Lime, seed & fertiliser Winter 2005/06 June 2006 All sites Fertiliser June / August subsequent year (except Black Hill which was re-treated in 2008 not 2007). All sites Fertiliser June / August subsequent year (except Sykes Moor which was re-treated in 2008 not 2007). Methods Over the last nine years ( ) Moors for the Future s vegetation monitoring methodologies have evolved in response to changing objectives and available resources from different funding streams over time. All five sites (four on Bleaklow, one on Black Hill) have progressed through the first seven years of the restoration process. Whilst data is available for an eight year period (although not necessarily the same years) for the sites on Bleaklow, only one site (Joseph Patch) had undergone nine years of restoration at the time of analysis. We used data on vegetation cover, diversity and composition from these sites on a years since restoration timescale to investigate the general efficacy of the restoration process. There is a wealth of data across a variety of sampling parameters documenting the effect of restoration on vegetation recovery dating back to The dataset used here is a subset of Moors for the Future s vegetation monitoring data based on parameters 13

14 that were universally recorded across years. As different sized quadrats were used in different years (see Table 2) percentage cover was our chosen variable. Data is available from different locations on the peat surface (e.g. on north and south facing slopes and the middle of hagg tops) between As domed tops tend to be quite dry exposed peat, vulnerable to rapid erosion, quadrats from 2007 onwards were focussed on the documenting the effect of restoration on these harder to win sites. For the purposes of this study only data from tops were included in analyses to reduce confounding effects of different sampling locations. Differences in quadrat size used for sampling also differed between years and are likely to be a confounding factor. With numerous records having been collected by a variety of surveyors (from specialist botanists to willing volunteers) over a ten year period, only data from known quadrat locations that we had good confidence of accuracy in was included. Identifying young vegetation, especially grasses, is inherently difficult. Botanists were employed between to survey germinating grasses. Between the majority of quadrat placement and vegetation surveying was carried out by a team of volunteers with differing, and unspecified, botanical experience quadrats were surveyed by Moors for the Future staff and volunteers with basic training. Whilst there was no doubt a degree of observer bias, as we were interested in broad trajectories in vegetation succession, no statistical investigation of the effect of observer or effect of sampling technique was undertaken on this occasion. In addition to differing methodologies, including variable quadrat sizes (Table 3: Summary of restoration monitoring methodologies.), there were also potential issues of spatial autocorrelation especially in the earlier datasets (post 2007 surveys followed a stratified gridded design). One of the primary issues of spatial correlation is a reduction in sample variance within a site and emphasis of variance between sites. Whilst data analyses within this report do include comparison between sites we are primarily interested in broad patterns of vegetation change across all sites. Although lineage is difficult to trace due to changing quadrat labels there are also some sites that have 14

15 repeated measures of the same geographic location (from fixed quadrats) over several years, increasing temporal autocorrelation. This is especially true of data as assessing small scale vegetation changes over time is one of the main objectives of MoorLIFE monitoring. Detailed analysis of paired-observations repeatedly measured over time will be the focus of a Moors for the Future MoorLIFE report later in 2013 and is not covered here. Table 2: Number of quadrats included in study. Time since initial restoration (years) Joseph Patch Shelf Moor Shining Clough Sykes Moor Black Hill Total across restoration sites Control NA NA NA NA 80 NA 9 41 NA NA NA NA 41 NA All vegetation monitoring was carried out in June, July, August or early September except initial surveys of bare peat in November Shelf Moss was re-named Shelf Moor in later years. Shelf Moor, Shelf Moor 2 and Shelf Moor 3 were consolidated into one site (Shelf Moor) for the purposes of this analysis as there were no clear boundaries between them. For detailed monitoring methodologies see Buckler (2007) for surveys is available on request from the Moors for the Future Science team. Variables under analyses included: percentage cover of bare peat; calculated sum of all vegetation cover; percentage cover of functional plant types (nurse crop; moorland dwarf-shrub; moorland herb; grasses, sedges & rushes; ferns; invasive species; trees & scrub; bryophytes) as well as the percentage cover of the most dominant species 15

16 contributing to these groups. See Appendix I for a full list of recorded variables included in analyses. Table 3: Summary of restoration monitoring methodologies. Year Sites Joseph Patch Shining Clough Sykes Moor Sampling type Size of quadrat* Surveyors Project objective Fixed quadrats Stratified by slope and aspect Joseph Patch Shining clough Sykes Moor Shelf Moss Shelf Moor 3 Random quadrats Stratified by slope and aspect Joseph Patch Shining clough Sykes Moor Shelf Moor Shelf Moor 2 Shelf Moor 3 Black Hill Random quadrats Joseph Patch** Shining clough Sykes Moor** Shelf Moor Shelf Moor 2 Shelf Moor 3 Black Hill** Fixed quadrats Stratified sampling on grid design 0.25m m m m 2 (2008) Specialist botanists Evaluate germination and survival success of sown grasses Specialist botanists Assess effects of restoration treatments on vegetation composition Volunteers Monitor vegetation succession 2m 2 ( 09-12) MFF staff & casual workers Monitor vegetation succession and effects of maintenance treatments of vegetation composition and structure. Funder EU LIFE ( ) * Additional data was collected using different sized quadrats however to minimize spatial autocorrelation data from only one quadrat size per year was selected for this study. ** Monitored in Joseph Patch is therefore the only site with nine years of data. Data analysis As the dataset inherently had a high number of zero values non-parametric statistical tests were appropriate. Even following relevant transformations assumptions of parametric tests were not met thus reducing the possibility of statistically modelling temporal trajectories against the influence of mixed effects (e.g. restoration treatment). Changes in the proportion of ground cover recorded for each vegetation grouping, individual species or bare peat during the nine year restoration period were calculated 16

17 from the proportion of the total percentage cover for any given variable divided by the calculated sum of total coverage (all vegetation and bare peat) for any given year. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyse differences between sites in any given year for single parameters. Mann-Whitney tests provided post-hoc identification of pair-wise differences between sites. Correlations between percentage cover and time since initial restoration were explored using Spearman s rank correlation tests where appropriate. Using data collected in 2011 a diversity index was calculated using presence and absence of individual species in quadrats across different sites. Where observations were not recorded to species level, e.g. feather mosses, these classifications were treated as species in the analysis to give us a measure of relative diversity using the Shannon-Weaver Index which is defined as H = - Ʃ p i ln p i where p i = the proportion of an individual species in a sample All statistical tests were carried out in R version and SPSS Statistics 20. Results Reduction of bare peat cover Sites differed significantly in their extent of bare peat cover prior to restoration (H (4) = 27.76, p < 0.01) however all were extremely degraded with between 82% ± 1.06 (Sykes Moor) and 99% ± 0.64 (Joseph Patch) bare peat cover (median values unless otherwise stated). Post-hoc pair-wise comparisons confirmed all sites differed significantly from each other in pre-restoration states except Shining Clough (n=49) and Shelf Moor (n=9) (U = , Z = 0.687, n.s.) which both show medians of 99% bare peat cover (± 0.76 & 2.27 respectively) (see Fig. 3). 17

18 Bare peat (% cover) Black Hill Josephs patch Shelf Moor Shining Clough Sykes Moor Control Time since restoration (years) Figure 3: Mean bare peat cover across individual restoration sites. 95% Confidence Interval bars displayed. One year after initial treatment there is a marked reduction of bare peat from 99% ± 0.56 (N=73) to 86% ± 2.23 (N=107) across sites. The sites continued to differ in bare peat cover (H (3) = 21.82, p<0.001) with only Joseph Patch (n = 33) and Shelf Moor (n=17) showing no significant difference between each other (U = , Z = -0.20, n.s.). An overall decrease in bare peat cover continues with a drop from 86% ± 2.23 to 65% ± 2.95 between the first and second year after restoration. Two years after initial restoration treatment there is no significant difference in bare peat cover between sites (H (4) = 6.80, n.s.) with median values between 45% ± (Black Hill) and 83% ± 1.74 (Joseph Patch). As vegetation continues to establish the extent of bare peat decreases further in subsequent years (third year after restoration: median value across all sites = 24% ± 3.83 reaching an average of 0% ± 2.44 four years after restoration with no significant difference between sites (H(3) = 4.31, n.s.). 18

19 Whilst there is more variance in observations in the fifth year after restoration (H (4) = 13.32, p <0.01) with bare peat values ranging from 0% at Joseph Patch (± 3.95), Shelf Moor (± 0.27) and Shining Clough (± 5.18) to 10% ± 5.67 (Black Hill) all sites converge on an average of less than 4% bare peat coverage across sites for the remaining years of monitoring with no significant differences between sites. All restoration sites differed significantly from the control (untreated) plots (Fig. 3 & 4) across years (with the most recent average of 94% ± 6.53 bare peat cover across sites), highlighting the necessity of intervention to re-vegetate and halt further erosion. Following a suite of restoration treatments to physically stabilise bare peat and promote re-vegetation (see Table 1 and Buckler et al. 2013) the mean coverage of bare peat across all restoration sites was reduced from 96% ± 0.68 (n = 73) to 8% ± 2.44 (n = 48) within four years. Conversely, following these initial restoration phases (see Table 1 for details) the mean percentage of vegetation cover was found to increase from 3% ± 0.59 to 115% ± 3.74 (coverage over a 100% indicates overlap in vegetation tiers) in the same time frame (Fig. 4). The percentage cover of vegetation at each site differs significantly to those of control plots for each year, reiterating the success of Moors for the Future restoration projects at re-vegetating bare peat sites. 19

20 Total vegetation (% cover) Black Hill Josephs patch Shelf Moor Shining Clough Sykes Moor Control Time since restoration (years) Figure 4: Mean vegetation cover across individual sites (values calculated from sum of individual species observations, total vegetation cover was not a variable recorded in the field). 95% Confidence Interval bars displayed. Re-vegetation Nurse crop establishment There is notable variation in the percentage cover of nurse crop recorded within and between sites (Fig. 5) however successful nurse crop establishment is evident across sites up to four (five for Joseph Patch) years after restoration activities started. The comparable success of different restoration treatments, as well as germination and survival of nurse crop grasses, was evaluated in detail by Buckler (2007), the data from which forms the base of this study. Some variation may be explained by the effects of geographic environmental variables (e.g. slope) whilst others such as weather during the seeding and date of fertiliser application may also be accountable (as suggested in Buckler, 2007). 20

21 Nurse crop (% cover) Black Hill Josephs patch Shelf Moor Shining Clough Sykes Moor Time since restoration (years) Figure 5: Mean cover of nurse crop (Agrostis spp., Deschampsia flexuosa & Festuca spp.) across sites. 95% Confidence Interval bars displayed. Looking at the trajectories of individual nurse crop species (Fig. 6) Agrostis establishes most prominently in the first year but fails to contribute to more than a mean of 6% ± 1.46 cover in the first four years, although persists at this relatively low level throughout the given time-frame. Early analyses of related frequency count data by Buckler(2007) show the number of quadrats in which Agrostis is found in is relatively small however, when present, the number of individual plants found is high, this clumping behaviour may be an indication as to why its mean percentage cover is low when compared to other nurse crop species. Festuca species, like Agrostis, are included in nurse crop seed mixes to stabilise peat until moorland plants including Deschampsia becomes established. After the initial germination of Agrostis in year one, Festuca species increase their percentage cover over the following two years until Deschampsia dominates after the third year (Fig. 6). It is worthy of note that the relatively low coverage of Deschampsia, visible before year three, was likely to be due to its absence in the seed mix in 2004/ 05 and low concentration (0.3kg ha -1 in 2006) rather than a difference in germination or establishment success (Buckler, 2007). Perennial rye grass 21

22 Mean percentage cover (Lolium species) is also present in the nurse crop seed mix (see Buckler et al. 2013) but was under-recorded in early vegetation surveys ( ; accounting for between % mean quadrat coverage) and was not recorded post 2009 and is therefore not included in analyses Time since restoration (years) Deschampsia flexuosa Agrostis spp. Festuca spp. Figure 6: Mean cover of individual nurse crop species across all restoration sites. 95% Confidence Intervals bars displayed. Diversification: Plug plants Nine years after initial restoration all sites showed a significant increase in plug plant cover. The exact timing of plug plant introduction was site dependant but occurred between the 2 nd and 4 th year after initial restoration treatment (see Buckler et al.2013). Although some annual variation is seen, both species of cotton grass (common (Eriophorum angustifolium) and hare s tail (Eriophorum vaginatum) increase significantly following the third year after initial restoration actions, individually increasing their coverage from 0.6 to 7-8% respectively, between the third and ninth year after restoration began (Fig. 7). Monitoring of cotton grass plug planting was also undertaken by Moors for the Future on behalf of the National Trust as part of the Biffa funded Peatlands for the Future project in 2010 and repeated in 2011, a year after planting (Maskill et al. 2012). Plug plant survival over the first fourteen months appeared to be high with no significant reduction seen in the number of plants over time. The percentage cover of cotton 22

23 Mean percentage cover grasses increased significantly from a median of 6 to 10% cover. A significant increase in the frequency of plants was also recorded between 2010 and 2011 (from a median of 6.5 to 39.0 plants), thought to be due to the observed vegetative spread of plants. Untreated control plots showed no recorded change in vegetation cover or abundance (Maskill et al. 2012). Purple moor grass (Molinia caerulea), a naturally seeded graminoid (not a plug plant species), covers a relatively small area across sites, increasing cover by only 0.5% over eight years (Fig. 7). Molinia can be abundant in zones of water movement so could indicate increasingly wet conditions Eriophorum angustifolium Eriophorum vaginatum Molinia caerulea Time since restoration (years) Figure 7: Mean percentage cover of moorland grasses, sedges and rushes across restoration sites. 95% Confidence interval bars displayed. The cover of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) also increased by a magnitude of ten from % over six years (3 to 9 years after initial restoration treatment) (Fig. 8); with a prominent increase after three years (year 4 = 5% ± 2.03), coinciding with a fall in nurse crop cover. Cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus ) and crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) were also recorded in very low frequencies and percentage ground cover at older, late stage restoration sites ( ) (cloudberry reached a total average coverage of 1% ± 6.29 at Joseph Patch nine years after restoration (Fig. 8) whilst crowberry was recorded in 28 quadrats over four sites; Joseph Patch (n= 5), Shining Clough (n = 12), Shelf Moor 23

24 Mean percentage cover (n = 4) and Sykes Moor (n = 7) with between % cover in any one quadrat) between 2010 and There are also records of other moorland dwarf-shrubs present in later years; cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccus) was recorded in 5 quadrats over four sites; Joseph Patch (n= 2), Shining Clough (n = 1), Shelf Moor (n = 1) and Black Hill (n = 1) with between 1 5% cover Calluna vulgaris Vaccinium myrtillus Rubus chamaemorus Time since restoration (years) Figure 8: Mean percentage cover of moorland dwarf shrub (common heather (Calluna vulgaris) & bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) and herbs (cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus) across restoration sites. 95% Confidence interval bars displayed. There is a potential for heather seed to be introduced through heather brash during the early stages of restoration as well as seeded in nurse crop application (Buckler et al. 2013). Throughout the study period, Calluna vulgaris accounts for the highest proportion of dwarf-shrubs ( 40% (± 3.28) by eighth year) and increases its contribution to total vegetation from extremely low coverage before restoration (0.5% ± 0.25) to 13% ± 2.42 in the fourth year and 24% ± 4.64 nine years after initial restoration. Changes in the cover of artificially restored vegetation are shown in figure 9. As presented above, initial re-vegetation of bare peat soils is successfully achieved by the application of lime, seed and fertiliser, with nurse crop amenity grasses growing rapidly and accounting for the majority of vegetation cover for the first three years of 24

25 Mean percentage cover restoration. Following the fourth year of restoration Deschampsia (a native moorland grass species sometimes present in the nurse crop) dominates the introduced vegetation until, during the fifth year after initial restoration, its trajectory overlaps with that of the artificially introduced plug plants. The succession of introduced vegetation from a Deschampsia dominated community to a mix of native moorland plants (including Deschampsia, plug plants (bilberry, crowberry, cloudberry and cotton grasses) and heather) highlights successful diversification by a suite of re-vegetating restoration activities Nurse crop without D.flexuosa Deschampsia flexuosa Plug plants Calluna vulgaris Time since restoration (years) Figure 9: Vegetation species introduced during restoration include: nurse crop amenity grasses plus Deschampsia; plug plants (bilberry, crowberry, cloudberry, common and hair s tail cotton grass) and heather. Non-native species The presence of ruderal and invasive species such as rosebay willowherb (Chamaenerion angustifolium) and rhododendron species was observed along with some evidence of tree saplings (present in 42% and 34% of 2012 vegetation survey quadrats respectively). Walkovers suggest that patches of plants such as rosebay willowherb might be highly localised and it is possible that the fixed quadrats do not pick up this variation. Collectively their contribution to total percentage vegetation cover was however minimal. They were therefore not investigated further within this study. 25

26 Bryophytes The most prominent functional plant type in the moorland vegetation is the feather mosses within the bryophytes (Fig. 10). Bryophytes are often the first plants to naturally colonise degraded or damaged ground. In blanket bog environments not only do mosses play an important role in peat stabilisation (providing the regulating blanket on the peat surface) they (namely Sphagnum species) are also primarily responsible for peat formation over longer time scales. Present from the second year after initial restoration treatment (0.03% ± 0.02%) feather mosses show an increase to 24% ± 4.57 in year four. A similar decline to the nurse crop grasses is seen in year five before increasing again in year 6, reaching 49% ± 7.57 after nine years (Fig. 10). The percentage cover of cushion mosses also increases two years after restoration from 0.5% ± 0.49 (year 2) to 4% (±1.32) (year 4). There is a marked rise in the percentage cover of cushion mosses from year 4 to 8 (30% ± 3.51), perhaps indicating lower levels of disturbance. However feather mosses appear to dominate again nine years after restoration began (Fig. 10). Self-set Sphagnum moss was recorded in two quadrats over two sites (Black Hill and Sykes Moor) five years after initial restoration (1% and 0.5% percentage cover of 2m 2 quadrats). This increases to a total of 16% cover across two different quadrats at Shelf Moor in year 6, but accounts for only 0.2% ± 0.13 (mean coverage) across all quadrats that year. This increases again to 1% ± 0.73 mean across sites (recorded in 8 quadrats over Black Hill, Shelf Moor, Shining Clough and Joseph Patch) in the seventh year before decreasing to 0.3% ± 0.25 (4 quadrats across, Shelf Moor, Shining Clough and Joseph Patch) in year eight, which could perhaps be a product of the small sample size. Sphagnum specific surveys were also undertaken on Black Hill in 2012 and recorded five species; S. fallax, S. fimbriatum, S. palustre/papillosum, S. subnitens and S. cuspidatum. As the location of Sphagnum overlapped entirely with earlier distribution of heather brash in 2005 and 2007 it is highly likely that Sphagnum fragments or spores were 26

27 Mean percenateg cover introduced with the brash and is an extremely positive outcome of the re-vegetation works. An increase in diversity of bryophytes is also observed with the presence of lichens and liverworts recorded after four years with maximum mean coverage of 0.31% ± 0.09 (year 6) and 0.23% ± 0.11 (year 9) respectively across sites Cushion mosses Feather mosses Sphagnum mosses Lichens Liverworts Time since restoration (years) Figure 10: Mean percentage cover of bryophytes (mosses, lichens and liverworts) across restoration sites. 95% Confidence interval bars displayed. Community composition & diversity Figure 11 highlights the impact of early restoration phases on re-vegetation trajectories. Bare peat reduction occurs rapidly after substrate stabilisation (geo-textiles and heather brash) which are optimally applied during the first year of restoration (see Buckler et al. 2013). Following the initial application of lime, seed and fertiliser during the first or second year of restoration nurse, crop growth is stimulated and continues to increase in response to top up treatments of lime and fertiliser in years 2 and 3 (possibly into year 4 if necessary). 27

28 Figure 11: Snapshot of the first five years of restoration (data averaged from all sites). Restoration actions: Re-vegetation includes lime, seed and fertiliser applications as well as plug planting; darker shades represent ideal application windows, lighter colours are possible but less optimal windows of opportunity (see Buckler et al. 2013). Exact times of sampling varied annually but occurred predominantly in late summer. Four years after initial restoration activities, moorland vegetation (sum of nonintroduced grasses, sedges & rushes; moorland herbs; dwarf shrubs and bryophytes( see appendix I) accounts for 67% ± 1.96 of all recorded vegetation cover, with nurse crop species (including Deschampsia) representing the remaining 47% ± After this stage a drop off in nurse crop coverage is seen as moorland vegetation begins to colonise. Whilst the amenity grasses that make up the nurse crop were selected because of their rapid growth and large root mats (maximising physical soil stabilisation potential) they require nutrient enrichment to survive. During the initial restoration phases fertiliser is applied annually for three years to ensure the survival of the nurse crop and its resulting peat stabilisation effects. By the fourth year all fertiliser applications have ceased, the percentage cover of nurse crop starts to fall away and moorland vegetation begins to colonise on the now more stable substrate. 28

29 Figure 12: Monitoring the impact of landscape scale restoration: Showing approximately the same location on Joseph Patch facing north in 2004 (left) and 2012 (right). Having demonstrated the general patterns of early stage re-vegetation above (Fig.11), figure 12 highlights the temporal trajectories of re-vegetation on bare peat cover, nurse crop establishment and moorland vegetation succession beyond the initial phases of restoration. Unlike the reduction of bare peat which occurs rapidly during the first four years, the trajectory of re-vegetation increases linearly over the nine year timeframe with a highly significant strong positive correlation between total vegetation cover and time since restoration (Fig. 11) (Spearman s rank r s = 0.93, p < 0.001, n = 42). What type of community these re-vegetated areas represent is a key question. The trajectory of nurse crop species (including Deschampsia) gradually increases throughout early restoration phases (shown in Fig. 11) then persists at lower levels, decreasing in later years (Fig. 13). As quickly as four years after initial restoration treatments, moorland vegetation becomes the dominant ground cover across restoration sites (Fig. 11). Whilst there is some variation between sites, moorland vegetation increases significantly across all restoration sites over time (Fig. 13) (Spearman s rank r s = 0.94, p < 0.001, n = 42). Six years after initial restoration the re-vegetation objective of 100% vegetation cover is achieved by moorland vegetation alone (Fig. 13). Beyond this continued accumulation of 29

30 moorland vegetation indicates increasing structural complexity amongst the community. Figure 13: Mean percentage of the main ground-cover components across all restoration sites. Percentage cover of each quadrat may total over 100% (highlighted by a horizontal line) due to vertical overlap of vegetation tiers. Solid lines show second order polynomial regressions. 95% Confidence Interval bars displayed. Although Deschampsia seeds are introduced in the nurse crop, and so included with other nurse crop grasses in figures 11 & 13, it is a native moorland species and as such there is benefit in including it within the moorland vegetation as oppose to the nurse crop group (Fig. 14). Moorland vegetation (including Deschampsia) accounts for over 85% of total vegetation cover after four years of restoration activities, increasing to 92% nine years after restoration began (Fig. 14). Ruderals, nurse crop species (not including Deschampsia) and non-identified species account for the remaining vegetation cover. Of the moorland vegetation cover heather, plug plants and Deschampsia account for approximately half (range %); bryophytes predominantly account for the remainder. 30

31 Mean percentage cover Time since restoration (years) Total vegetation cover Moorland vegetation including D.flexuosa Restoration species "Nurse crop without D.flexuosa Figure 14: Vegetation trajectories of: all plant species; native moorland vegetation (herbs; dwarf shrubs, bryophytes, grasses (including Deschampsia), sedges & rushes); Restoration species (nurse crop, plug plants and heather) and Nurse crop (amenity) grasses. Second order polynomial regression lines highlight data trends. Figure 15 shows the overall change in proportion of ground cover between the baseline, unrestored sites and nine years after initial treatment. The marked reduction in the extent of bare peat as the proportion of ground within the quadrats becomes dominated by vegetation is reinforced and it allows us to compare the net contribution of different groups and species to the latest vegetation community (Fig. 15). As not all variables followed unidirectional trajectories, with some species increasing in their coverage over several years before dipping and then increasing again, the step changes over individual years are not shown for simplicity. The proportion cover of all vegetation types has been broken down into functional groups with the majority of component species shown in figure 15. Bryophytes account for the biggest net gain in vegetation cover at restoration sites followed by nurse crop species (predominantly native Deschampsia), dwarf shrubs (predominantly common heather) then graminoids (dominated by cotton grasses). A net increase in five blanket 31

32 bog indicator species (Common Standards Monitoring; JNCC, 2009) is also notable (see Fig. 15). * * * * * Figure 15: Change in proportion of total ground cover components nine years after restoration. *Common Standards Monitoring blanket bog indicator species (JNCC 2009). The status of the restoration sites on Bleaklow and Black Hill was also assessed at the start of the MoorLIFE project in 2010 (Maskill et al., 2013). While species composition varies at each of the sites, all sites have at least seven of the blanket bog indicator species listed in the JNCC Common Standards Monitoring Methods (JNCC, 2009). Indicator species present on all sites included C. vulgaris, E. nigrum, E. angustifolium, E. vaginatum, non-crustose lichens, Pleurocarpus mosses, R. chamaemorous and Vaccinium species (as mentioned previously). 32

33 Species Diversity (H) Shining Clough Shelf Moor Sykes Moor Joseph's Patch Shelf Moor 2.6 Black Hill All 'species' Sykes Moor Shelf Moor Shining Clough Joseph's Patch Shelf Moor Moorland 'species' Black Hill Year since restoration Figure 16: Relative species diversity of vegetation at later stage restoration sites monitored in Having successfully stimulated moorland vegetation succession across restoration sites our analysis of vegetation monitoring is now moving towards exploring species diversity. Figure 16 shows a snapshot of the diversity of vegetation communities across later stage restoration sites monitored in Whilst there are too few data points for robust statistical analysis at this stage, slight positive trends in both the total vegetation and native moorland plant diversity indices suggest an increase in species diversity across restoration sites over time (Fig. 16 & Appendix II). 33

34 Discussion Data from the monitoring of nearly ten years change following moorland restoration through re-vegetation are presented in this report. Analyses have been restricted to identifying broad patterns of vegetation change over multiple sites. General trajectories of bare peat reduction and vegetation establishment are evident despite the underlying dataset being extremely noisy and with many environmental variables such as soil chemistry, elevation and slope unexplained within this study. The impact of differing restoration treatments (addressed in detail by Buckler (2007)) are also out with this report. As a product of extensive research and development, trial and error, the suite of bare peat restoration treatments applied by Moors for the Future, in whichever initial order, result in a significant reduction of bare peat within four years. Whilst the majority of Moors for the Future s soil stabilisation projects began with heather brash or geo-textile applied in the winter prior to the initial application of lime, seed and fertiliser, both Joseph Patch and Shelf Moor received these restoration phases in the opposite order with an application of lime, seed and fertiliser in the summer, followed by a winter / spring application of geo-textiles or heather brash (doublechopped brash and brash bales see Buckler, 2007 for further details). Both sites were the slowest to re-vegetate during the first four years of restoration and did not differ statistically from each other in their coverage of bare peat after the first year of restoration, with both maintaining higher coverage of bare peat than other sites. By the second year however there was no statistical difference between sites, suggesting that the order of initial restoration treatments may have had minimal impact on this occasion. All sites were successfully re-vegetated four years after restoration began and display similar vegetation trajectories beyond this point. One of the key objectives of early restoration is to physically stabilise eroding soils through re-vegetation. The nurse crop of amenity grasses (Agrostis species, Deschampsia flexuosa, Festuca species and Lolium species) that are applied during the 34

35 first three years of restoration to facilitate soil stability still feature in the vegetation community nine years after restoration but, importantly, are not the most significant vegetation group, suggesting colonisation by other non-introduced species. Of these species, Deschampsia accounts for the largest proportion of nurse grasses with Agrostis and Festuca species showing much less of an overall change in their relative proportions of cover over time. Whilst Deschampsia, as a native moorland species, may be more well adapted to degraded upland conditions than other nurse crop species there is also likely to be natural seed set from adjacent Deschampsia communities surrounding restoration sites; Deschampsia is a minor (maximum of 1kg per hectare) component of the seeded mix and on some sites was not applied at all, due to the availability of locally sourced seed. Cotton grasses are early colonisers of bare peat soils and positive indicators of NVC M19 blanket bog communities (Richards et al. 1995). Introducing well rooted shoots of propagated plug plants to bare peat that has been pre-treated with lime and fertiliser has been shown to be the most effective method of promoting common cotton grass growth on the eroded bare peat of Kinder plateau (Richards et al. 1995). Whilst there may be some natural seed set once eroding bare peat has been stabilised (through early restoration phases (see Buckler et al. 2013)) artificial plug planting stimulates a significant increase in cotton grass cover three years after the beginning of restoration. Once established, the dead leaves of cotton grass have been shown to provide a beneficial microclimate for Sphagnum (Wheeler et al. 1995). They also increase the surface roughness of bare peat (Holden et al. 2008), attenuating overland water flow and potentially contributing to the positive impact that moorland vegetation may have on downstream flood events. Preliminary results from hydrological monitoring on the northern edge of Kinder Scout through the Defra and Environment Agency funded Moors for the Future Making Space for Water project indicate hydrograph characteristics of a the late-stage re-vegetated reference catchment that are intermediate between those of the eroded and intact catchments, with lag times significantly longer than those observed at eroded sites. These results are consistent with an attenuation effect of re-vegetation on storm-flow runoff (Holden et al., 2008). 35

36 However, this effect requires confirmation given the restricted number of storm hydrographs currently available from the re-vegetated catchment. Whilst re-vegetation of eroding bare peat sites may play a positive role in potential flood risk mitigation it also contributes to a multitude of other benefits and opportunities provided by a more stable, re-vegetated peatland environment. Arguably the greatest benefits of re-vegetation may be seen in terms of carbon fluxes. Whilst the magnitude of gross carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) fluxes have been found to differ with the type of vegetation present, vegetated areas have higher CO 2 fluxes compared to bare peat soils (Dixon et al. 2013). Re-vegetated sites had significantly greater rates of gross photosynthesis (as a result of an increase in primary productivity) than bare peat sites on Bleaklow Plateau. Losses of carbon (e.g. Particulate Organic Carbon (POC)) are also avoided as erosion processes are attenuated; reducing the amount of suspended sediment mobilised and thus having a positive effect on water quality (Shuttleworth et al. 2011). Streamflow turbidity (also called suspended sediment and used as a proxy for POC) has shown statistically significant decreases following re-vegetation (lime, seed and fertiliser treatment) at Ashway Gap in the Peak District, based on daily sampling (which may miss flashy events on smaller time scales, e.g. one to two hours) between 2008 and 2011 (United Utilities, 2012). Previous studies have shown POC to be the most significant form of carbon loss from actively eroding peatlands, accounting for 80% of the estimated carbon flux (based on a study on Bleaklow by Pawson et al., 2008). Re-vegetated sites are therefore more likely to be overall net CO 2 sinks than CO 2 sources (Dixon et al. 2013, Worrall et al and Bonn et al. 2009). Whilst other restoration activities (e.g. gully blocking) also influence carbon budgets it has been suggested that the presence of vegetation is a key control on carbon cycling (Clay et al. 2012). Moorland dwarf shrubs (dominated by common heather and bilberry) and moorland graminoids (common cotton grass and hare s tail cotton grass) also show prominent changes in their proportion of cover over time after re-vegetating restoration treatments, suggesting restored conditions are suitable for their colonisation. 36

37 Variable proportions of cotton grasses and dwarf shrubs are found throughout blanket bog mesotopes and are related to substrate features, hydrology and topography. A certain amount of variability between sites and quadrats is to be naturally expected especially during early colonisation as moorland species compete over newly available habitat. The overall increase in cover of these species from zero or near zero levels is a positive step in the direction of a blanket bog vegetation community. Whilst heather is a significant component of moorland vegetation in the UK (Rodwell et al., 1991) and, due to its relatively easy and cheap availability compared to other dwarfshrub species, has been used extensively in moorland restoration it is not the dominant visual component of blanket mire (M19 Calluna vulgaris Eriophorum vaginatum, Empetrum nigrum spp. Nigrum sub-community) or blanket and raised mire (M20 Eriophorum vaginatum) NVC communities expected on the moorland tops of the Peak District. It does however provide a key stepping stone between nurse crop and more typical blanket mire vegetation. Species in each functional group appear to display a decrease in coverage between year eight and nine namely: Festuca spp.; Cushion mosses; common heather and common cotton grass. This effect is however not universal across species with Deschampsia; Agrostis spp.; feather mosses; bilberry and cloudberry displaying increases in mean percentage cover over the same twelve months. Whether these effects are site specific (Joseph Patch is the only site for which nine years of data is available), a result of weather conditions that year or are natural fluctuations as a result of competing species may become evident with the addition of monitoring data from various sites in future years. A case study of fixed point quadrats surveyed repeatedly over different years would also allow finer scale analysis of such trends in future. The influx of moorland plant species depends on the natural immigration or artificial introduction of seeds or spores. The proximity of restoration sites and the areas within them to adjacent donor communities or introduced plug plants may become an increasingly important factor in moorland vegetation trajectories in coming years. 37

38 As the moorland vegetation community of previously large expanses of bare peat continues to increase in complexity, these areas should also increase ecological connectivity for moorland species; decreasing the distance and functional barriers between neighbouring moorland habitats. As well as increasing ecological connectivity, the restoration of bare peat moorlands may also increase recreational and potentially economic opportunities in the future; reconnecting human communities with these green spaces. Based on data from five sites (n = 48) we would expect to see almost a total reduction of bare peat after four years of restoration treatments (including phases 1 to 5 (see Buckler et al. 2013). At this check point native moorland vegetation accounts for a larger proportion of cover than nurse crop species however seeded grasses still account for nearly 50% of vegetation at this stage. Five years after restoration also serves as an appropriate progress check point as amenity grasses, no longer supplemented with nutrients and lime, begin to decrease in cover whilst moorland vegetation continues. With the addition of data collected across these sites in future years (beyond the four years for which moorland vegetation data is currently available for multiple sites (year four to eight after initial restoration)) more sophisticated temporal trajectory modelling techniques based on species richness and diversity such as those demonstrated by Poulin, M., Anderson, R. & Rochefort, L (2012) may be employed to monitor the progress of vegetation succession and steer it towards a NVC M19 community. Conclusion The restoration treatments applied to bare peat sites across large areas of Bleaklow and Black Hill between 2003 and 2006 have successfully reduced the extent of exposed peat and stimulated plant recolonisation. Four years after initial treatment, plots are converted from almost 100% bare peat to full vegetation cover. During these initial 38

39 phases of peat stabilisation introduced amenity grasses (nurse crop) and common heather become established, providing a vegetated platform for moorland species to colonise on otherwise uninhabitable bare peat. Following the cessation of nutrient supplementation through fertiliser applications, nurse crop coverage peaks four years after initial restoration treatment then persists at lower levels for the duration of the study, continuing to provide an opportunity for moorland vegetation succession. Coinciding with the reduction of nurse crop coverage four years after initial restoration treatments moorland plants including feather mosses, cushion mosses, dwarf-shrubs (common heather and bilberry), grasses, sedges & rushes (cotton grasses and purple moor grass) and herbs (cloudberry) begin to colonise, all increasing in their overall coverage over time. In later years the presence of other species (including crowberry) even in very small patches, indicate an increase in biodiversity across all moorland vegetation groups. Having successfully stabilised these large areas of bare peat through re-vegetation and stimulated recolonisation of some moorland plant species the challenge for sites on Bleaklow (such as Joseph Patch) is to ensure continued establishment and persistence of species within these newly colonised areas. Due to the limited availability of natural seed (and spore in the case of Sphagnum) banks, practical conservation works have shifted from physical stabilisation to facilitating increased biodiversity at these sites. In anticipation of this the re-introduction of Sphagnum moss at a landscape scale across restoration sites has become a key focus for Moors for the Future over the past few years (see Buckler et al. 2013). Developing our understanding of the impacts of continued restoration activities, including application of Sphagnum mosses, on moorland vegetation colonisation, as well as monitoring how existing vegetation succession trajectories proceed past the present timescale are important areas of future research. 39

40 References Anderson, P. (1997). Fire damage on blanket mires. In Tallis, J.H., Meade, R. and Hulme, P.D. (1997). Blanket Mire Degradation: Causes Consequences and Challenges. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen. Bain, C.G., Bonn, A., Stoneman, R., Chapman, S., Coupar, A., Evans, M., Gearey, B., Howat, M., Joosten, H., Keenleyside, C., Labadz, J., Lindsay, R., Littlewood, N., Lunt, P., Miller, C.J., Moxey, A., Orr, H., Reed, M., Smith, P., Swales, V., Thompson, D.B.A., Thompson, P.S., Van de Noort, R., Wilson, J.D. & Worrall, F. (2011) IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. IUCN UK Peatland Programme, Edinburgh. Bonn, A., Allott, T., Hubacek, K. and Stewart, J. Drivers of environmental change in uplands Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York. P Buckler, M (2007) Evaluating moorland restoration techniques. MSc dissertation. Staffordshire University. Buckler, M., Proctor, S., Walker, J.S., Wittram, B., Straton, P., Maskill, R.M (2013) Recommendations for bare peat restoration; treatment prescriptions and monitoring ten years of moorland restoration across Bleaklow, Black Hill and Kinder ( ). Moors for the Future Partnership, Edale. Clay, G. D., Dixon, S., Evans, M. G., Rowson, J. G. and Worrall, F. (2012) Carbon dioxide fluxes and DOC concerntrations of eroding blanket peat gullies. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms Dixon, S. D., Qassim, S. M., Rowson, J. G., Worrall, F., Evans, M. G., Boothroyd, I. M., Bonn, A. (In review 2013) Restoration effects on water table depths and CO 2 fluxes from climatically marginal blanket bog. Biogeochemistry. Holden, J., Kirkby, M. J., Lane, S. N., Milledge, D. G., Brookes, C. J., Holden, V. and McDonald, A. T. (2008) Factors affecting overland flow and drain flow velocity in peatlands. Water Resources Research, 44. Jarvis, R.A., Bendelow, V.C., Bradley, R.I., Carroll, D.M., Furness, R.R., Kilgour, I.N.L. and King, S.J. (1984). Soils and their use in northern England. Soil Survey of England and Wales, Bulletin no. 10, Harpenden. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee). Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Upland habitats. Version July 2009, updated from (June 2008). Legg, C.J., Maltby, E. and Proctor, M.C.F. (1992). The ecology of severe moorland fire on the North York Moors: seed distribution and seedling establishment of 40

41 Calluna vulgaris. Journal of Ecology, 80, Lindsay, R. (2010) Peatbogs and Carbon: A critical synthesis. RSPB Mackay, A.W. and Tallis, J.H. (1996). Summit-type blanket mire erosion in the Forest of Bowland, Lancashire, UK: Predisposing factors and implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 76, Maskill, R., Walker, J., Allott, A. (2012) Kinder Peatlands for the Future Project Monitoring Report. Moors for the Future Partnership. Maskill, R. (2013) MoorLIFE: Active Blanket Bog Restoration in the South Pennines Moors, Monitoring Programme Mid-term Report. Moors for the Future Partnership. Moors for the Future: Restoration; Repairing bare peat (2013) (05/03/2013) Natural England (2013) Dark Peak SSSI condition summary. t18&category=s&reference= /03/13) Pearce-Higgins, J.W. and Yalden, D.W. (1997). The effect of resurfacing the Pennine Way on recreational use of blanket bog in the Peak District National Park, England. Biological Conservation, 82, Phillips, J., Yalden, D.W. and Tallis, J.H. (1981). Moorland Erosion Project, Phase 1 Report. Peak Park Joint Planning Board, Bakewell, Derbyshire. Poulin, M., Anderson, R., Rochefort, L. (2012) A new approach for tracking vegetation change after restoration: a case study with peatlands. Restoration Ecology, doi: /j X x Radley, J. (1965). Significance of major moorland fires. Nature, 205, Richards, J.R.A., Wheeler, B.D. and Willis, A.J. (1995). The growth and value of Eriophorum angustifolium Honck. in relation to the revegetation of eroding blanket peat. In: Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S.C., Fojt, W.J. and Robertson, R.A. (Eds.) (1995). Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Rodwell, J., (Ed.) (1991). British Plant Communities, Volume 2: Mires and Heaths. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 41

42 Shuttleworth, E. L. Evans, M.G. and Rothwell J.J. (2011) Impacts of erosion and restoration on sediment flux and pollutant mobilisation in the peatlands of the Peak District National Park. MSc Thesis, Upland Environments Research Unit, School of Environment and Development, The University of Manchester. Skeffington, R., Wilson, E., Maltby, E., Immirzi, P. and Putwain, P. (1997). Acid deposition and blanket mire degradation and restoration. In: Tallis, J.H., Meade, R. & Hulme, P.D. (eds.) Blanket Mire Degradation - Causes, Consequences and Challenges, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen. Tallis, J.H. (1964). The pre-peat vegetation of the Southern Pennines. New Phytologist, 63, Tallis, J.H. (1964). Studies on southern Pennine peats III: the behaviour of Sphagnum. Journal of Ecology, 52, Tallis, J.H. (1987). Fire and Flood at Holme Moss: Erosion Processes in an Upland Blanket Mire. Journal of Ecology, 75, Tallis, J.H. (1995). Blanket mires in the Upland Landscape. In: Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S.C., Fojt, W.J. and Robertson, R.A. (Eds.) (1995). Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Tallis, J.H. (1998). Growth and degradation of British and Irish blanket mires. Environmental Review, 6, Tallis, J.H., Meade, R. and Hulme, P.D. (1997). Blanket Mire Degradation: Causes Consequences and Challenges. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen. Tallis, J.H. and Yalden, D.W. (1983). Moorland Restoration Project: Phase 2 Report. Peak Park Joint Planning Board, Bakewell, Derbyshire. United Utilities (2012) Sustainable catchment management programme (SCaMP); Water quality monitoring results. Penny Anderson Associates Ltd. r_2011_(aug_2012).pdf Wheeler, B. D., Shaw, S. C., Fojt, W. J., Robertson, R. A. Restoration of temperate wetlands John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p Worrall, F., Rowson, J. G., Evans, M. G., Pawson, R., Daniels, S., and Bonn, A. (2011) Carbon fluxes from eroding peatlands the carbon benefit of revegetation following wildfire. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36:

43 Appendices Appendix I: Summary of vegetation classifications * * * * * * * * * Moorland vegetation species 43