• Energy Research

AbstractQuestion: What is the relative importance of competition and physical factors in restricting the occurrence of different fen species to certain zones of the riparian landscape?Location: Biebrza National Park, NE Poland.Methods: We carried out a two‐season reciprocal transplantation experiment: sod‐blocks were replaced between a low‐productive groundwater‐fed small‐sedge fen and a high‐productive fluviogenous tall‐sedge fen. Five treatments were applied to the transplanted sods: (1) no manipulation; (2) fertilization with NPK to exclude the effect of nutrient limitation; (3) clipping vegetation around the transplant to exclude competition for light; (4) clipping + fertilizing; (5) sods were also transplanted within their own environment.Results: After two seasons, the small‐sedge sods transplanted into the high‐productive zone had a biomass two times lower than that of the control transplants, mainly due to a decrease in small sedges and bryophytes. Tall sedges of the high‐productive zone did not respond significantly to transplantation in the low‐productive zone. Removal of the surrounding vegetation largely enhanced the growth of small sedges and bryophytes and, to a lesser degree, of tall sedges. Fertilization, on the other hand, resulted in increased growth of tall sedges, grasses and non‐graminoid herbs.Conclusion: Species characteristic of low‐productive fen communities are competitively excluded from the high‐productive zone through light competition. In contrast, the performance of tall sedges in the low‐productive zone is lowered by nutrient limitation. In the long run this may lead to a complete disappearance of these species from this zone. We did not find evidence that the physical stress of flooding has a direct effect on the performance and distribution of species. Results from the experiment suggest that productivity gradients and their influence on competition intensity are of primary importance for structuring vegetation patterns in lowland riparian fens.

ABSTRACTFens represent a large array of ecosystem services, including the highest biodiversity found among wetlands, hydrological services, water purification and carbon sequestration. Land‐use change and drainage has severely damaged or annihilated these services in many parts of North America and Europe; restoration plans are urgently needed at the landscape level. We review the major constraints on the restoration of rich fens and fen water bodies in agricultural areas in Europe and disturbed landscapes in North America: (i) habitat quality problems: drought, eutrophication, acidification, and toxicity, and (ii) recolonization problems: species pools, ecosystem fragmentation and connectivity, genetic variability, and invasive species; and here provide possible solutions. We discuss both positive and negative consequences of restoration measures, and their causes. The restoration of wetland ecosystem functioning and services has, for a long time, been based on a trial‐and‐error approach. By presenting research and practice on the restoration of rich fen ecosystems within agricultural areas, we demonstrate the importance of biogeochemical and ecological knowledge at different spatial scales for the management and restoration of biodiversity, water quality, carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, especially in a changing climate. We define target processes that enable scientists, nature managers, water managers and policy makers to choose between different measures and to predict restoration prospects for different types of deteriorated fens and their starting conditions.

AbstractThe EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is critical for the restoration of degraded ecosystems and active afforestation of degraded peatlands has been suggested as a restoration measure under the NRL. Here, we discuss the current state of scientific evidence on the climate mitigation effects of peatlands under forestry. Afforestation of drained peatlands without restoring their hydrology does not fully restore ecosystem functions. Evidence on long-term climate benefits is lacking and it is unclear whether CO2 sequestration of forest on drained peatland can offset the carbon loss from the peat over the long-term. While afforestation may offer short-term gains in certain cases, it compromises the sustainability of peatland carbon storage. Thus, active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option for climate mitigation under the EU Nature Restoration Law and might even impede future rewetting/restoration efforts. Instead, restoring hydrological conditions through rewetting is crucial for effective peatland restoration.