NatureScot Research Report 1301- Monitoring the success of Peatland Action: Repeat vegetation surveys to assess change in habitat condition at peatlands restored in 2014 and 2015

Introduction

Haycock and Jay Associates Ltd. was commissioned by NatureScot (the operating name of government body Scottish Natural Heritage) in May 2021 to undertake peatland monitoring surveys and data analysis aimed at assessing the success of Peatland Action-funded peatland restoration at 13 sites across Scotland.

This is a repeat of baseline surveys carried out at these sites in 2014 and 2015 by Penny Anderson Associates (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016), and is the first repeat survey in long-term monitoring of the effectiveness of these restoration treatments over time.

Sites include upland and lowland, raised and blanket bog, covering a wide geographical distribution across Scotland, where a range of restoration techniques have taken place. The sites encompass a range of National Vegetation Classification (NVC) bog communities: M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, M18 ‘Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’ and M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ (Rodwell et al., 1991 et seq.))

During the baseline survey, each site was split into between three and seven ‘Areas’, according to: the restoration treatment applied (called Restoration Areas); where an area had been artificially modified (e.g. drained) but not restored (Control Areas); or a relatively artificially unmodified area (Reference Areas). This was set up to allow comparison of vegetation and other environmental changes between Areas, within each site.

Further details on selection of sites and Areas can be found in Ross and Blackshaw (2016), but each Area was chosen as a homogenous representative sample of vegetation subject to a certain restoration treatment, and the baseline survey was carried out either before restoration had taken place or immediately after restoration (up to around nine months after).

All sites were re-surveyed between July and October 2021 by qualified Ecologists and Botanists.

This report uses a combination of observations and data collected on site, statistical analysis of collected data, and anecdotal evidence to identify vegetation changes and assess whether these changes can be attributed to restoration or management on site.

Survey sites

The list of survey sites and their general location are included below, and mapped at Figure I1.

• Airds Moss, Ayrshire;
• Isle of Arran, Ayrshire;
• Barlosh Moss, Ayrshire;
• Black Moss, Aberdeenshire;
• Black Moss, West Lothian;
• Carsegowan Moss, Galloway;
• Drumrunie, Ross and Cromarty;
• Dundreggan, Highlands;
• Dunruchan Farm, Perth and Kinross;
• Edinglassie, Morayshire;
• Glen Ey, Aberdeenshire;
• Glenmullie, Morayshire; and,
• Portmoak Moss, Perth and Kinross.

Methodology

The general approach to the surveys, data management and processing, and statistical analysis are outlined below. Specific details of how the survey was carried out at each site including site-specific constraints, are then offered in the section for each site below.

Desk study

Prior to survey of the 13 sites, each site was researched, and information gathered from available sources during a desk study, to provide context for the findings and prepare for the surveys themselves.

During this desk study, landowners, land managers and NatureScot/Peatland Action officers were approached for information about the historical and current management of each site; restoration that has taken place; activities that have taken place since restoration; and potential influences on vegetation and success of peatland management. The baseline report and outputs (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016) were also reviewed for contextual information and to allow accurate repetition of the survey and comparison of data for analysis.

All baseline survey data was collected and prepared for use in the field survey, including the coordinates (eastings and northings) for each point surveyed, added to field maps and loaded onto handheld GPS devices.

Field survey

Thirteen sites across Scotland were re-surveyed between July and October 2021 by Haycock and Jay Associates Ltd., to repeat the baseline surveys undertaken in 2014 and 2015.

The methodology used in the baseline survey was used in this repeat survey and is summarised below. The detailed methodology and survey recording forms are included at Annex 1. The dates and specific details of methodology implementation for Restoration, Control and/or Reference Areas within each site are included in the section for each site below.

Quadrat monitoring

Each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area contains 15 or 20 quadrat samples as set out in the baseline data.

During repeat survey, the location of previously-surveyed quadrats were located using handheld GPS devices (3m accuracy) and maps of the site to confirm the accurate location of the OS grid reference. Data was recorded using survey forms on electronic tablets, or paper where necessary.

At each quadrat location, a 2 x 2m quadrat (or other size if specified in the baseline survey), was placed on top of vegetation, with vegetation and environmental variables recorded as below:

• Percentage cover of all living vascular and non-vascular species was estimated. The layers of vegetation were taken into account – such as the cover of non-vascular plants (bryophytes and lichens) and layers of vascular plants above this. This means that the percentage cover of vegetation could add up to more than 100%. Where factors such as bare ground are present, the vegetation coverage may also add up to less than 100% of the quadrat.
• The height of the vegetation canopy was taken by averaging four representative measurements of the vegetation to the nearest centimetre – excluding flowering stems and not stretching out any grass/sedge leaves.
• Percentage cover of unvegetated standing water, bare ground (specifying in notes if this is peat or mineral), and litter (including dead plant material such as mulch, brash or tree stumps);
• Proportion of bryophytes and bare peat that was damaged as a percentage (noting the main cause of damage);
• Presence of animal dung (Y/N) and the species;
• Most common growth stage of heather (seedling, pioneer, building, mature or degenerate) if present;

Additional Area

For some sites (Airds Moss, Drumrunie and Glenmullie), additional Reference Areas needed to be identified and surveyed, as they had not been established during the baseline survey. Reference Areas needed to be relatively unmodified areas that had therefore not been restored, and could be compared with the Restoration Areas within the site.

The selection process for additional Reference Areas in the repeat survey was as follows:

1. An appropriate area was marked on a map following liaison with the landowner/ contact for the site, with a grid reference taken of the corners of this area, and marked on a handheld GPS;
2. Random numbers between 1- 50 were then generated and recorded to produce a number of steps (to be subsequently taken by the surveyor on site);
3. On site, the surveyors stood at a marked corner of the area using the GPS, and took the designated number of steps at a specified bearing to find the next quadrat; then,
4. The grid reference of the new quadrats was recorded in the same way that baseline quadrats were, and each quadrat was surveyed as above.

Grip block monitoring

At Airds Moss and Drumrunie, additional surveys were carried out behind artificial drain (grip) blocks, referred to as ‘grip block quadrats’. These were created in the baseline survey and comprise variably-sized ‘quadrats’ starting from a grip block and monitoring the vegetation ‘upstream’ of the grip block. At Airds Moss, the location of these was also marked during the baseline survey.

During the repeat survey, these grip block quadrats were relocated using a GPS and confirmed by finding wooden markers where possible. Once located the grip block quadrat area was marked out using tape measures, and surveyed as per the quadrat monitoring above.

Area walkover survey

Each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area within each site was subjected to a ‘walkover survey’ and descriptive notes were made on the following:

• Main plant species listed and given relative abundance using the DAFOR scale (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, or Rare);
• Main habitat type including NVC and description of vegetation;
• Notes of the flowering and vigour of key species;
• Overall Sphagnum and other moss cover, description and estimated percentages;
• Presence of non-native species noted – the location recorded where it is in small areas, or percentage cover estimated if widespread;
• Level of tree and shrub colonisation, recording the species and total percentage cover;
• Animals seen and heard, and evidence of them (e.g., dung);
• Herbivore impact levels on key plants (dwarf shrubs or grasses) – estimating the percentage cover of last year’s growth browsed;
• Erosion features such as drainage and cover of bare peat;
• Notably absent things, such as a lack of bare peat, grips or grazing, which might be important in assessing the site’s condition in terms of Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and CSM.

Notable observations

In addition to the survey at each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area, any other notable observations such as presence or evidence of protected or notable species; and habitat management or damage were recorded. Where necessary, they were photographed and their location recorded using a GPS.

Fixed-point photographs

The fixed-point photographs taken in the baseline survey were repeated.

Using a GPS, the location that photographs were taken at, were relocated, and the original photographs were viewed on the electronic tablets, allowing the exact location to be matched up with what was being seen in the field. A compass was also used to ensure the correct bearing of the photographs.

The time and date of these were recorded, as well as any notes such as issues with visibility and changes since the original photographs.

Additional photographs

As well as the fixed-point photographs, several additional photographs were taken to illustrate the Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area, show features of interest such as vegetation or succeeding/ failing restoration measures. The grid reference and date were recorded at each photograph location, as well as details on the bearing and subject.

Data analysis and interpretation

Data preparation

The baseline dataset (Ross and Blackshaw 2016) was checked and amended where necessary in preparation for statistical analysis, as described under the heading for each method below.

Changes were also made to ensure consistency of the data between the baseline and repeat surveys, including combining the columns for ‘brash stumps’, ‘litter’ and ‘mulched debris’ into one column. Examination of the baseline data revealed that there were no overlapping values between these variables in the baseline survey, as they had been used interchangeably to indicate the same thing. This was the case except for Barlosh Moss where brash stumps and mulched debris were recorded separately – the percentage cover of these variables were added together to create one value. Therefore, this data was combined into one column, and all mulch/ brash and litter was recorded just as ‘litter’. Where stumps were regrowing, these were recorded as the species within the quadrat. ‘NA’ values were also changed to zeros in this column.

New variables were recorded during the repeat survey, including ‘bare peat damage percentage cover’ and ‘main Calluna [heather] growth stage’. As this is a new variable and the previous value is unknown, the baseline data column has been filled with ‘N/A’ as this was not recorded, therefore a value cannot be assumed.

Some scientific names were changed to reflect recent changes since the baseline report, and some spellings were corrected. This is detailed in Table M1 below.

Table M1. The species names which have been corrected or amended for the data analysis.

Name used in 2015 report	Accepted name used 2021	Common name	Notes
Carex curta	Carex canescens	White sedge	Amended to new accepted name
Chamerion angustifolium	Chamaenerion angustifolium	Rosebay willowherb	Amended to new accepted name
Dactylorhiza fuchsii	Dactylorhiza fuchsii	Common spotted-orchid	Spelling corrected
Deschampsia flexuosa	Avenella flexuosa	Wavy hair-grass	Amended to new accepted name
Dryopteris filix-mas	Dryopteris filix-mas	Male fern	Spelling corrected
Sphagnum auriculatum and Sphagnum denticulatum	Sphagnum denticulatum	Sphagnum moss	Both names refer to one moss species previously but these have been combined into current accepted name – S. denticulatum. No instances of S. auriculatum were recorded, therefore only S. denticulatum has been used.
Sphagnum capillifolium   (not split into subspecies)	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	Sphagnum moss	The name ‘Sphagnum capillifolium (unk)’ will be used when the surveyor is not confident in splitting between the subspecies. Just S. capillifolium has been used previously and it is assumed it refers to occurrences that have not been split into subspecies.
Sphagnum capillifolium subsp. rubellum and  Sphagnum rubellum	Sphagnum capillifolium subsp rubellum	Sphagnum moss	Both S. rubellum and S. capillifolium subsp rubellum were listed but no instances of S. rubellum were recorded.   Just S. capillifolium subsp rubellum has been used.
Sphagnum magellanicum	In the field: Sphagnum medium or Sphagnum divinum For data analysis: Sphagnum magellanicum sl.	Sphagnum moss	This has been split into three species. In the field, the new species are recorded, but for data analysis, they are combined under the name S. magellanicum sl. as it is unknown which species previous records refer to.
Sphagnum recurvum	Sphagnum fallax	Sphagnum moss	This is a species complex that has been split into S. fallax, S. angustifolium, S.  flexuosum, S recurvum, S. balticum and other species. It is assumed that records of this refer to S. fallax as there was no overlap between instances of S. recurvum and S. fallax, so these columns have been combined. Where other species within this complex are identified, they will be recorded to species level.
Sphagnum squarrosum papillosum	Unknown	Sphagnum moss	It is unknown what this refers to, and it is assumed that this is due an error. The one occurrence of this has been omitted from statistical analysis as it is not comparable to species recorded in the repeat survey.
Polytrichum formosum	Polytrichastrum formosum	Acrocarpous moss	Amended to new accepted name
Trichophorum germanicum and Trichophorum cespitosum	Trichophorum germanicum and Trichophorum cespitosum	Deergrass	Due to nomenclature changes (including a hybrid added), the exact species previously recorded is not known, therefore ‘Trichophorum sp. sl. is used for all occurrences. All columns containing Trichophorum spp. have been combined – with no overlap occurring (i.e. only one or the other species was recorded – mostly T. germanicum).
Triglochin palustre	Triglochin palustris	Marsh arrowgrass	Name updated
Vaccinium microcarpum and Triglochin palustris, Plagiothecium species	-	-	These species were listed in the baseline dataset, but were only recorded at sites which were not re-surveyed, therefore have been removed.

Prior to analysis, the data collected in the repeat survey were combined with the baseline data keeping the same format as the baseline survey.

Vegetation community

Firstly, an assessment of the changes in the whole vegetation communities within, and between Restoration, Control and/or Reference Areas was made. This takes into account the relative abundance of species, and the changes in abundance over time, to identify whole-community trends. This initial assessment was conducted using the methods below.

As grip block quadrats comprised different numbers and dimensions of ‘quadrats’, they cannot be meaningfully combined with the other quadrats for statistical analysis. Consequently, these quadrats have been treated differently as explained in the sections for Airds Moss and Drumrunie below.

Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling

Software used for Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) was done using the ‘vegan’ package (Oksanen et al., 2020) and ‘ggplot2’ package (Wickham, 2016) in the software ‘R’ (R Core Team, 2021) and RStudio (RStudio, 2021).

NMDS is a multivariate ordination technique which allows datasets (e.g., vegetation communities) to be plotted on axes where the distance between plotted points (representing each dataset), represents the dissimilarity of each dataset based on multiple variables (e.g., species presence or cover). This method was chosen as it is capable of representing the difference in complex community data in a simple way, while handling a lot of ‘zero’ entries representing species absence in a plot, and does not assume linear relationships.

NMDS is based on the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index, which shows how similar communities are (0 means they are identical; 1 means they are completely different).

NMDS plots the dissimilarities in the best possible correlation which reflects the calculated dissimilarities in a low number of dimensions. For this study, on the NMDS plot, the community of each quadrat was represented by a colour representing a Restoration Area (e.g., A - G), with both the baseline and repeat survey years shown. This means that when plotted, any movement in the same quadrat over time reflects changes in the community, therefore can show whether a community has changed from the baseline year, or become more similar to another community.

The ability of the NMDS plot to represent these community dissimilarities accurately, i.e., how well the two-dimensional space represents the three-dimensional differences is called ‘stress’.

The understanding of stress values is as follows:

• >0.2 – ordination is a poor representation;
• >0.1 – 0.2 – ordination is a reasonable representation;
• <0.1 – ordination is a good representation;
• <0.05 – ordination is a very good representation.

The ‘metaMDS’ function in the vegan package was used for the NMDS calculation. The ggplot2 package was then used to plot the data.  The full R code used for data analysis are included in Annex 1.

To prepare the baseline data, cells containing the value “<1” were all converted to “0.5” and “<5” converted to “4”; all blank cells were filled with “NA”, and any blank spaces between words were replaced with an underscore, so that the data could be used by R Studio software.

Given that NMDS does not assume normality, data was not transformed. However, where the stress value was higher than 0.15, the NMDS was re-calculated in three-dimensions, to allow R Studio to reach a solution and produce an acceptable ordination. As this was the case for a few sites, all sites were calculated using three-dimensions for consistency.

To enable the calculation to be performed, rows of species data containing only zeros were removed from the dataset. Such rows represent quadrats where no vegetation was present (e.g., only bare peat or open water).

The NMDS ordination was interpreted in conjunction with other visual representations of the data. The use of The Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM) test (Buttigieg, 2014) was considered, however its outputs of an ‘R’ value showing how different the mean of ranked dissimilarities is between groups (Restoration, Control and/or Reference Areas) was considered an unnecessary addition in a time-constrained project, especially as the differences between Areas and quadrats are already visible on the NMDS ordination. Further, the results of ANOSIM are not considered to assist in elucidating causes of the dissimilarities identified, and consequently the ANOSIM test was performed.

Visual representation of the data

In order to visualise and explain the dissimilarities within and between Restoration, Control and/or Reference Areas shown in the NMDS plot, figures were created for each site to show the community composition of the data, and relative abundance of species. This highlights changes in species cover over time, and the differences between Areas, which may have influenced differences seen in the NMDS plot.

The data used for this was the same checked data as used for the NMDS ordination, where species not occurring within each site were removed, removing unnecessary zero values.

The mean was then calculated for each species for each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area. After trials, the mean was chosen over the median (which is often used for skewed data) as an average, as the median was often centred on the zero or very low values that were more common in sites with high botanical diversity, and therefore obscured the changes that had occurred if a species was present in a small number of quadrats. It was considered more important to produce an average that represented the change in cover in a few quadrats for an Area, rather than obscure this change with absence data, and not be able to compare the real differences.

Other visualisation methods were also considered, such as box-and-whisker plots, and those that showed the spread and skew of the data more, including representing the standard deviation but again, it was not possible within the scope of this project to create in an interpretable figure showing the abundance of each species occurring in each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area, and over the two survey years. This would have resulted in complex figures, or many figures per Area and site, and would have been beyond the scope of this study. It was concluded that to accompany the figures, a single number representing change for each species, where consistent across all data, would show the most significant changes necessary for the assessment of the restoration interventions.

In conclusion, the average cover of each species in each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area is represented as a stacked bar chart, grouping Areas to allow easy comparison between survey years, as well as between Areas. The change in percentage cover of a species is discussed in the text as the cover in 2021 minus the cover in the baseline survey, to show how much additional/ less cover there is on average.

As very low values would not appear on the graph, and complicate the legend, all species with an average of <5% (or <1% for Glen Ey), were combined into logical species groups (e.g., bryophytes <5%), which meant they were included in the overall representation of vegetation composition, but allowed dominant species to be more easily seen.

Indicator species

To complement the analysis of community composition and differences, ‘indicator species’ were also assessed. This was to highlight the presence of, and changes in, bog specialist species that are expected to be present in the bog communities, therefore their prevalence indicates whether restoration interventions are influencing these species.

The chosen indicator species are those selected by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, 2009) for upland blanket and valley bog, which are listed below:

• Bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia);
• Arctostaphylos spp. (including bearberry);
• Dwarf birch (Betula nana);
• Stiff sedge (Carex bigelowii);
• Heather (Calluna vulgaris);
• Dwarf cornel (Cornus suecica);
• Sundews (Drosera spp.);
• Cross-leaved heath and bell heather (Erica spp.);
• Crowberry (Empetrum nigrum),
• Common cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium);
• Hare’s-tail cottongrass (Eriophorum vaginatum);
• Bogbean (Menyanthes trifoliata);
• Bog myrtle (Myrica gale);
• Bog asphodel (Narthecium ossifragum);
• Non-crustose lichen (such as some Cladonia spp.);
• Pleurocarpous moss;
• Racomitrium lanuginosum (an acrocarpous moss);
• Cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus);
• White beak-sedge (Rhynchospora alba);
• Sphagnum spp. (bog mosses);
• Common and Northern deergrass (Trichophorum sl.) and
• Bilberry, cranberry and cowberry (Vaccinium spp.).

Sphagnum spp., Erica spp., Vaccinium spp., pleurocarpous mosses and non-crustose lichens were combined by adding the averages for each species group together. This produced a representative value for each species group.

Difference-in-differences

In order to calculate and compare the level of change seen in indicator species between survey years, and compare Restoration, Control and/or Reference Areas, a simple difference-in-difference calculation was done. This estimates the effect of restoration by comparing the mean difference between Restoration and Control/Reference Areas at these repeat surveys with the mean difference between Restoration and Control/Reference Areas at the baseline surveys. This allows the effect of restoration to be distinguished from background effects or pre-existing differences between Areas. The data used for this analysis were the sum of the average percentage cover for indicator species for each Area, as explained above. The calculation involved subtracting the average percentage cover of a species in the repeat survey, from the baseline survey value.

This method was chosen as it allows simple comparison between the level of change seen in Restoration Areas, and those with no intervention – the Control and Reference Areas – to assist in judging whether the restoration treatments applied have caused indicator species cover to change in Restoration Areas, more than in Control or Reference Areas.

Other methods of calculating change in indicator species cover were explored, for instance a linear regression model can be used to calculate the difference-in-differences, but this was not used as the data is non-normal and it does not meet many assumptions of this method.

The change in average cover over time is represented as a line graph showing an increase or decrease over time, with difference-in-difference values discussed beneath the graph.

Visual representation of the data

In addition to the difference-in-difference plots for each site, the indicator species were represented in stacked bar charts showing the average percentage covers of each species (using the same data and method as explained above). The standard deviation is not shown as it over-complicated the figures.  

This again shows the relative abundance of indicator species, and allows comparison between each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area, and the change in each Area over time. These figures complement those showing the whole community, in showing which Areas are dominated by peatland indicator species, and which are not.

Environmental variables

Visual representation of the data

Other environmental variables recorded as percentage cover (bare ground, litter cover, standing water cover, damaged peat and bryophytes) were represented in a similar way to the community composition and indicator species. Their averages were again taken as above for each Restoration, Control and/or Reference Area, and their average cover represented as a bar chart, to visually show change over time and differences between Areas.

Other data such as height and the presence or absence of dung were not analysed but are discussed in the text.

Assessment of restoration treatments between sites

In addition to assessing the effectiveness of restoration within each site, Restoration Areas were grouped according to Peatland Action’s draft peatland condition categories for monitoring purposes, which are defined below (Boyce, 2021, pers. comm.):

• Forestry on bog – “blanket bog or raised bog planted for forestry”;
• Drained blanket bog – “blanket bog subject to artificial drainage from ditches (grips)”;
• Actively eroding blanket bog – “blanket bog with extensive hagg and gully erosion”;
• Drained raised bog – “raised bog subject to artificial drainage from ditches (grips) or features at the bog margin such as peat banks and drained lagg fen”.

These groups were then reviewed for the success and failures identified within each group, as well as threats and factors impacting them, to qualitatively assess if and how vegetation and environmental variables have been impacted by restoration treatments for each condition category.

Although this analysis is limited by the number of sites and the extent of coverage of quadrats within the sites, it allows the whole dataset to be assessed together, to look for any trends for restoration treatments in these defined categories.

Airds Moss

Site description and summary of past management

Airds Moss is a ~1,360ha Special Area of Conservation (SAC) of blanket bog, ~4km west of the village of Muirkirk, East Ayrshire, located centrally at OS grid reference NS 6327 2616. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure AD1 showing an overview of the site itself.

Airds Moss is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for its Annex I blanket bog habitat – being one of the few remaining areas of relatively low-altitude blanket bog in south-west Scotland, reaching just 230m above sea level.

It also forms part of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for its upland breeding bird assemblage; and is part of the Muirkirk Uplands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), notified for its assemblage of upland habitats (a mosaic of blanket bog, wet and dry heath and acid grassland), its upland breeding bird assemblage, as well as its geological interest.

This site is bound by the River Ayr and the B743 along the north; with smaller watercourses Bellow Water and Boghead Lane along the south and Muirkirk Road just beyond it. The area surrounding Airds Moss is predominantly open habitats managed for grazing, with coniferous plantations scattered throughout, and other scattered villages and settlements. The wider area comprises the upland habitats including the Muirkirk Uplands SSSI to the north and south, with more built-up to the west comprising Auchinleck, Catrine and Mauchline.

This study is concerned with the eastern ~450ha portion of Airds Moss which is managed by the RSPB. It comprises 220ha of blanket bog, with peats up to 6.9m deep (Lill, 2021, pers. comm.), as well as acid grassland, fen and small watercourses. It has undulating topography as the bog has developed over glacial till, with a plateau in the central and western portion of the site containing habitat more typical of lowland raised bog, with the rest of the site sloping up to it, and dominated by purple moor-grass due to past management.

Airds Moss has been heavily modified by historical management – being intensively drained with grips and burned, for the purposes of grazing and grouse shooting. Mining and commercial forestry have also taken place here. At the time of the baseline survey, the site was grazed over summer only by a maximum of 300 ewes plus followers (native blackface; 0.07 Livestock Units (LU)/ha).

A hydrological assessment of the was site undertaken in 2005 and 2006 to assess links between the hydrology, land management and vegetation, which found few definite links, but recommended blocking artificial drainage channels and reducing or removing grazing stock (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

The RSPB manages the site with a low density of sheep grazing during 1^st April to 30^th September to target the dominant purple-moor grass, with a maximum of 50- 150 sheep (Lill, 2021, pers. comm.). The site was also restored, as detailed in the section below, to prevent further drainage and drying of the bog, and loss of blanket bog habitat.

Existing monitoring

The hydrology of the site is monitored using dip wells, which are periodically checked, although these had not been recently checked when this survey took place. Permanent quadrats to survey vegetation annually also take place (Lill, 2021, pers. comm.).

In addition, East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative (EACEI) and EcoCoLife produced a report (n.d.) summarising their restoration and monitoring, including since the baseline survey was undertaken, as summarised below:

• Hydrological monitoring with 22 dip wells, checked monthly or quarterly, with data provided between 2013 with 2016;
• Permanent vegetation monitoring quadrats – with five in each restoration Phase area, surveyed annually between July and September, with data provided between 2013 and 2016. There was the intention to repeat measurements at intervals of 3, 5 and 10 years although results since have not been found;
• Peat depth with the intention to repeat measurements at intervals of 3, 5 and 10 years;
• Fixed-point photographs taken annually, and then subsequently at proposed at 3, 5, then 10 years afterwards; and
• Targeted species surveys for invertebrates and other ad hoc recording.

In addition, the latest condition assessment conducted in 2016 judged Airds Moss SAC as being in ‘unfavourable no change’ condition, due to ‘forestry operations’, ‘over-grazing’, and ‘water management’.

Restoration measures undertaken

As stated in the baseline survey report, sheep grazing regimes were altered (funded by Peatland Action) and artificial drains (grips) were blocked by the RSPB.

Figure AD1 shows the extent and area of restoration phases.

The purposes of restoration were to:

• Increase and stabilise water levels in the peat; and,
• Maintain and enhance the range of blanket bog vegetation communities present on the site by altering grazing regimes and removing self-seeded conifer seedlings which colonise from the adjacent plantation.

Peat and plastic piling dams were installed across the site between 2010 and 2014 in four phases over four years.

In addition, over 2km of stock fencing was installed in 2013 to enclose 220ha of blanket bog, for targeted summer grazing of purple moor-grass and as mentioned, the grazing regime includes grazing by 50- 150 sheep between the start of April and end of September, with removal over winter.

Since the baseline survey and initial restoration Phases, further monitoring of the dams is undertaken annually by the RSPB, and they are repaired where necessary. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and colonising trees are also regularly removed, which is largely kept on top of.

The EACEI and EcoCoLife have also had involvement in restoration and monitoring of the site since the baseline vegetation survey – Phases 5 and 6 since have also been carried out by EcoCoLife in 2015 and 2016 respectively – the latter of which involved repairing historic dams and installing new dams to reinforce areas subject to damage, and installing dams on a new area of ditches.

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2014, after the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey at Airds Moss was undertaken between 4^th - 7^th September 2021, by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure AD2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure AD3.

Restoration Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. There are three Restoration Areas, each with 15 quadrats:

• Area A – grips blocked in 2010 (restoration Phase 1);
• Area B – grips blocked in 2012 (restoration Phase 3); and
• Area C – grips blocked in 2014 (restoration Phase 4).

An additional relatively unmodified Reference Area was selected during the repeat survey, through liaison with Tim Lill from the RSPB, based on an area which had not been gripped, and represented the best-quality bog vegetation available on site. This was named as below:

• Area D – relatively unmodified Reference Area.

Unlike the majority of other sites in this study except Drumrunie, additional quadrats were also surveyed ‘upstream’ of grip blocks: referred to as ‘grip block quadrats’. These were variable sizes – defined as the length of the drain between two dams. This covered three ditches per Restoration Area, which were each split into two or three quadrats (see Constraints section below for details).  The number and dimension of these are shown in Table AD1.

Table AD1. Detail of grip block monitoring ‘quadrats’ in Areas A, B and C, Airds Moss where grip blocking took place in 2010, 2012 and 2014 respectively, with the number of quadrats within each, and their size.

Area	Grip block	Number of 'quadrats' per grip	Size of 'quadrats' (m)
A	A_ditch 1	3	3.5 x 8.0
A	A_ditch 2	2	2.0 x 6.0
A	A_ditch 3	3	3.0 x 7.0
B	B_ditch 1	2	1.4 x 2.4
B	B_ditch 2	2	2.8 x 4.1
B	B_ditch 3	3	2.3 x 4.8
C	C_ditch 1	2	2.0 x 6.3
C	C_ditch 2	2	2.0 x 5.5
C	C_ditch 3	2	2.0 x 5.0

Their differing dimensions and number per Restoration Area means that these cannot be meaningfully combined or used for statistical analysis, so data was assessed in differently.

The following issues were identified while attempting to repeat the Airds Moss survey based on baseline information.

• Prior to the survey at Airds Moss, it became apparent that there were no grid references provided for quadrats C10 and C11.  Therefore during the survey, two quadrats of homogenous vegetation were randomly located and the grid reference recorded and used as quadrats C10 and C11.  
• During the survey it was noticed that the grid references for quadrats B14 and B15 are the same. It is assumed that these quadrats were originally recorded close to each other, hence the mistake. Therefore, a homogenous area near B14 was chosen to be B15, and a new grid reference was recorded at B15 for future reference.
• At the grip block quadrats, only one grid reference was provided (e.g., for ‘A_ditch’ 1A, with 1B and 1C not provided). Although not all wooden marker posts were evident at the ditch monitoring quadrats, these were surveyed by locating the first ditch block using the provided grid reference (e.g., ‘A_ditch’ 1A), measuring the quadrat out, and locating the next quadrat from the next ditch block upstream of the original one (e.g., ‘A_ditch’ 1B and 1C). Occasionally, marker posts were found at these subsequent ditch blocks, supporting our approach. The grid reference of other ditch blocks (e.g., ‘A_ditch’ 1B and 1C) were recorded to facilitate future location.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table (Table AD2), and the description for each Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table AD2. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species showing their relative abundance in Areas A, B, C (grip blocking in 2010, 2012 and 2014), and D (Reference Area), Airds Moss.

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D
Vascular plants Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	D	D	D	R
Vascular plants Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	F	O-F	O-F	A-D
Vascular plants Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	O-F	O-F	O	F-A
Vascular plants Wavy hair-grass	Avenella flexuosa	F	F	F	O-R
Vascular plants Cranberry	Vaccinium oxycoccos	O-F	R	R	F
Vascular plants Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	R	R	R	F-A
Vascular plants Heather	Calluna vulgaris	R	R	R	F-A
Vascular plants Bent-grass	Agrostis spp.	R	R	O-R	-
Vascular plants Tormentil	Potentilla erecta	F	F	-	R
Vascular plants Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	R	R	-	F-LA
Vascular plants Heath bedstraw	Galium saxatile	F	F	-	-
Vascular plants Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	-	-	F	O
Vascular plants Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	R	R	-	O
Vascular plants Common sedge	Carex nigra	R	-	R	-
Vascular plants Bog asphodel	Narthecium ossifragum	-	-	-	F
Vascular plants Round-leaved sundew	Drosera rotundifolia	-	-	-	O
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	F-LA	F-O	O-LA	F
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	LA	LA	LA	O
Non-vascular plants Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	F-LA	F-O	R	O-F
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	O-R	O	O	R
Non-vascular plants Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	F-LA	F-O	R	R
Non-vascular plants Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum strictum	F	O-R	R	O-F
Non-vascular plants Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum commune	O	O-R	R	R
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum fallax	O	LA	LA	-
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum magellanicum sl.	R	R	-	F-A
Non-vascular plants Pleurocarpous moss	Hylocomium splendens	F-LA	F	R	-
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	O-LA	O-R	R	R
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum rubellum	O	R	R	R
Non-vascular plants Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	-	-	-	F
Non-vascular plants Acrocarpous moss	Racomitrium lanuginosum	-	-	-	O-R

Area A – Grips blocked in 2010

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located on a shallow, north-facing slope, intersected with regular artificial drainage ditches (grips).

It is dominated by tussocks of purple moor-grass, with an average cover of 36% litter due to the build-up of this dead grass. It contains widespread heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile), scattered wavy-hair grass (Avenella flexuosa), cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix), and sporadic heather.

Sphagnum spp. cover is variable within Area A – with quadrats recording an average of 11% cover, and ~10-20% estimated from the walkover of the whole Area. This comprises mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., but in ditches, mainly Sphagnum cuspidatum and sometimes Sphagnum fallax. Other mosses constitute ~30% cover – estimated from the walkover, comprising Pleurozium schreberi, Hypnum jutlandicum and Hylocomium splendens dominating in different patches. Often this ground layer is obscured by the dense purple moor-grass litter coverage.

This Restoration Area has previously been identified as having affinity with M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, and may well be derived from this community, but the only indicators of this – rather than the M25 ‘Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire’ is the presence of hare’s-tail cottongrass (Eriophorum vaginatum) which was recorded at 15% cover or lower in the quadrats, being absent from some. Otherwise, the lack of Sphagnum spp., and constancy of tormentil, (Potentilla erecta), suggest increasing affinity with the latter community. This is likely due to management of grazing and burning (Averis, 2013).

Despite being dry at the time of survey, the community behind grip blocks has most affinity with M2 ‘Sphagnum cuspidatum/recurvum bog pools’.

Signs of the presence of grazing observed include sheep and deer dung scattered throughout, with an estimation of <5% of purple moor-grass shoots visibly grazed (despite the survey being undertaken in September, at the end of the grazing period). Sheep were not observed within this Restoration Area during the survey.

Restoration observations

Area A was restored in 2010 with peat dams blocking these grips approximately every 5m.

During the survey, this Restoration Area was noted as being very dry, with no standing water seen, including behind grip blocks. This may have been due to dry weather leading up to the survey. No grip blocks had noticeably failed – although the visibility of this is likely to be affected by the dry conditions.

There was no visible active erosion occurring when the survey took place, with almost no bare peat – estimated at <1% cover. Bare peat was only present at grip blocks, where small cracks had occurred, and possibly from old borrow pits that had not fully vegetated.

Turves atop the grip blocks were mainly vegetated with purple moor-grass and a similar species composition to the surrounding area.

As described above, grips themselves were estimated at being at least 95% vegetated, with mainly Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum fallax.

Area B – Grips blocked in 2012

Habitat and condition observations

Area B was observed as being similar to Area A (where grips were blocked in 2010), being also located on a shallow north-facing slope, and dominated by tussocky purple moor-grass, with occasional scattered cross-leaved heath, wavy hair-grass and limited heather. Heath bedstraw and tormentil are again consistently frequent across this Restoration Area, with the cover of litter concealing these and the bryophyte layer, and the average cover across quadrats being 16%.

Sphagnum spp. are abundant in ditches but have ≤10% cover elsewhere, mainly comprising Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Cover of non-Sphagnum moss is estimated at being greater than in Area A (grips blocked in 2010) during the walkover, with Hypnum jutlandicum, Hylocomium splendens and Pleurozium schreberi making up ~30-40% overall cover.

Being recorded as the NVC community M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ in the past, the community encountered contains few indicators of this, and is also judged as being best described as M25 ‘Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire’. Behind the ditch blocks, is again most similar to M2 ‘Sphagnum cuspidatum/recurvum bog pools’, which are dominated by Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum fallax.

This Area is within the same management parcel as Area A (where grips were blocked in 2010), with low-density sheep grazing. Approximately 1-5% of last year’s shoots had been grazed, which was mainly purple moor-grass (likely because this is the dominant species). Grazing does not appear to be suppressing the purple moor-grass, however it was noted that barely any cottongrasses appear to have flowered, which may be due to preferential grazing of flowers in early spring.

Restoration observations

Area B was restored in the same way as Area A, but took place in 2012. Grips were regularly blocked with peat, roughly every 5m, with the dams covered with vegetated turves – taken from ‘borrow pits’ nearby.

Active erosion does not appear to be taking place, with no pools or flows of water observed, due to dry weather. Grip blocks were intact, and mostly vegetated with a similar composition to that surrounding them – dominated by purple moor-grass. The lumpy nature of the blocks may let water through – but this was not possible to observe during the survey. Again, <1% bare peat was present, mainly at apparent borrow pits adjacent to grip blocks, although no other damage was observed.

Grips themselves were >95% vegetated, mainly with Sphagnum spp. as stated above.

Area C – Grips blocked in 2014

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is located to the south-east of Areas A and B (where grips were blocked in 2010 and 2012, respectively), on a south-east facing slope, which is steeper than the former two. It is also dominated by purple moor-grass, with a grassier sward, containing scattered wavy hair-grass, heath rush (Juncus squarrosus), occasional to rare dwarf shrubs – mainly cross-leaved heath, and tussocky dry ground.

Sphagnum spp. cover is variable, with the greatest cover towards the north, comprising Sphagnum fallax and Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Overall cover is estimated at less than 10%. Non-Sphagnum moss comprises an even mix of Hylocomium splendens, Pleurozium schreberi, with occasional Polytrichum sp. mounds, and rarer Hypnum jutlandicum, making up ~30% cover.

Considering the lack of Sphagnum spp., dwarf shrub and hare’s-tail cottongrass coverage, compared with the dominance of purple moor-grass and presence of other grasses, this habitat is considered to be most like NVC community M25 ‘Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire’.

Ditches are mainly filled with Sphagnum spp. and soft rush (Juncus effusus), and were also dry during the survey.

Sheep and deer dung are frequent, with occasional sheep observed, and it is estimated that around 5% of last year’s purple moor-grass shoots have been grazed. There is little sign of other impacts of grazing.

Restoration observations

Area C does not appear to be actively eroded, with no bare peat visible and no haggs evident.

Grips were dry, and well-vegetated with Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Sphagnum cuspidatum and soft rush, or with similar species composition to the surrounding area (i.e., dominated by purple moor-grass). The grip blocks were also noted as being lumpy – therefore it was not obvious whether they formed a perfect seal, with the particularly dry weather not allowing this to be assessed.

Area D – Relatively unmodified Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (Area D) is located between Restoration Areas A and B to the north, and C to the south-east, atop a plateau, which contained an area which hadn’t been drained. Despite the lack of artificial drains, some shallow depressions, which may be dried-out bog pools, occurred to the south of the Area. These were all less than 30cm deep and contained Sphagnum magellanicum sl. and other Sphagna, suggesting that they are not actively eroding features.

The habitat comprised frequent tussocks of deergrass and abundant hare’s-tail cottongrass. Dwarf shrubs are more frequent in this than in Restoration Areas, with heather and cross-leaved heath are present in similar amounts. As such, the Reference Area is considered to have most affinity with NVC community M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’.

Some heather was noted as dying, which may be due to the impact of heather beetle (Lochmaea suturalis), and there was little evidence of cottongrasses having flowered.

Sphagnum spp. are more abundant than other mosses, estimated as having ~70% cover overall. Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum magellanicum sl. are dominant, as well as Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Non-Sphagnum mosses constitute ~10% cover, including Hypnum jutlandicum, Racomitrium lanuginosum and Polytrichum strictum in similarly small amounts.

Unlike the Restoration Areas, one spruce seedling (Picea sp.) was seen in the Reference Area.

No obvious signs of grazing were seen, and no damage evident to Sphagnum due to animals. Preferential grazing of cottongrass in early spring may have prevented flowering.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure AD2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2, and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as figures, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2, and their location illustrated on Figure AD3.

Statistical analysis 

Community composition

Figure AD4 shows the NMDS plot calculated with grip block quadrats removed, from a calculation representing it using three dimensions, to achieve the lowest stress value. The plot shows the dissimilarities in communities (see Methodology section for full details), with each point representing each quadrat, taking into account all species recorded within it. The plots are coloured according to which Restoration or Reference Area they represent, with different shaped points portraying the different years.

The ditch monitoring quadrats have not been included on this plot as they comprise different numbers of quadrats and sizes, therefore are not comparable statistically.

The stress value for the ordination is 0.08, which is below 0.1, meaning that the ordination is a good representation of the difference between the communities.

This plot shows that the Reference Area (D) has different communities to the other surveyed Areas, as its points are consistently further from the others.

There is much overlap between Areas A, B and C, where grips were blocked in 2010, 2012 and 2014 respectively, with quadrats in Area C with the greatest variation, as the points are more scattered.

In Areas A, B and C, the 2021 data points (triangles) appear to be more consistently lower than the 2014 data points (circles), suggesting a change in a similar ‘direction’. This directional change indicates a change in species composition within these Restoration Areas – but this change has not brought them into closer alignment to the Reference Area (D).

Figure AD5 shows the average values of species recorded in the 2x2m quadrats as a stacked bar chart. Similar species have been grouped where their cover was <5% to facilitate interpretation of the figure. Species groupings are shown with asterisks below them.

Figure AD5 shows that 2x2m quadrats recorded purple moor-grass as the most common vascular plant in all Restoration Areas, excluding the Reference Area (D).  The Reference Area had a more variable species composition, dominated by hare’s-tail cottongrass, heather and deergrass.

Wavy hair-grass has also slightly increased in all Restoration and Reference Areas, from barely being present in most Areas, to having an additional 1.8- 7% cover.

Purple moor-grass increased in Areas A and C (grips blocked in 2010 and 2014), but decreased slightly in Area B by a change of 6% cover (grips blocked in 2012), on average.

In Area A and B, indicator species pleurocarpous moss Hypnum jutlandicum has noticeably increased, with Hylocomium splendens additionally increasing in Area C.

As a Reference Area was not included in the baseline survey, it is not possible to compare these changes with those of the reference quadrats where similar changes may also have occurred.

Table AD3. The change in average percentage cover of all species between the baseline and the repeat survey, and the change in number of species found within each grip block quadrat in Areas A, B, C (grip blocking in 2010, 2012 and 2014), Airds Moss. Grip block ‘quadrats’ change in community composition

-	A_ ditch 1	A_ ditch 2	A_ ditch 3	B_ ditch 1	B_ ditch 2	B_ ditch 3	C_ ditch 1	C_ ditch 2	C_ ditch 3
Difference in number of species identified	+24	+19	+15	+12	+16	+16	+15	+12	+10
Difference in overall average species cover (%)	+137	+85.5	+135.8	+77.5	+133.8	+103.5	+152.3	+131.5	+93.75

Although it was not possible to represent the grip block quadrats together with the other quadrats as a bar chart, a summary of the data is show in Table AD3 below, illustrating the increase in cover and number of species within the whole community composition, in the blocked grips.

Reviewing the raw data for species that have changed reveals that purple moor-grass is one of the dominant, non-indicator species vascular plants that has increased in ‘A_ditch’, ‘B_ditch’, and ‘C_ditch’.

Indicator species hare’s-tail cottongrass is also prevalent in ‘A_ditch’ and ‘B_ditch’, where it has also increased, but soft rush (not a bog indicator species) is more abundant and has increased in ‘C_ditch’.

Other species that have noticeably increased in all grips are the indicator species pleurocarpous mosses Hylocomium splendens and Pleurozium schreberi.

Indicator species

This figure shows that the cover of indicator species has increased in all Restoration and Reference Areas, although the cover of these species in the Reference Area (D) remains considerably higher.

In the 2x2m quadrats, the total average cover of indicator species in Area B (grips blocked in 2012) has increased the most over time, with an additional 32.3% average cover; followed by Area C (grips blocked in 2014) with 20.1% additional cover; and Area A (grips blocked in 2010) with 6.2% additional cover.

Table AD4. The change in overall average indicator species cover between the baseline and the repeat survey, for each grip block quadrat in Areas A, B, C (grip blocking in 2010, 2012 and 2014), Airds Moss. Grip block monitoring ‘quadrats’

-	A_ditch 1	A_ditch 2	A_ditch 3	B_ditch 1	B_ditch 2	B_ditch 3	C_ditch 1	C_ditch 2	C_ditch 3
Change in average indicator species cover (%)	+89	+48.5	+92.5	+36.75	+90.5	+55	+96	+57.5	+20.5

Table AD4 shows the change in the combined indicator species average cover between the survey and baseline years. The average cover of indicator species has increased in all grip block monitoring quadrats.

Cover has increased the most in ‘C_ditch’ 1, followed by ‘A_ditch’ 3 and ‘B_ditch’ 2 (grips blocked in 2014, 2010 and 2012, respectively), with the spread of change variable across all Restoration Areas.

‘C_ditch’ 3 has seen the smallest increase compared with all other Restoration Areas.

Figure AD7 below shows a stacked bar chart showing the mean percentage cover of the chosen indicator species which were recorded at Airds Moss.

This figure shows that the Reference Area (D) contains a greater average cover of indicator species than any Restoration Area, but also that all Restoration Areas contain similar indicator species.

Hare’s-tail cottongrass has decreased in Areas A and C by 12.9% cover and 7.3% cover, respectively (where grips were blocked in 2010 and 2014), but increased marginally in Area B (grips blocked in 2012).

The cover of Sphagnum has stayed relatively constant in Areas A and C (grip-blocking in 2010 and 2014) (an additional 1% and 0.8% average cover); with an 8% increase in cover in Area B (grips blocked in 2012). The species present comprise mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., and occasional Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum magellanicum sl.

Pleurocarpous moss dominates bryophyte cover in the Restoration Areas but not the Reference Area (D), and has increased in those Areas, with an additional 13- 22% cover estimated, being influenced by the increase in Hylocomium splendens, with Hypnum jutlandicum, Pleurozium schreberi.

Table AD5. The change in average indicator species cover between survey years, with the change in cover of each indicator species listed for each grip block quadrat in Areas A, B, C (grip blocking in 2010, 2012 and 2014), Airds Moss. Grip block monitoring ‘quadrats’ change in average cover (%)

Indicator species	A_ ditch 1	A_ ditch 2	A_ ditch 3	B_ ditch 1	B_ ditch 2	B_ ditch 3	C_ ditch 1	C_ ditch 2	C_ ditch 3
Calluna vulgaris	0.3	3.0	0.3	0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
Empetrum nigrum	0	0	0	0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Erica tetralix	0.5	8.3	0.7	0	4.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	0.0
Eriophorum angustifolium	0	0	0	0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
Eriophorum vaginatum	28.7	3.5	32.0	12.5	42.5	21.7	22.5	-5.0	-5.0
Pleurocarpous moss	22.2	26.0	18.2	8.5	16.5	14.7	12.0	15.5	14.8
Sphagnum spp.	35.8	7.8	39.8	13.5	26.0	18.3	61.0	45.5	10.5
Vaccinium spp.	1.5	0	1.5	2.3	1.0	0	0	0.5	0.3

Table AD5 displays the change in average indicator species cover in the ‘grip block quadrats’ in all Restoration Areas, to show the indicator species present.

Of the indicator species, hare’s-tail cottongrass makes up the majority of the cover in ‘A_ditch’ and ‘B_ditch’ (grips blocked in 2010 and 2012, respectively), and has increased in all of the grip block monitoring quadrats in Area ‘A_ditch’ and ‘B_ditch’, but decreased in two of ‘C_ditch’ (grips blocked in 2014) quadrats.

Pleurocarpous moss has also increased in all grips monitored, but to a lesser extent than Sphagnum spp., which has increased more than pleurocarpous in all but A_ditch 2 and C_ditch 3. This change is mainly comprised of Sphagnum fallax, which dominated among Sphagnum species in the grip quadrats.

Environmental variables

Figure AD8 shows other environmental variables where they were also measured as percentage cover in quadrats, as a bar chart.

This figure shows that the average cover of litter – comprising mainly dead vegetation dominated by purple moor-grass – has increased in all Restoration Areas (A- C) and the Reference Area (D) by variable amounts, but especially in Area A, where grips were blocked in 2010, with an additional 31.2% average cover.

Although bare peat was rarely recorded, some damage to peat and bryophytes was also recorded in the repeat survey – more than the baseline survey (although it should be noted that damaged peat was not on baseline survey forms).

Reviewing the data for the grip block quadrats reveals that the amount of open water was consistently less open water in all blocked ditches, but especially Area ‘C_ditch’ quadrats (grips blocked in 2014). Consistently more litter was recorded in the repeat survey than in the baseline survey.

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

As no Reference or Control Area was included in the baseline survey, a Reference Area was selected for comparison with the Restoration Areas. This was located on a plateau nearby, and contains relatively unmodified blanket bog. Although the change in this Reference Area cannot be compared to that of the Restoration Areas, the current status of all Areas can be compared.

The Reference Area contained blanket bog habitat with frequent tussocks of deergrass, abundant hare’s-tail cottongrass, and more abundant dwarf shrubs than in Restoration Areas, with heather and cross-leaved heath present in similar amounts. Carpets of Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum magellanicum sl. dominate the bryophyte layer, as well as Sphagnum capillifolium sl., with limited pleurocarpous moss.

Grip blocking

The walkover surveys found that peat dams across Areas A- C, installed in 2010, 2012 and 2014, respectively, were intact and mostly vegetated, with no features of active erosion present. Given that the water table has also apparently risen (Lill, 2021, pers. comm.), this suggests that these grip blocks are functioning, which should start rewetting the peat and influencing the vegetation.

Greater changes in the vegetation have been seen in the grip block monitoring quadrats compared with the 2x2m quadrats, with an overall increase in average cover and number of species suggesting that vegetation has colonised grips since blocking. This change comprises an increase in purple moor-grass and indicator species, including peat-forming hare’s-tail cottongrass and Sphagna – although the increase in species like Sphagnum fallax in ‘C_ditch’ indicates some continuing lateral flow of water, suggesting that some drainage of peat may still be occurring. The average cover of indicator species has increased more in the grips of ‘A_ditch’ than ‘C_ditch’, which is more dominated by soft rush. These findings however indicate that blocking grips has slowed the flow of water in Areas A and B, and to a lesser degree in Area C, so that the blocked grips are able to support the species found there. This shows that less drainage of the peat is occurring, preventing further erosion and loss of peat.

The vegetation communities around the grips in Areas A, B and C, surveyed with 2x2m quadrats have shown limited change between survey years. Although the NMDS plot shows that they have all moved slightly in a similar direction, showing change in a similar way, they have not moved towards the Reference Area (D), which contains blanket bog, meaning they have not become more similar to the Reference over time.

Restoration Areas A, B and C are all still dominated by tussocky purple moor-grass and litter, with this species increasing in Areas A and C – potentially explaining the greater distance between NMDS plots for these Restoration Areas over time. Litter has also increased in all Restoration Areas, but by the most in Area A, followed by Area B and C.

The cause of this increase may be due to decreased sheep grazing pressure; increased primary productivity due to aerial nitrate deposition (the site is surrounded by busy roads and livestock farming); or surveyor subjectivity (see Limitations section). Given the build-up of dry litter over time forming lenses separate to the water table, the impacts of peat rewetting are likely to take time and may not be apparent until the peat is more accessible as a substrate to grow in.

Despite the predominance of purple moor-grass, indicator species have increased in average cover in Areas A, B and C, comprising mostly pleurocarpous moss increase, which tolerate drier conditions. Sphagnum has increased by the most in Area B, but marginally in the other Restoration Areas, where peat-forming hare’s-tail cottongrass has also decreased in cover. The dominance of purple moor-grass is thought to be influencing these changes, as its build-up of dry litter favours pleurocarpous mosses over Sphagnum and hare’s-tail cottongrass. In Area C litter increase has been much lower, therefore the increase in pleurocarpous moss may however indicate a genuine drying out of the peat. These findings show that the dominant habitat type is limiting the response of the vegetation, despite functioning grip blocks.

The extent, and nature of change seen does not appear to correlate with the time since restoration, and appears to be influenced more by other factors.

Furthermore, Areas A, B and C are located on sloping topography, whereas the Reference Area (D), which has a very different bog vegetation community, is located on a plateau away from the Restoration Areas. This difference in location, and associated topography and weather conditions experienced, may mean that the Restoration Areas may never become similar communities to that of Area D. Nevertheless, there is potential for them to improve.

Figures AD9 - Figure AD38

Arran

Site description and summary of past management

The Arran restoration site is located in the centre of the Isle of Arran, North Ayrshire. Restoration has taken place in to the north and south of the main road through the island (The String). Restoration to the north of The String is located south-west of the summit of Cul nan Creagan (352m) located centrally at OS NR 9755 3669; and to the south of The String, is scattered around the summit of Cnoc Dubh (425m), located centrally at OS NR 9784 3472. The location of Restoration Areas relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure AN1 showing an overview of the site itself.

All Restoration Areas are located within the Arran Moors SSSI and SPA – the former notified for its upland habitat assemblage, containing wet and dry heath, blanket bog, subalpine flushes and acid grassland; as well as for supporting breeding hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) and a wider assemblage of breeding birds. The SPA is also designated for the nationally-important numbers of breeding hen harrier.

The southern Restoration Areas are also located within the Gleann Dubh SSSI which is also notified for its upland habitat assemblage and general breeding bird assemblage. These Restoration Areas encompass plateaux around the Cnoc Dubh summit, as well as land sloping north-east towards The String, where there are frequent peat haggs and expanses of bare peat, eroded in places to the bare mineral layer. Numerous watercourses drain off this mountain including Allt nan Calaman, with coniferous plantation woodland to the north-east and south-west of the Restoration Areas.

The northern Restoration Areas include gently sloping habitat to the south-east, with areas closer to the Cul nan Creagan summit sloping instead to the north-west, sloping towards the Gleann Easbuig watercourse network. It has been artificially drained with regular grips, which are up to 1.25m deep and ~0.5m wide, draining into this watercourse.

The northern Restoration Areas comprise open ground which is not grazed with livestock. The southern Restoration Areas are managed for stalking of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and enclosed with a fence along the northern side of The String.

No information was returned indicating that the vegetation, hydrology, or other features of the site is currently monitored.

Restoration measures undertaken

Figure AN1 illustrates locations where restoration has taken place.

Restoration measures had not taken place before the baseline surveys were carried out, but the baseline report states that proposals comprised:

• 444 peat dams over 4,000m of ditches together with 3 reinforced plastic dams (to the north of The String);
• Reprofiling of 200 peat haggs (to the south of The String); and
• Tree removal over 525ha.

Information subsequently supplied by NatureScot indicates that 477 ‘mostly peat (and some plastic)’ dams were installed along grips to the north of The String, as planned. The restoration extents are mapped on Figure AN1.

Initial restoration to the south of The String at Cnoc Dubh was focussed on reprofiling the haggs in that area to a shallower angle, although specific numbers regarding this have not been provided.

Tree removal does not appear to have taken place within any Restoration Areas, therefore this has been discounted.

Further restoration has taken place outside of the southern Area (Cnoc Dubh). These measures may have some impact on the vegetation and erosion within the surveyed area, so have been taken into account when it comes to assessing the impact of restoration. These extra restoration measures are mainly to the south-west of it, and include reprofiling a further 406 haggs; installing mainly (773) peat dams and (19) composite dams among grips and gullies, between 2017 and 2021. These more recent interventions – including the year of the survey and just before it, are not expected to have had an impact on the vegetation within the surveyed site  as they are downslope of the Restoration Areas in this study, therefore will not have an impact.

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, before the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey at Arran was undertaken between 26^th – 28^th September 2021, by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure AN2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure AN3.

Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. The Areas that were identified and surveyed in the baseline survey and subsequently re-surveyed, incorporated 15 quadrats in each, and included four Restoration Areas, as well as a Reference Area as listed below and shown on Figure AN2:

• Area A – Grip blocking – peat dams (north of The String);
• Area B – Gripped area which has not been restored (north of The String);
• Area C – Peat hagg reprofiling I (south of The String);
• Area D – Peat hagg reprofiling II – additional sample (south of The String);
• Area E – Relatively unmodified Reference Area (north of The String).

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table AN1), and the description for each Restoration and Reference Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table AN1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species showing their relative abundance, in Area A (grips blocked), B (grips not blocked), C and D (peat hagg reprofiling), and E (unmodified Reference Area) on Arran.

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D	Area E
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	O-R	O	A-D	D	F
Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	D	D	-	R	-
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	F-O	F-O	O	O	A
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	F-O	F	R	F	F
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	F-O	F-O	F-LD	F	O-F
Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	O-R	R	F	O-F	O-R
Bog asphodel	Narthecium ossifragum	R	O	LA	O	D
Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	R	F-O	R	-	A
Tormentil	Potentilla erecta	R	F	-	R	R
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	R	-	F	O-LA	O-R
Wavy hair-grass	Avenella flexuosa	-	R	R	R	R
Heath rush	Juncus squarrosus	-	-	R	-	-
Heath wood-rush	Luzula multiflora	-	-	-	R	R
Bell heather	Erica cinerea	-	-	-	A	-
Round-leaved sundew	Drosera rotundifolia	-	R	-	-	O-R

 Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	D-A	D-A	O-R	O	F
Acrocarpous moss	Racomitrium lanuginosum	R	F-O	F	F-A	O
Acrocarpous moss	Campylopus flexuosus	O	O-R	F	F	O-F
Acrocarpous moss	Campylopus introflexus	F-O	O-R	-	R	O-F
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum commune	O-R	F-A	R	R	R
Non-crustose lichen	Cladonia spp.	R	R	F	F	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum papillosum	F-O	F-O	R	-	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum magellanicum sl.	F-O	F-O	-	-	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	R	O-R	R	-	O-R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum subnitens	R	R	R	R	R
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum strictum	R	-	R	R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	LA	-	-	-	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	-	-	R	O-R	R
Acrocarpous moss	Leucobryum glaucum	R	O-R	-	-	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum denticulatum	R	-	-	-	R
Acrocarpous moss	Aulacomnium palustre	-	-	R	R	-
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	-	-	-	O	-

Area A – Grip blocking (north of The String)

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located on a north-west facing slope, and is intersected with regular drainage ditches (grips). Within this Area, purple moor-grass is dominating, but is not excessively tussocky, and its dominance is not apparently to the detriment of the wetness of the ground or cover of Sphagnum. The vegetation contains scattered plants of cross-leaved heath, common cottongrass and patches of hare’s-tail cottongrass. There is a consistently high cover of Sphagnum spp. over other mosses, which comprise mainly Hypnum jutlandicum. Given the predominance of Sphagnum spp., cottongrasses and cross-leaved heath, this habitat is considered to be closest to NVC community M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, but a form which is dominated by purple moor-grass due to management.

Sphagnum moss has consistently high cover, estimated at ~80% overall, and contains mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., with some patches of Sphagnum magellanicum sl., Sphagnum papillosum, and small areas of Sphagnum tenellum, Sphagnum cuspidatum (in ditches) and Sphagnum subnitens.

Non-native species Campylopus introflexus is consistently scattered across the Restoration Area in small quantities.

There are frequent signs of deer, including hoof prints and dung. However, there is less evidence of grazing here than in the Reference Area (E), and approximately <1% of last year’s purple moor-grass and bog asphodel was grazed.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area A comprises frequent grip blocking with peat, every few metres. At the time of restoration, grip reprofiling was not used in conjunction with grip blocking.

During the survey it was observed that some active erosion was occurring, with occasional steep-sided grips with bare sides, down which there is some water flow and erosion of peat.

The majority of grip blocks were holding back water, with a low number being overtopped – an estimated <5% seen with water trickling through breaches. None have visibly collapsed, fully failed or have water flow around the sides. The functioning of grip blocks was observed in action during the survey after recent heavy rain.

It is estimated that ~90% of grip blocks are covered with vegetation, although some bare peat is due to deer prints, which were concentrated around grip blocks as crossing points. However, this was not obviously causing them to fail, and some compaction may have helped initially with bedding them in.

Revegetation is also occurring on the limited area of bare peat, with growth of common cottongrass and Sphagnum cuspidatum.

Restoration has not obviously led to damage, with an estimated <1% visible damage due to restoration – mainly the occasional borrow pit which is becoming revegetated with common cottongrass.

Area B – Gripped area that has not been restored (north of The String)

Habitat and condition observations

Area B is also located to the north of The String, on a relatively flat area, that gently slopes towards the south-west, on the edge of a steeper slope. It is a heavily-gripped area, with mainly shallow grips that become deeper to the south.

Although previously described as having affinity with NVC community M17, it now is considered to be most similar to the community M15 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Erica tetralix wet heath’, given its lack of Sphagnum papillosum and Eriophorum vaginatum, although it does not fit well with any community.  This un-restored Control Area was noticeably dry at the time of survey, and has become dominated by purple moor-grass due to past management such as draining and grazing, also containing scattered hare’s-tail cottongrass, common cottongrass and deergrass in small quantities. Scattered cross-leaved heath, with a lower cover of heather are also present.

Carpets of Sphagnum spp. are present throughout the Area, and grips are mostly dry, shallow and mainly vegetated, with vegetation similar to that surrounding it, and Sphagnum present. Litter from dominating purple moor-grass covers most of the ground, and hides the layer of Sphagnum spp.

Sphagnum spp. make up approximately ~70% cover overall, forming carpets in places and dominating within grips. Non-Sphagnum mosses are less abundant, comprising ~5-10% of the ground layer, comprising Polytrichum spp. and Racomitrium lanuginosum, with Campylopus flexuosus, Hypnum jutlandicum and Leucobryum glaucum consistently present in low quantities.

Non-native moss Campylopus introflexus is also scattered throughout the Area in small patches.

Frequent signs of deer were seen, but the levels of grazing were low, with approximately <1% last year’s shoots of mainly bog asphodel, cottongrass and purple moor-grass visibly grazed.

Restoration observations

Despite original plans to block the grips of Area B like Area A, this has not happened.

However, within the majority of this Un-restored Area, active erosion does not appear to be happening – most grips are shallow-sided ~45⁰ and vegetated with Sphagna and surrounding vegetation, and appear to be naturally filling in. They were all dry at the time of survey and there is little bare peat present (an average of 0.8% cover recorded in quadrats). Though there are some vertical, bare peat grip sides in the south of Area B, where erosion is apparent where the slope rises from the flatter area.

Area C – Peat hagg reprofiling (south of The String)

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is located south of the summit of Cnoc Dubh, on flat topography. The habitat within this Restoration Area was observed as being variable, with some heather-dominated areas with few other dwarf shrubs or graminoids present. Common cottongrass is colonising and sometimes dominant in areas of bare peat, meaning it was not possible to attribute an NVC community to Area C as a whole. Bare peat is eroded to bare mineral in places.

Across the majority of the Area, Sphagnum moss constitutes <1% cover, except in some damp gullies where it dominates. Other mosses also have variable cover, estimated between ~10-40% overall, comprising mainly Campylopus introflexus and Campylopus flexuosus on bare peat, and Racomitrium lanuginosum, and Hypnum jutlandicum beneath Calluna vulgaris.

Within this Restoration Area there are very occasional spruce seedlings and one birch (Betula sp.) was found, with trees making up an estimated <0.1% cover and one tomato plant (Solanum sp.) had seeded.

As with Restoration Areas north of the road, there was occasional deer/sheep dung seen, and grazing levels were low – with <1% of last year’s shoots noticed as being grazed – and only seen on common cottongrass.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area C comprised hagg-reprofiling, with an estimated 80% of reprofiled ground revegetated based on the walkover survey. Despite this, haggs with bare peat faces and obvious erosion were identified, particularly in the centre of the Area. There is also still a lot of bare peat on haggs and at the base of haggs.

However, as stated, common cottongrass is colonising and sometimes dominant in bare peat areas.

Area D – Peat hagg reprofiling (south of The String)

Habitat and condition observations

Area D lies north-east of the Cnoc Dubh summit, on relatively flat topography, south of The String. This Restoration Area is very eroded, down to the mineral layer in places, with islands of peat.  Heather and bell heather (Erica cinerea) are co-dominant, with common cottongrass colonising bare areas. It is considered to be closest to NVC community M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’.

Around 10% of the heather is dead or dying, which appears to be due to heather beetle.

It is estimated that Sphagnum moss overall has <5% cover, although it is dominant in some wet areas. Other moss cover is ~40%, and includes mainly Campylopus flexuosus, with some Campylopus introflexus, Dicranum scoparium and Polytrichum commune.

Non-native Campylopus introflexus is occasionally present on bare peat. Tree colonisation comprises very occasional spruce seedlings making up <1% cover.

As with the other Restoration Areas, this one has some deer/sheep dung and prints, as well as some red grouse (Lagopus lagopus) dung. Nevertheless, less than 1% of last year’s shoots are grazed – mainly on cottongrasses, with only occasional signs of grazing.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area D comprised hagg-reprofiling, which is evident in places - mostly sloping sides with ≥60% vegetation cover, although some haggs still have bare edges.

Additionally, there are areas of bare peat being eroded, often down to the mineral layer. The walkover estimated bare peat as having cover of at least 5%.

Area E – Relatively unmodified Reference Area (north of The String)

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (Area E) is located on flat topography south of Cul na Creagan, and north of The String. There was heavy rain before survey, so the surface was very wet with standing water in places.

The habitat is relatively uniform throughout the Reference Area, which is considered to be a bog asphodel-dominated bog, with deergrass and hare’s-tail cottongrass dominant in places. Heather and cross-leaved heath have similarly low levels of over. It was selected in the baseline as the best example of the M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ community in the region, and still is best described by this community.

Sphagnum moss cover was variable, between 10-60% cover across the Reference Area, whereas other mosses made up ~10% cover overall. Most frequent was Sphagnum capillifolium sl., with other Sphagna – Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum magellanicum sl. and Sphagnum tenellum more occasional to rare. Hypnum jutlandicum was the most frequent non-Sphagnum moss, with others including Campylopus flexuosus and Racomitrium lanuginosum.

Non-native species Campylopus introflexus also occurs in very small patches.

Both deer and sheep were seen in the Reference Area, and there were frequent prints and dung also present throughout. Approximately 5% of last year’s bog asphodel shoots were grazed, with grazing not seen on other plants possibly due to the dominance of this species.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure AN2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2, and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are listed as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure AN3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure AN4 shows the NMDS ordination plot for the Restoration and Reference Areas on Arran, where the colours show different Areas, and shapes represent individual quadrats for both survey years. This was calculated using three dimensions, and the stress value for this plot is 0.11, which is just over 0.1, suggesting that this is a reasonable and acceptable representation of the difference between communities.

As the baseline data contained only zeros for all species in Area D (where haggs have been reprofiled), quadrat 14, this row of data was removed so the analysis could work. This has been taken into account in the interpretation.

Areas A (grips blocked), B (un-restored Control Area) and E (Reference Area) are located north of The String, and are relatively clustered together with more similar communities compared to Areas C and D (peat haggs reprofiled), which are located south of The String.

The Reference Area (E) appears to have changed, in a similar direction to Area B over time.

The communities of Areas C and D have both also moved generally in a similar direction, and have some overlap in both 2015 and 2021, reflecting their ongoing similarity.

Figure AN5 displays the vegetation communities present based on average percentage cover as a stacked bar chart, where species have been grouped where they have low cover (<5%) each.

This Figure shows that Areas A (grips blocked), B (un-restored Control) are dominated by purple moor-grass – which has increased on average between survey years by an additional 27.3% cover in the former, and stayed more constant with an additional 3% estimated in the latter. These also have similarly high cover of Sphagnum capillifolium sl. to the Reference Area (E). Cover changes in the indicator species such as these are explored further in Figure AN6 below.

Areas C and D (peat haggs reprofiled) have greater cover of vegetation overall in the repeat survey, and dominant species in these communities are the indicator species heather and pleurocarpous moss Hypnum jutlandicum, with an additional 19.4% and 31.2% average cover estimated, respectively.

The Reference Area (E) itself has also seen a change in cover of indicator species, which dominate its community, with bog asphodel notably increasing by an additional 32.9% cover on average, and a reduction in hare’s-tail cottongrass of 15% cover. Otherwise, the proportions of species are similar.

Indicator species

Figure AN6 shows the change in the summed average percentage cover of indicator species, for each Restoration, Reference and Control Area between survey years.

This figure shows that the total average cover of indicator species has increased the most in Area D (with an additional 117.1% cover, due to layering of species), followed by Area C (an additional 77.2% cover) (both treated with hagg-reprofiling). Changes in average indicator species cover in other Areas are broadly similar despite that only Area A has been treated with grip blocking: Area A – 28.4%, B – 25.5% (un-restored Control), and the Reference Area (E) – 24.1% additional cover.

This indicates that there has been no appreciable change in indicator species cover compared to the Reference Area (E) for the Areas where grip were blocked (A) and where the grip remain unblocked (B). Both Areas treated with hagg re-profiling (C and D) have seen significant changes in indicator species coverage.

Figure AN7 illustrates the average percentage covers of indicator species for each Restored Control and Reference Area as a stacked bar chart.

This figure shows that Areas A (grips blocked) and B (un-restored grips) have a more similar composition of indicator species than the other Restored and Reference Areas. Sphagnum spp. are abundant in Areas A and B, and at these Areas there has been an estimated increase in cover of 23.7% and 6.2%, respectively. This comprises mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., with some Sphagnum papillosum. Although the Reference Area (E) has a similar cover of Sphagnum, the cover of this has stayed relatively constant (0.9% additional cover estimated). The cover of pleurocarpous moss has also stayed relatively constant, with just an additional 0.3%, 1.2% and 2.2% cover estimated at Areas A, B and E, respectively.

The increase in indicator species cover in Area C and D (haggs reprofiled) is characterised by an increase in heather of 51.9% and 53.5% cover, respectively; and in pleurocarpous moss (just Hypnum jutlandicum) of 19.4% and 31.7% cover, respectively. An additional 7.1% cover of Sphagnum spp. was also recorded in Area D, with little change seen in Area C (just an additional 1.7% recorded).

Unlike in the Restored and Reference Areas, an increase in Racomitrium lanuginosum was recorded in the un-restored Control Area (B), covering an additional 13.9% on average, with limited change in all other Areas of (<3% additional cover).

Major changes in the Reference Area’s (E) vascular cover include hare’s-tail cottongrass decreasing by an estimated 15% average cover, while bog asphodel has increased by an additional 32.9% cover, and heather by 3.7% cover.

Environmental variables

Figure AN8 displays the average percentage cover of other environmental variables recorded in quadrats.

Litter cover is highest in Areas A (grips blocked) and B (un-restored grips), with an increase in average estimated cover of 67.7% and 70.2% since the baseline survey. The Reference Area (E) has also seen a 21.3% additional estimated litter cover.

Bare ground are has decreased greatly between the years in Areas C and D (haggs reprofiled), by 62.1% and 81.8% estimated cover, respectively.

Less damaged bryophytes were also observed in Areas A (grips blocked) and B (un-restored grips) in the repeat survey, with some damaged peat recorded – mostly in Area C (29.3% cover) and Area D (16.5% cover) (haggs reprofiled) – although this is not comparable with the baseline survey as the latter was not on those survey forms.

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

The Reference Area (E) is comparable with Area A (where grips were blocked) due to their proximity and similar vegetation communities. The ground of the Reference Area was noticeably wetter than other Restoration Areas, and the impacts of red deer and sheep were seen most in the Reference Area, damaging peat and Sphagnum.

The species composition of the Reference Area has stayed relatively consistent over time. However, the NMDS plot shows that the vegetation communities in this Area and in the un-restored Control Area (B) have changed in a similar way since the baseline survey. This may be due to changes in cover recorded, such as an increase in bog asphodel and a decrease in hare’s-tail cottongrass. The reason for this is not clear, but suggest a similar driver, such as influence of deer and sheep is at work.

Grip blocking

Peat dams were observed as functioning and retaining water across Area A, with only occasional overtopping. Most dams were vegetated, although some bare peat remained (these could have been from the borrow pits from the creation of the dam) and was being exacerbated by deer trampling. This may compact the dams, but also could cause problems and breaches in the future. The sides of the grips were also generally steep-sided and bare, with little vegetation in the grips themselves and erosion may still be occurring.

Area A has shown some response to grip blocking and peat rewetting through its increase in average indicator species cover, which has increased more than in the Reference Area (E). Although this has increased by a similar amount to Area B where the grips have not been blocked, Sphagnum spp. – mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. and some Sphagnum papillosum have increased more than in Area B or the Reference Area, and more than other indicator species. This indicates that the peat rewetting is favouring the spread of these Sphagna, and will help to contribute to a functioning peat-forming bog.

However, purple moor-grass is also abundant in Area A and B, has also increased by a similar coverage in both Areas, which is reflected by the high litter cover, and may outcompete bog specialists in the right conditions. This change may be due to an increase in primary productivity from nutrient deposition; or a change in red deer grazing pressure. It shows the complex influences and interactions within the community, as well as influences from restoration.

The findings for Area A however show that grip blocking is causing rewetting of the peat and supporting bog indicator species, although signs are limited, and more time is needed to see real change.

Peat hagg reprofiling

The haggs in Area C and D have been stabilised by reprofiling and laying vegetated turves. The peat haggs are now mostly revegetated with heather-dominated turves and there is a much lower cover of bare peat present than in the baseline survey. On the remaining areas of bare peat, natural recolonisation of peat with common cottongrass was also observed.

The NMDS plots show that Areas C and D have both changed in a similar way. This can be explained by the greater overall average cover of vegetation recorded compared to the baseline survey, coupled with a substantial decrease in the cover of bare ground. The increase in cover shows that the turves have survived well, and the reprofiled haggs are stable enough to support them.

This increase in vegetation is dominated by an increase in indicator species, comprising mostly heather and pleurocarpous moss, although Area D saw the greatest increase in Sphagnum cover nonetheless. Although heather and pleurocarpous moss succeed over bog specialists like Sphagnum on drier peat, the immediate aims of restoring actively eroding peatland in such poor baseline condition are to stabilise and revegetate erosion features, which has been successful here. However, as the substrate has been eroded down to the mineral in some places, some of this peatland is not recoverable, and other areas may take a long time to fully rewet and become functioning bog.

Figures AN9 – AN37

Barlosh Moss

Site description and summary of past management

Barlosh Moss is a ~13ha area of lowland raised bog located ~3km south-west of the village of Ochiltree and ~3km east of the village of Drongan, East Ayrshire; centrally at OS grid reference NS 4887 1858. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure BA1 showing an overview of the site itself.

The raised bog forms the eastern section of Barlosh Moss SSSI, notified for its raised bog and fens including wetland habitats like reed-swamp, poor fen, marshy grassland and birch/willow carr, which have developed around a former loch (Plaid Loch). The SSSI comprises a relatively undisturbed complex of mires which are hydrologically linked despite being separated by a track running north-south.

The raised bog is encircled by a drain, with wet woodland and wetland to the west, and coniferous plantation to the east. It is bounded by improved grazing pasture to the north and south, with occasional buildings associated with farming activities. Further waterbodies such as ponds and small lochs to the south, and small watercourses are located within the wider landscape.

The drainage infrastructure was installed in the 1970s and 1980s, which included re-routing water flow to Plaid Loch (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016). The far-eastern part of the bog was drained further and planted with Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), and trees have since encroached from neighbouring plantations, with drainage making conditions more suitable for them. Semi-mature Scots pine woodland has developed in the east, with more of an open scattered canopy across the rest of the bog.

In order to address these issues, SNH set up a five-year Management Agreement in 2002, which included the clear-felling of all the trees present and interception of the drain along the southern edge of raised bog so it became less active. The peatland restoration that took place is detailed in the Restoration section below.

The site currently has shared management between local farms – Glenconner Farm and Beechknowe Farm. Current management involves occasional grazing with sheep and removal of trees that naturally regenerate.

The hydrology of the site has been monitored by NatureScot since 2014 using an automated water level logger located towards the north of the site (Peatland Action, 2021).

It is not known whether other monitoring of vegetation or other features is taking place within the site.

The latest SSSI assessment conducted in 2013 showed that it is in ‘unfavourable declining’ condition due to ‘grazing – other’, ‘no proactive management’ and ‘water management’. Restoration measures have taken place since this assessment.

Restoration measures undertaken

The area restored at Barlosh Moss is illustrated on Figure BA1.

Restoration was funded under the Peatland Action programme, and took place between November 2014 and February 2015, which involved the removal of mature trees and seedlings over approximately 10ha of the site.  The felled material (chips and other timber) was largely removed from the site, although some occasional brash was left behind, blocking furrows and scattered mostly in the eastern part of the site, which had supported more mature woodland.

Following this restoration, a five-year management plan was scheduled to be implemented, and was expected to include a grazing management regime using cattle and sheep, although no evidence of this was seen on site. Clearance of tree regeneration subsequently took place in 2018/ 2019 (MacGregor, 2021, pers. comm.).

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, after the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey at Barlosh Moss was undertaken between 1^st – 3^rd September 2021, by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure BA2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure BA3.

Restoration and Reference Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. These Areas incorporated 20 quadrats in each, as listed below and shown on Figure BA2:

• Area A – Relatively unmodified raised bog – Reference Area;
• Area B – Felled young self-seeded woodland; and,
• Area C – Felled semi-mature self-seeded woodland.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table BA1), and the description for each Reference and Restoration Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table BA1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species showing their relative abundance at Barlosh Moss in Area A (unmodified Reference Area), B (felled young woodland) and C (felled semi-mature woodland).

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	A-D	D	O-F
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	A-D	F-A	O-R
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	F	F-A	R
Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	O	LA	R
Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	R	O	F-A
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	O	O	R
Birch seedling	Betula sp.	F	F	-
Cranberry	Vaccinium oxycoccos	F	A	-
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	O	LA	-
Wavy hair-grass	Avenella flexuosa	-	O	F-O
Bog asphodel	Narthecium ossifragum	O-R	O-R	-
Yorkshire fog	Holcus lanatus	-	R	F-O
Round-leaved sundew	Drosera rotundifolia	O	R	-
Fern	Dryopteris sp.	-	R	F
Soft rush	Juncus effusus	-	-	D
Downy birch	Betula pubescens	-	-	F-LD
Bramble	Rubus fruticosus agg.	-	-	F
Willowherb	Epilobium spp.	-	-	F
Wood sorrel	Oxalis acetosella	-	-	F
Sheep’s fescue	Festuca ovina	-	-	R-LA
Bent-grass	Agrostis spp.	-	-	O
Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	O-R	-	-
Tufted hair-grass	Deschampsia cespitosa	-	-	O-R
Bog rosemary	Andromeda polifolia	O-F	-	-
Hawthorn	Crataegus monogyna	-	-	O
Willow	Salix sp.	-	-	O
Common reedmace	Typha latifolia	-	-	R
Pine seedling	Pinus sp.	R	-	-

Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	A-D	A	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	F	O-F	LA
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	F	F	F-O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum magellanicum sl.	F-LA	O	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	F	O-F	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	F	O-F	R
Acrocarpous moss	Campylopus flexuosus	R	R	R
Acrocarpous moss	Campylopus introflexus	R	R	R
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum commune	R	R	O-F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum rubellum	-	LD-F	O-R
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum strictum	F	O-F	-
Pleurocarpous moss	Kindbergia praelonga	-	-	F
Pleurocarpous moss	Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus	-	-	F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	O	-	-

Area A – Relatively unmodified raised bog – Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (A) is located on flat topography in the north-west of the raised bog, close to a drain that runs along the north of the site, and a pond.

This Area contains more heather than Restored Areas, which is co-dominant with hare’s-tail cottongrass, with scattered cross-leaved heath and localised patches of crowberry and bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus). Beneath vascular plants is a well-developed carpet of Sphagnum sp. dominated by S capillifolium subsp rubellum and S magellanicum sl. Given this combination of vegetation, it is considered to be most like ‘M18 Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’.

During the survey it was observed that ~10% of the heather is dead – possibly due to heather beetle, but most was flowering, as well as other dwarf shrubs during the survey.

Overall Sphagnum moss cover is ~60%, but is variable within the Reference Area, mainly comprising Sphagnum capillifolium subsp. rubellum and Sphagnum magellanicum sl. Other mosses have ~20% cover, with none particularly dominant, although Aulacomnium palustre and Hypnum jutlandicum are very frequent.

Occasional non-native moss Campylopus introflexus was present on hummocks, and scattered birch seedlings were present throughout, constituting ~5% overall cover, and generally up to 1m tall. Occasional very small pine seedlings were also present.

Signs of hares or rabbits were frequent, mainly in the northern part of the Reference Area, with brown hare (Lepus europaeus) seen on site. Small amounts of scattered deer and sheep dung were also present.

Grazing appeared to be concentrated on the stunted birch seedlings, with up to 5% of last year’s birch shoots grazed, and little other signs of grazing.

Area B – Felled young self-seeded woodland

Habitat and condition observations

Area B is located south of the centre of the raised bog, on flat topography which had been felled. It is considered most like NVC community M18 ‘Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’, with hare’s-tail cottongrass, heather and cross-leaved heath dominant, less heather than the Reference Area (A), and localised patches of bilberry, crowberry and wavy hair-grass. Purple moor-grass was common in places, and cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) was present throughout.

Sphagnum moss cover overall was estimated as ~60%, mainly comprising Sphagnum capillifolium sl. with patches of Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum magellanicum sl. Other mosses had ~30% overall cover – this mainly being Aulacomnium palustre and Hypnum jutlandicum. Occasional hummocks of Polytrichum spp. were also present.

Non-native moss Campylopus introflexus occurs in low quantities across the Restoration Area.

Colonising tree species have <5% cover overall, comprising downy birch scattered throughout, ranging from seedlings to ~1m high.

There is more sheep or deer dung Area B compared to Area C (felled semi-mature woodland), and young birch across this Restoration Area has stunted growth, likely due to grazing, with approximately 30% of last year’s birch shoots grazed. Overall, there is very little sign of grazing on other plants. Grazing activity does not appear to be damaging Sphagnum moss.

Restoration observations

Established young trees were felled in this Area as part of restoration, and tree stumps are visible, although there are noticeably fewer stumps here than in Area C, which was semi-mature woodland. These stumps are not regenerating.

Barely any furrows are visible, suggesting that they have been successfully blocked with trees.

Apart from a patch north of Area B on a fixed-point photograph where there is dry cracked peat and erosion, with the cause unknown, no damage was seen in this Restoration Area, and active erosion is not apparent.

Area C – Felled mature self-seeded woodland

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is located immediately adjacent to woodland to the south-east of the site, and this is apparent in the level of colonisation by trees. It is not possible to class into one habitat type or NVC community, but appears to derive from previous woodland communities, and be developing from this.

Close to the woodland edge, there are abundant birch seedlings (~80% cover), which in the south of this Restoration Area are completely dominating, ranging from seedlings to saplings >2m high. Occasional willow and hawthorn are also present. Tree colonisation was estimated as being ~10% cover further from the woodland.

Habitat is variable, dominated by soft rush, with purple moor-grass and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) in places and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) scrub also present across much of this Restoration Area – mainly on the woodland side. Dwarf shrubs are not abundant.

Sphagnum moss has <5% cover overall, although it is more common in some patches, particularly Sphagnum cuspidatum in wetter areas. Other mosses have variable cover which is estimated at around ~20% cover.

There are more limited signs of grazing in this Area than in Restoration Area B and the Reference Area (A), with very occasional deer dung, and <1% last year’s shoots grazed, and no damage to Sphagnum seen.

Restoration observations

More mature woodland was felled in this Area compared with Area B, with more frequent large stumps observed, none of which are regenerating. However, as described above, birch in particular, as well as occasional willow and hawthorn are colonising, with some established regeneration close to the remaining woodland, where there are few other species beneath.

There is no evidence of active erosion however, with the uneven ground suggesting the furrows have been filled in with logs.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure BA2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2, and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure BA3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure BA4 shows the NMDS ordination plot for Barlosh Moss, with each point representing a quadrat and its community; the shape of point representing the survey year and the colour being the Restoration or Reference Area.

The stress value for this ordination is 0.1, suggesting that this is a good representation of the difference between community composition.

The distances between points reflect their dissimilarities, and therefore show that Area C (felled semi-mature woodland) is different from the Reference Area (A) and B (felled young woodland); between the latter two Areas there is much overlap and similarity in species composition.

The community in Area C has also changed noticeably between survey years, with some points marginally closer to the Reference Area (A) and Restoration Area B, but others further away, with the spread overall showing greater variation within the Area compared with Areas A and B.

Figure BA5 shows the community composition of Barlosh as a stacked bar chart. It combines species which have a cover of <5% into groups so that they are more visible.

This Figure shows that the species composition of the Reference Area (A) and Area B (felled young woodland) are more similar than Area C (felled semi-mature woodland).

In the Reference Area (A), the indicator species heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass dominate, as well as Sphagnum capillifolium sl. In the repeat survey, an additional 13.6% average cover of Sphagnum capillifolium sl. was recorded, although less Sphagnum magellanicum sl. and Sphagnum fallax was estimated (3.4% and 9.6% less cover, respectively). The abundant pleurocarpous mosses in the Reference Area (A) have seen limited change – cover estimations of Hypnum jutlandicum have increased slightly with 5.3% more cover on average, and Pleurozium schreberi stayed more constant, with 2.8% less cover recorded. These are all indicator species and are discussed further below.

In Area B (felled young woodland), heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass also dominate and have increased between survey years, as well as cranberry and Sphagnum capillifolium sl. In this Area, Pleurozium schreberi and Hypnum jutlandicum are also prevalent, with the former staying relatively constant (1% less cover estimated) and the latter decreasing in cover by 8.5%.

Area C (felled semi-mature woodland) is dominated by more non-indicator species than the other Areas. However, there has been a reduction in estimated cover of woodland species including wood sorrel (Oxalis acetosella) (24.3% cover reduction) and broad buckler-fern (Dryopteris dilatata) (18.6% cover reduction), whereas the cover of generalist species soft rush has increased (by an additional 31.1% cover), as well as purple moor-grass (17.4% additional cover) and downy birch (17.3% additional cover). Indicator species Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus and Sphagnum cuspidatum have also increased.

Indicator species

Figure BA6 shows the change in overall indicator species average percentage cover over time, in each Restoration and Reference Area.

This figure shows that the total cover of indicator species has increased by the greatest amount where felling of young woodland has taken place – Area B (39.8% average estimated cover increase); followed by Area C (28.2% cover increase), where felling of semi-mature woodland has occurred. Some change is also apparent in the Reference Area (A) where there was an additional 14.8% estimated cover in indicator species.

Figure BA7 shows the average percentage covers of indicator species.

This figure shows that the Reference Area (A) and Area B (felled young woodland) are made up of a large proportion of indicator species, and that coverage has increased since the baseline survey. Slightly greater cover of Sphagnum spp. has been estimated in these Areas, with an additional 4.3% and 5% cover, respectively; as well as pleurocarpous mosses, where a further 5.5% and 1.7% average cover was recorded.

In Area B, Vaccinium spp. has also increased more than in the other Restoration or Reference Areas, by an additional 14.3% cover, comprising bilberry and cranberry.

Hare’s-tail cottongrass has declined in the Reference Area (A) with an 8.8% cover reduction estimated, but increased in Area B (felled young woodland) by an additional 17% cover; whereas heather has increased in the Reference Area (A) by 8% cover, and in Area B, a minimal decrease was observed.

An increase in indicator species in Area C (felled semi-mature woodland) is characterised by an increase in pleurocarpous moss, hare’s-tail cottongrass and Sphagnum spp. (11.8%, 8% and 7% additional cover, respectively), which make up the majority of the indicator species cover. These results are discussed in more detail below.

Environmental variables

Figure BA8 represents the average cover of other environmental variables recorded in quadrats.

This figure shows that the cover of litter (mainly dead vegetation with occasional brash), has decreased in Restoration Area C by 11.5% estimated cover, and to a limited extent Area B by an estimated 2.7% cover, where young and semi-mature woodland has been felled, respectively. Litter has however increased in the Reference Area (A) by an additional 5.2% estimated cover.

Less bryophyte damage was also recorded during the repeat survey, most notably where young woodland has been felled (Area B) with a 5.8% cover reduction. Bryophyte damage has also been recorded in the Reference Area at a similar level to the baseline survey (1.6% more estimated).

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

Despite being the Reference Area, the vegetation of Area A has changed slightly, as seen in the NMDS plot, in ways that indicate potential drying of peat, through the increase of dwarf shrubs such as heather.

This Area is closest to an existing drain which does not appear to have been regularly blocked in the north, although being partially blocked in the south. This may be impacting vegetation by draining and drying the peat, as well as grazing by rabbits and hare, of which there were frequent signs.

Nevertheless, Sphagnum moss has increased slightly in the Reference Area, with less damage observed compared to the baseline survey. The increase in leaf litter may also indicate a decrease in grazing pressure, or increase in primary productivity due to aerial nitrate deposition or fertiliser drift from neighbouring farms.

Tree felling and removal

Restoration at Barlosh Moss comprised felling young woodland in Area B, and semi-mature woodland in Area C, with most brash removed and some left to block furrows and scattered throughout. Trees were found to be recolonising the site, concentrated mostly near the remaining woodland in the south-east of Area C, and this presents a threat to the success of restoration.

The survey reflect the difference in age and density of trees that formerly covered the site, and proximity to existing woodland.

Having had a younger tree canopy than Area C, Area B started with a more similar vegetation community to the Reference Area (A) in the baseline survey, and has also moved towards the Reference Area in the NMDS plot, therefore has become more similar. The greatest increase in indicator species cover is seen in Area B, comprising an increase in Sphagnum capillifolium, cranberry and hare’s-tail cottongrass. Area B was noted as having a community composition representing a better-quality ombrotrophic bog than the Reference Area, which has higher heather cover and saw a decrease in hare’s-tail cottongrass since the baseline survey.

As Area B started out with the fewest colonising young trees, it appears that bog indicator species have persisted sufficiently to facilitate quicker recovery than in Area C, which had been dominated by more mature trees, and is showing a slower recovery to bog. However, there are signs of improvement: the NMDS plot shows that the community has changed fundamentally and in a directional way, and there have been increases in the indicator species: pleurocarpous moss, Sphagnum and hare’s-tail cottongrass.

Although the cover of some indicator species has increased, Area C contains a mixture of ruderal species like willowherb (Epilobium sp.) and bramble, as well as remnants of woodland flora such as wood sorrel and broad-buckler fern (Dryopteris dilatata) (which are decreasing). Birch seedlings are dominating in the south-east, and threaten to take over the whole Restoration Area. Without further intervention to prevent this becoming colonised with trees again, Area C is not considered likely to move towards bog vegetation. Drainage of the site will favour the colonisation of trees, so the water table would also need to be raised further to prevent tree seedling establishment.

Figures BA9 – BA18

Black Moss, Aberdeenshire

Site description and summary of past management

Black Moss, Aberdeenshire is a lowland raised bog located at NJ 4609 0150, approximately 2.5km north of the village of Dinnet, in Aberdeenshire. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure BMA1 showing an overview of the site itself.

The site lies in the east of the larger Muir of Dinnet SAC, SSSI and NNR. The SAC is primarily designated for Annex I habitats including ‘European dry heaths’, with additional qualifying features – ‘Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration’ and ‘Transition mires and quaking bogs’ also present. The SSSI is 2308.6ha and reflects the complex of habitats within it, is notified for its lowland wet and dry heath, fens and freshwater habitats; as well as its breeding bird assemblage, non-breeding greylag goose (Anser anser), invertebrate and dragonfly assemblage.

Black Moss itself comprises raised bog surrounded by lagg-fen and wet woodland, with linked drains surrounding it and further plantation woodland to the south. The surrounding area comprises improved pasture to the north, further scattered woodland and mixed habitats to the east, south and west.

Prior to restoration, Black Moss contained tree cover, which was most dense to the east, and sparser in the west. The baseline report states that in 2000, tree establishment on the north-east side of Black Moss, assessed from aerial photographs from 1964 and 1994, was identified as a cause for concern.

Historically, Black Moss has been mined for diatomite, which has caused areas of swamp and flooding. It has also been cut over and afforested in parts. Three dams have been installed at ditches on the site in 2008 to slow the flow of water through the site, although the locations of these are not shown on any maps provided.

The site is currently unmanaged, and ongoing pressures identified include birch and pine regeneration. The landowner is understood to have some concerns about the installation of dams (Reid, 2021, pers. comm.).

The hydrology of Black Moss is monitored with two automated water-level loggers which were installed in 2015 by Peatland Action (Campbell, 2021, pres. comm.). These are placed in the north and west of the site (Peatland Action, 2021).

Condition assessment of the SSSI identified it as being ‘favourable maintained’ in 2018, with no negative pressures identified. The SSSI includes Black Moss.

Restoration measures undertaken

Given the identified pressures, restoration at the site involved semi-mature tree removal on the raised bog as shown on Figure BMA1, which was undertaken in the winter of 2015-2016, where 15-17 ha of mature pine was removed by hand, with the brash left across the site, including blocking furrows. Restoration did not include the far-western section of the NNR or the central area of the bog which is the wettest area with sparse tree cover.

This restoration had not been carried out when the baseline survey was done, therefore the surveys reflect the communities present before and after.

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2014, before the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey at Black Moss, Aberdeenshire was undertaken between 14^th – 17^th August 2021, by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure BMA2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure BMA3.

Restoration and Control Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. The Areas that were identified and surveyed in the baseline survey and subsequently re-surveyed, incorporated 20 quadrats in each, and included two Restoration Areas and one Control Area, as listed below:

• Area A – Tree clearance on raised bog;
• Area B – Tree clearance on wooded bog; and,
• Area C – Unmanaged wooded raised bog – Control Area.

During the baseline survey, the two Restoration Areas were selected based on the differences in tree cover on the site. Area A is located in the centre of the bog, where there was less dense coverage, and resembled a wetter raised bog with some Scots pine and birch coverage. Area B is located where there was denser, semi-mature tree cover. 

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table BMA1), and the description for each Restoration and Control Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table BMA1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species showing their relative abundance in Area A (felled trees on bog), B (felled woodland) and C (un-restored Control Area) at Black Moss, Aberdeenshire.

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	A-D	D	LD
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	A	F	A
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	F	F	F
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	O-A	LF	D
Birch seedling	Betula sp.	O	O	F
Pine seedling	Pinus sp.	R	R	F
Round-leaved sundew	Drosera rotundifolia	O	R	R
Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	R	R	R
Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	-	-	O-R
Bog myrtle	Myrica gale	-	-	F-LD
Common sedge	Carex nigra	-	R-LF	-
Cranberry	Vaccinium oxycoccos	LF	-	-
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	R	-	-
Cowberry	Vaccinium vitis-idaea	R	-	-
Bog asphodel	Narthecium ossifragum	-	-	R
Spruce sapling	Picea sp.	-	R	-

 Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	O-F	F	F-LD
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	LD	LA	O-LF
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	F-A	A-D	F
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	O-F	A	F
Pleurocarpous moss	Hylocomium splendens	O-F	F	O-R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum papillosum	O-LA	R	O
Acrocarpous moss	Aulacomnium palustre	O	O	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum fallax	O-R	R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	R	O-R	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum magellanicum sl.	-	R	R-LF
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum fimbriatum	-	O-R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	R	-	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Plagiothecium undulatum	R	R	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum subnitens	-	R	-

Area A – Tree clearance on raised bog

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located in a flat area at the centre of the site. It contains a variety of vegetation communities – partly heather-dominated with frequent patches of cross-leaved heath, and more abundant hare’s-tail cottongrass than Area B (felled dense woodland). The ground here was generally wetter than Area B as well. It is considered to have most affinity with M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, although it also includes other communities.

In line with vascular plants, the cover of moss is also variable, with Sphagnum estimated at having ~30-40% overall cover. Sphagnum cuspidatum is dominant in hollows – otherwise there is mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Non-Sphagnum moss has a cover of ~30%, which is mainly Pleurozium schreberi.

Birch seedlings are widespread within this Restoration Area, but are less frequent than Area B, which comprised denser woodland, being <1% cover. Pine seedlings are also very occasionally scattered.

Although few grazed shoots were seen, the lack of evidence of cottongrass flowering may be due to grazing, and more deer prints and dung were observed in Area A compared with Area B.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area A comprised tree-felling, with cut stumps evident throughout, and some birch stumps regenerating, but also with evidence of browsing.

There are several big patches of bare peat, with the cause not obvious. These are full of deer prints – possibly indicating that they are exacerbating the bare peat; otherwise, there is no obvious active erosion. In addition, there was occasional Sphagnum damage seen due to trampling.

Area B – Tree clearance on wooded bog

Habitat and condition observations

The west of the raised bog contains Area B, formerly densely wooded with Scots pine and birch, which now contains a vegetation community with most affinity to M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’. Vegetation is heather-dominated, with scattered common cottongrass and cross-leaved heath, as well as scattered hare’s-tail cottongrass, bilberry and common sedge (Carex nigra). This community contains widespread birch seedlings as well as rarer pine (Pinus sp.), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) and spruce seedlings.

Sphagnum moss cover overall is patchy, being estimated at ~30% cover, comprising mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Sphagnum cuspidatum is abundant in pools, and of the non-Sphagnum mosses, Pleurozium schreberi is most dominant at ~20-30%, with Hypnum jutlandicum and Hylocomium splendens up to 10% cover.

Non-native Campylopus introflexus is present in small quantities, mainly on bare peat.

Vegetation is not noticeably grazed, but deer dung and prints are present throughout this Restoration Area.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area B comprised felling semi-mature Scots pine and birch woodland and blocking furrows with logs. Evidence of these activities was seen within the Area, with the furrows barely visible apart from uneven ground and the presence of pools of water. There is no evidence of cut stumps regenerating, and there are still piles of brash.

Bare peat is limited, with its cover estimated as being ~2%. There is limited obvious damage from restoration and grazing in this Restoration Area.

Area C – Unmanaged wooded raised bog – Control Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Control Area (Area C) is separated from the Restoration Areas (A and B) by woodland, and occurs within a region with lower tree cover – which decreases in density further to the east. The Control Area itself is surrounded by woodland. 

The western edge of the Control Area contains scattered young to semi-mature pine and birch trees. Within this Area, there are frequent seedlings, and patches of bog myrtle, particularly close to denser areas of trees. The seedlings make up <1% cover, and appear to not be establishing, possibly due to deer grazing.

Heather and cross-leaved heath share similar coverage, and are fairly dominant along with hare’s-tail cottongrass. Deergrass was observed in a few localised patches. The majority of this Area has greatest affinity with M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, with the western part grading into woodland.

Overall Sphagnum moss cover is variable at ~50%, dominated by Sphagnum capillifolium sl., which is accompanied by mainly Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum palustre and infrequently, Sphagnum magellanicum sl. Non-Sphagnum mosses have lower cover, dominated by Pleurozium schreberi and Hypnum jutlandicum which have ~10% or lower cover each.

Deer dung is present throughout the Control Area, and the growth forms of tree seedlings, and high cover of young heather (constituting 60- 70% present) with a lack of other ages, indicates that grazing is suppressing growth.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure BMA2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure BMA3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure BMA4 shows the NMDS plot for Black Moss, Aberdeenshire, where each point represents the community within a quadrat, the shape of the point is the survey year, and the colour is the Restoration Area. The stress value for this ordination is 0.12, with three dimensions. This is slightly above 0.1, so is not the best fit, but being below 0.2 is considered an acceptable representation of the dissimilarities in the communities and reliable enough to be interpreted.

Figure BMA4 shows that overall, the Restoration and Control Areas have all shown changes in their vegetation communities, but these changes have not resulted in them becoming more similar to each other. The figure also shows that Area A (felled trees on bog) has the most variable community composition overall, with the points being spread far apart, and overlapping with Areas B and C, suggesting similar vegetation communities composition in some quadrats.

Area B, where dense woodland has been felled, has seen the most profound change in plot reflecting the change from W18 to M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ NVC communities.

Figure BMA5 shows the average species cover of Restoration and Control Areas and how they have changed between survey years, as a stacked bar chart. It groups similar species together where they have <5% cover.

This figure shows that Area A and B, where tree clearance took place on raised bog and denser woodland respectively, are more similar in composition compared to the Control Area (C) with an increase in heather in both Areas A and B.

Restoration and Control Areas are dominated by indicator species – which in Area A comprises heather, some cross-leaved heath and hare’s-tail cottongrass, pleurocarpous moss Pleurozium schreberi (increasing by 7.9% estimated cover) and Sphagnum cuspidatum; indicator species are detailed in the next section below. Other changes among dominant species include the decrease in average cover of lichen Cladonia arbuscula in Area A from an average of 20.5% to 0% cover, as none was recorded in the repeat survey.

The formerly more densely wooded Area B is similar in composition to Area A (felled sparser trees), with a greater average cover of heather and Hypnum jutlandicum (8.7% additional estimated cover), as well as Pleurozium schreberi (5% additional cover). Notably, Hylocomium splendens cover has decreased in Area B by a 27.3% cover reduction between survey years. Indicator species are discussed further below.

The Control Area (C) contains a different assemblage of indicator species, with hare’s-tail cottongrass having greater cover than heather, and bog myrtle also common. Sphagnum capillifolium sl. has greater cover than the Restoration Areas, having also increased by an additional 14.6% average cover.

Indicator species

Figure BMA6 shows the change in the total indicator species cover in Restored and Control Areas.

This figure shows that the total average indicator species cover has increased the most in Control Area (C) by an additional 16.9% cover, followed by Area B (felled dense woodland) with an additional 11.5% cover, and to a lesser degree Area A (felled sparser trees on bog), with an additional 4.9% cover estimated.

Figure BMA7 shows a stacked bar chart displaying the average percentage cover of indicator species.

This figure shows that heather, which has the greatest proportion in Restoration Area A (felled sparser trees on bog) and B (felled dense woodland), has increased noticeably in these Restoration Areas, with an additional 21.8% and 36.8% cover recorded. The cover of indicator species in the Control Area (C) has stayed relatively constant, with an increase in cover of 2%.

Cross-leaved heath has decreased in Restored and Control Areas – the most in Area B with 8.7% less cover estimated, followed by Area A with 4.3% less cover, and the Control Area (C) with 2.1% less cover. However, hare’s-tail cottongrass has remained relatively constant in all years – being most prevalent in the Control Area (C).

The total cover of Sphagnum moss has stayed relatively constant between survey years in Areas A and B – at 23.4% and 7.8% cover, with an additional cover of 0.6% and 1.9% estimated, respectively. However, the cover of Sphagnum has increased in the Control Area (C), with 13.1% more cover recorded.

Pleurocarpous moss still makes up a large proportion of the cover of formerly densely wooded Area B compared to Sphagnum moss, although it has decreased by 13.7% estimated cover. Much of this decrease is in the 27.3% Hylocomium splendens reduction in cover, balanced against the increase of Hypnum jutlandicum and Pleurozium schreberi.

Sphagnum moss and pleurocarpous moss have similar proportions in the formerly more sparsely wooded Area A, but pleurocarpous moss has expanded its cover with an additional average 7.3% estimated.

The average cover of Sphagnum is greater than pleurocarpous moss in the Control Area (C), however, the latter has expanded by a limited 6% additional cover.

Environmental variables

Figure BMA8 shows the change in environmental variables across Restored and Control Areas.

This shows that litter cover has decreased between survey years in Area B (felled dense woodland) by an estimated average of 11% cover reduction, whereas litter cover is relatively constant in Area A (felled sparser trees on bog), (1.8% lower cover). Whereas, the estimated cover of litter has increased slightly in the Control Area (C) by 3.6%.

Average bare ground cover is below 4% in Restored Areas A and B, and the Control Area (C). It has stayed relatively constant (estimated as being 1.8% and 1.3% more) in Areas A and B, whereas has increased slightly more in the Control Area (C) (3% additional average cover). On average, over 10% of this bare peat was damaged in Areas A and the Control Area (C).

The average open water cover estimate for Area B has stayed relatively constant in the repeat survey at Area B (just 1.7% more cover).

Similarly, the estimated proportion of damaged bryophytes has also shown little change between survey years, with an additional 1% and 2.9% recorded in Area A and the Control (C), respectively.

Interpretation and conclusions

Control Area

Despite not undergoing restoration, the Control Area (C) has seen a greater increase in the cover of indicator species and Sphagnum than the Restored Areas (A and B), however, the Control Area (C) was clearly in better condition than Restored Areas A and B in the baseline survey.

In the part of the Control Area (C) where the trees are denser, the cover of bog myrtle is greater, under which there is a carpet of mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. and Sphagnum papillosum. In the sparser tree cover, graminoids and dwarf shrubs are more dominant, still with a carpet of Sphagnum spp. which was greater than in the Restoration Areas.  Grazing may also be preventing tree regeneration here, as aside from the established trees, no saplings were seen despite numerous seedlings, and heather is mostly in its building phase.

Tree clearance

Restoration incorporating tree felling and spreading brash across the site and in furrows, took place after the baseline survey in a wet area of raised bog with sparser trees (Area A), and a drier and more densely wooded area (Area B).

Although tree removal has caused some changes in vegetation in Area A and B towards ombrotrophic bog, the results are varied, and the Control Area (C) has instead showed more notable changes than Restoration Areas.

The formerly sparser wooded bog (Area A) started with more bog indicator species than formerly denser woodland (Area B), but Area A appears to have changed less – having the smallest increase in indicator species cover of all Areas, including the Control Area (C). This increase is due to the cover of heather and pleurocarpous moss, which indicate dry peat; with mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. staying relatively constant. More than other Areas, Area A was noted for its presence of bare peat patches exacerbated by deer trampling. This may be limiting indicator species colonisation and causing increased bryophyte and peat damage. The high deer presence however appears to be limiting tree colonisation here more than in Area B.

Despite felling of dense woodland, Area B has also seen a lower increase in average indicator species cover compared with the Control Area (C). The removal of trees and resulting increased insolation appears to have favoured the spread of heather and pleurocarpous mosses Hypnum jutlandicum and Pleurozium schreberi, which have increased in cover, whereas Hylocomium splendens has notably decreased. Although Area B is drier and more dwarf shrub-dominated, Sphagnum (mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl.) has also increased by more in this Area than in Area A, although again, this is less than the Control Area (C).

It is notable in both Restoration Areas A and B that there is much less hare’s-tail cottongrass than is recorded in the Control Area (C).

These results suggest that removal of trees and blocking of furrows has not significantly changed the hydrology of these areas enough to cause a notable increase in bog specialists. More time or additional re-wetting interventions are required.

It is apparent from these results that the starting condition and type of vegetation heavily influences the changes seen after restoration. Although some positive changes were recorded, threats from deer in wetter areas may limit recovery.

Figures BMA9 - BMA27

Black Moss, West Lothian

Site description and summary of past management

Black Moss, West Lothian is a ~22ha lowland raised bog, located at the western edge of Armadale town, West Lothian, located centrally at NS 9306 6798. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure BML1 showing an overview of the site itself.

It is not subject to any statutory nature conservation designations and is mostly owned by West Lothian Council, apart from the western part of the bog which is in private ownership.

The site is bounded to the north, east and south by Armadale town; with an area of woodland separating it from the town to the west and south, as well as a pond and wetland to the south. A drainage ditch and fence separate the eastern council-owned side of the Moss from the privately-owned west. The wider landscape contains amenity grassland and further patches of woodland to the south; improved and rough grassland and heath in the wider landscape to the west. In the east and south, Armadale connects to other larger towns and increasingly developed areas. Another raised bog – Blawhorn Moss, is situated ~4km west of Black Moss.

The site has been modified and heavily drained by a range of historic industrial activities over the last 200 years. These include:

• Installing a main drainage ditch through the site – separating the east and west, and construction of a reservoir (the Curling Pond);
• Discovery and extraction of coal deposits in the north, with spoil heaps spilling onto the site;
• Brick-production at the east end of the bog;
• Peat extraction in the south and east of the bog;
• Commercial tree planting on the northern part of the bog with lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and the whole site impacted by the digging of ridges and furrows (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

The western side of the site (outside the surveyed Restoration and Reference Areas) has avoided these activities and has apparently been grazed for decades (Sommerville, 2015), unlike the Restoration and Reference Areas.

The baseline survey also identified patches of burning had taken place on the site.

This site has remained unmanaged for decades, with no records of grazing or other management before the 1990s.

A peat survey of the site identified its deepest point in the centre of the ridges and furrows, at 5.8m deep (Sommerville, 2015). The bases of the furrows lay below the water table, whereas the tops of the ridges were above it.

The site is publicly accessible, with numerous paths around the woodland to its east and the Curling Pond to the south which comprise a ‘Nature Park’. The site is popular with dog walkers and local residents, and is close to a school. The site experiences antisocial activity such as littering and arson, especially in woodland to the east of the bog.

The site is currently of the subject of a Management Plan (written in 2015), which is currently undergoing consultation to inform an update. The aims of the management plan include managing the bog to restoring it to an active, peat generating habitat, as well as maintenance of the associated Curling Pond and fen (Crow, 2021, pers. comm.). Although a formal group was never formed to manage the site, activities have intermittently taken place including litter-picking, and cutting down of recolonising trees and blocking of ditches (Crow, 2021, pers. comm.).

Ongoing monitoring of the site includes an automated water level logger, installed in 2014, which is monitored by NatureScot (Peatland Action, 2021).

The Local Records Centre for the site - The Wildlife Information Centre (TWIC) have surveyed the site and produced species lists. (Crow, 2021, pers. comm.)

Restoration measures undertaken

Restoration of the council-owned part of the site took place between January and March 2015. Undertaken by West Lothian Council, and funded by a grant from Peatland Action, the aim was to stabilise and improve the hydrology of the site, prevent colonisation by trees and loss of bog habitat. Figure BML1 shows the extent of restoration measures at this site.

This restoration included:

• Across the whole of the council-owned site, stripping turves from the ridges and using them to infill the adjacent furrows, leaving the excavated ridges bare (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016);
• Felling the 0.5ha immature lodgepole pine plantation in the north and breaking the stems of mature trees. Brash was left in situ, and tracked over with an excavator; root plates were embedded in furrows (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016);
• Installing 60 peat and plastic dams to the east and west of the lodgepole pine plantation (in the north of the site) (Crow, 2021, pers. comm.).

Subsequent to these main restoration activities, the Butterfly Conservation ‘Bog Squad’ have carried out small scale peat damming on the eastern side – this was usually carried out over a couple of sessions a year (last session was in 2019). (Crow, 2021, pers. comm.).

Volunteers have also maintained the site since restoration through cutting/pulling up tree seedlings in the northern part of the site, around the former pine plantation (Crow, 2021, pers. comm.).

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, after the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey of Black Moss, West Lothian, was carried out by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons) on 20th – 22nd July 2021.

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure BML2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure BML3.

Restoration and Reference Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the methodology as detailed in the Methodology section above. Areas B, C and D were surveyed with 15 quadrats in each.

During the baseline survey, Area A deviated from the standard methodology in that it was just surveyed with a walkover description of the vegetation and restoration success, and fixed-point photographs. No quadrats were sampled.

Area E comprised two extra quadrats which were selected during the baseline survey – one at a stripped furrow and one at an infilled ridge. As per the baseline survey, these quadrats were re-surveyed, but this data is too small to be analysed separately, with no defined area to carry out a walkover survey within.

Areas surveyed are summarised below:

• Area A – Pine clearance;
• Area B – Stripped and excavated ridges;
• Area C – Infilled furrows;
• Area D – Relatively unmodified bog – Reference Area;
• Area E – two extra samples – one stripped ridge and one infilled furrow.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table BML1), and the description for each Restoration and Reference Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table BML1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species showing their relative abundance, at Area B (stripped ridges), C (infilled furrows) and D (unmodified Reference Area) in Black Moss, West Lothian.

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	A	O-R	A-D	F
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	F	R	F	A-LD
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	A-F	O-R	F	F
Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	F-A	R	R-O	R
Birch	Betula sp.	O	R	R	R
Pine	Pinus sp.	F	R	R	-
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	-	F-A	F	LF
Round-leaved sundew	Drosera rotundifolia	-	O-F	R	F
Spruce	Picea sp.	O	R	R	-
Cranberry	Vaccinium oxycoccos	-	R	R	R
Wavy hair-grass	Avenella flexuosa	R	-	R	R
Yorkshire fog	Holcus lanatus	R	-	-	-

 Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum papillosum	F	R	O-F	D-A
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	O	O	F-A	R
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum commune	F-A	O	O	F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	F	R	O-F	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	F-A	O	F-A	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	-	O	O	A
Acrocarpous moss	Campylopus introflexus	-	F	O-F	O-R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	-	R	R	F-O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	-	R	O	O

Area A – Pine clearance

Habitat and condition observations

Area A occurs to the north of the raised bog, closest to a line of trees. It contained scattered brash and logs at the time of survey. The habitat contained ~ 50% heather cover, with some purple moor-grass, cottongrasses, and more Polytrichum mounds than other Restoration and Reference Areas. Spruce, pine and birch seedlings are scattered throughout.

Sphagnum moss had high cover – estimated at ~50%, with frequent Polytrichum mounds, and frequent Hypnum jutlandicum. Non-native moss Campylopus introflexus is also occasional.

Given the predominance of heather and high coverage of Sphagnum, this community is considered to be best described with reference to M18 ‘Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’.

Trees are also colonising this Restoration Area, with scattered pine making up ~5-10% cover. Spruce and birch have approximately <5%, and all trees are less than a metre high.

Deer dung was commonly encountered, however, there are no other obvious signs of grazing on vegetation, with estimated new shoots grazed at <1%.

Restoration observations

Restoration in this Area comprised tree felling, with evidence of this activity lying in the numerous stumps and brash. Birch stumps are regenerating, and as stated above, seedlings are spreading across the Area.

Ridges and furrows are still present, with most furrows containing Sphagnum cuspidatum despite being very dry at the time of survey. This Restoration Area also contains ~20% bare peat, although the cause of this is not obvious.

Despite reports of burning due to antisocial behaviour, no damage relating to this was seen, with no evidence of burning.

Area B – Stripped and excavated ridges

Habitat and condition observations

Area B comprises the scalped plough ridges, which as with the previous survey, were identified as the less-vegetated strips, lower than adjacent infilled furrows. These strips were often 1- 1.5m in width, therefore narrower than the 2 x 2m quadrat – therefore quadrats were placed to exclude the adjacent infilled furrows where possible, but sometimes there was unavoidable overlap.

These strips contained mostly bare peat, often with top layer of rotted/dried mulch, and usually with colonising common cottongrass and non-native species Campylopus introflexus. Sphagnum moss constituted less than 5% cover, with occasional dry Sphagnum cuspidatum. Given the lack of vegetation, this is not attributable to an NVC community.

Sphagnum and other mosses were very dry and desiccated during the survey, with the ground and mulch layer being dry and cracked.

Less than 1% of last year’s shoots were visibly grazed, despite the presence of deer dung.

Restoration observations

Restoration included taking the top layer of ridges off and placing them in the adjacent furrows, leaving the former ridges as bare peat. During the survey, scalped ridges are still mostly bare peat, and are dry and cracked in most places. The scalped areas remain distinct and lower than infilled furrows.

Common cottongrass is colonising this bare peat, however it is drying out, making conditions less suitable for this species, as well as Sphagnum moss.

As previously stated, the whole site was very dry, and it is not known whether this does get wetter at times. No evidence of burning was observed.

Area C – Infilled furrows

Habitat and condition observations

Area C comprises the infilled furrows, which were brought up to and above the level of adjacent ridges by scalping ridges and placing scalped material in the furrows. These strips are also variable in width, although generally being wider than the scalped ridges.

Vegetation present on these strips is dominated by heather, which is mostly in its building phase, with consistent scattered cross-leaved heath. Hare’s-tail cottongrass and common cottongrass are both abundant.

Carpets of Sphagnum are present in places, with the variable cover estimated as being ~40-50% of the Restoration Area, whereas other moss was less at around ~20%, encompassing mostly Hypnum jutlandicum and non-native Campylopus introflexus.

Considering this species composition, the vegetation is considered to have most affinity with M18 ‘Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’.

Seedlings, all under 30cm high is present, comprising downy and silver birch, as well as rare spruce.

Deer dung is thinly scattered within Area C, although there are no obvious signs of grazing, with <1% last year’s shoots grazed.

Restoration observations

Restoration within Area C consisted of filling in the furrows with turves of vegetation from adjacent ridges. This has brought the former furrows to the same level, and often above the level of the former ridges, and the vegetation has established and continued to grow – as evidenced above. Bare peat makes up <5% cover of this Restoration Area.

There is no evidence of burning or other damage, such as from restoration, however the dry conditions have led to some drying and cracking of peat.

Area D – Relatively unmodified bog – Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

Area D is a compact area located to the south-east of the site, where artificial drainage has not occurred. It is closest to a wetland and woodland to the south.

This is considered to be most similar to NVC community M18 ‘Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’, but a form lacking deergrass. It contains extensive Sphagnum carpets (estimated at being ~80%), comprising mostly Sphagnum papillosum and dry Sphagnum cuspidatum; occasional Polytrichum spp. mounds; and scattered dwarf shrubs with heather and cross-leaved heath in similar proportions.

A very small quantity of non-native Campylopus introflexus is also present.

Occasional small birch seedlings represent some tree colonisation occurring, covering <1% cover birch seedlings, all <30cm high.

Small amounts deer dung was observed, but <1% grazed last year’s shoots were identified.

Despite this being chosen as an unmodified Reference Area, there is ~1% bare peat, although no other damage was observed, such as from public use.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure BML2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure BML3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure BML4 shows the NMDS plot for Black Moss, West Lothian, where it displays the different Restoration and Reference Areas with different colours; years as different shapes; and each point represents the different quadrats surveyed. The distance between them represents the dissimilarity between the communities. It shows Areas B – D, which are those containing 15 quadrats each.

The ordination was created using three dimensions, which lowered the stress value to 0.77, meaning that the ordination is a good representation of the community data.

This plot shows that the community in Area B (stripped ridges) has the most variation, given that the points are spread more widely than in the other Restoration and Reference Areas. Between survey years, Area B has moved towards the other Areas, now showing considerable overlap with the community recorded in Area C (infilled furrows) in the baseline survey.  

Area C (infilled furrows) itself has moved consistently in a direction, but not towards the Reference Area (D); although there is now some overlap with the Reference Area where none existed in 2015. The Reference Area (D) has experienced limited community changes, shown by the movement towards the right of the plot.

Figure BML5 is a stacked bar chart showing the average cover of all species recorded within the Black Moss, West Lothian quadrats. Similar species that were recorded with <5% cover have been grouped together, with the species included in these groups listed below the figure.

Area B (stripped ridges) has become more vegetated as a result of small increases in cover of a range of species. A range of indicator species such as heather (detailed below), and a limited number of non-indicator species were recorded. The latter includes the most abundant mosses in this Restoration Area, which have increased in cover – Hypnum jutlandicum by 6.8%, and the non-native moss Campylopus introflexus by 5.8% cover – neither being previously recorded.

Area C (infilled furrows) has seen small increases in the cover of species recorded – the majority of which are indicator species, which are detailed below, with non-indicator species changes including a slight expansion of non-native Campylopus introflexus of 3.8% average estimated cover. Contrastingly, acrocarpous mosses have been recorded with lower cover, with a slight reduction of 4.5% cover - with most of this being made up by slight reductions in Campylopus flexuosus (of 3% cover) and Campylopus pyriformis (of 2.2% cover), balanced by increases in species such as Leucobryum glaucum.

The Reference Area (D) has also experienced community changes although it retains a similar composition – mostly in its indicator species, such as hare’s-tail cottongrass and Sphagnum papillosum, which are detailed below; with very minimal changes in acrocarpous moss cover (including Campylopus introflexus).

Indicator species

Figure BML6 shows the change in cover of the summed averages of indicator species recorded in the quadrats.

This figure shows that the total average cover of indicator species has increased in all Restoration and Reference Areas by a similar amount, but the greatest increase has occurred in Area B (stripped ridges), by 58.5% additional estimated cover; the increase in Area C (infilled furrows) has been 57.9% additional cover; and in the Reference Area (D) is 41.7% additional cover. This indicates that there is some change towards the reference community composition in both Restoration Areas B and C.

Figure BML7 displays the indicator species in more detail, by splitting them into species and species groups listed on the indicator species list. This is a stacked bar chart that shows the average percentage covers of the indicator species recorded within quadrats.

It can be seen from this figure that the average cover of indicator species has increased in all Restoration and Reference Areas between survey years, and most notably in Area B (stripped ridges) – which contained mainly hare’s-tail cottongrass. Area B now has a range of species similar to the other Areas such as heather, common cottongrass (5.5% additional cover), hare’s-tail cottongrass (6.3% additional cover), pleurocarpous moss (7.2% additional cover) and Sphagnum spp. (12.1% additional cover).

Of the indicator species, the cover of heather has increased the most in Area C, where furrows were infilled, by an additional 28.2% estimated cover, with some increase also in Area B (21.1% additional cover), while changing little in the Reference Area (D) (1.5% additional cover).  Slightly greater cover of cross-leaved heath has been estimated in Restoration Area B (by an additional 5.7% cover), and in Reference Area (D) (by an additional 5.4%), whereas cover has stayed relatively constant in Area C (1.9% greater cover).

The cover of Sphagnum spp. has noticeably increased in Areas C (infilled furrows) (24.8% additional cover), and the Reference Area (D) (37.2% additional cover), where it dominates. This increase comprises mainly increases in Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum palustre and Sphagnum cuspidatum, where it dominates in the Reference Area (D). In Areas C and D, an additional 11.2% and 31.2% average cover of Sphagnum papillosum has been estimated; as well as an additional 4% and 31.2% of Sphagnum palustre; and 7.7% and 7% of Sphagnum cuspidatum estimated, respectively.

Environmental variables

Figure BML8 shows the average percentage cover of other environmental variables recorded within quadrats between survey years.

The greatest change can be seen in Area B (stripped ridges) where there is 50.9% less cover of bare peat compared to the baseline survey. Bare peat also decreased by 22% cover in Area C (infilled furrows), and has remained relatively constant in  the Reference Area (D) (1.3% less cover estimated).

Damaged bare peat has also reduced compared to the baseline survey, in Area C (infilled furrows) and the Reference Area (D) (6.3% and 4% reduction in cover, respectively). Damaged bryophytes are also less apparent in 2021 compared to 2015.

In contrast, litter has been recorded with greater cover during the repeat survey compared to the baseline survey in Area B (stripped ridges) and the Reference Area (D) (19.2% and 19.7% additional cover), compared with Area C which experienced a slight 2.4% cover increase.

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

The Reference Area (D) has stayed relatively constant in vascular plant composition, however there has been a striking increase in Sphagnum cover (mainly Sphagnum papillosum). This increase is likely to be a result of whole-site restoration causing gradual rewetting. It was also noticeably wet underfoot in comparison to the rest of the site during the survey. This is a positive sign that this area has not degraded, and that non-native acrocarpous moss Campylopus introflexus (which is abundant across the Restoration Areas), has such limited cover here, as this moss thrives on bare peat.

Pine clearance

Area A was surveyed with a walkover survey and fixed-point photos only. After pine-felling and furrow-blocking within this Restoration Area, it was found that there was some pine, birch and spruce recolonisation, with seedlings across the Restoration Area threatening to reverse the restoration work. Despite being previously forested, its vegetation is in better condition than other Restoration Areas (B and C), but is clearly drier than the Reference Area (D), with abundant heather.

Compared with the walkover description from the baseline survey, it appears that Area A has recovered somewhat, with some piles of brash remaining but dominating less of the surface and serving to block furrows; formerly damaged Sphagnum carpets appear to have recovered and expanded; and the Area is well-vegetated. This Restoration Area will remain under threat from tree recolonisation until the peat is further rewetted, given the proximity of it to existing woodland.

Although not within Area A, the nearby blocked drains may assist with peat rewetting, the evidence of which can be seen in the prevalence of Sphagnum in this Area.

Stripped ridges and infilled furrows

Due to the nature of the restoration techniques here, stripping turves from ridges and placing them in adjacent furrows, as expected, there have been considerable changes in species cover and other environmental variables across both Restoration Areas.

The restoration interventions in Areas B and C have created a flat and stable area, and the placement of turves has been successful in Area C, in that they have survived and appear to be expanding gradually. While, the stripped ridges (B) remain mostly bare peat and rotted litter, there is colonisation of bare peat by the indicator species common cottongrass showing some recovery. The bare peat was very dry and cracked, and any Sphagnum moss present was desiccated at the time of survey, which may have been due to the dry weather before and during the survey. However, if the peat is usually dry, this would prevent the recovery to bog habitat similar to that found in the Reference Area (D).

However, since being stripped of turves, Area B has seen a reduction in the cover of bare peat by around half. It has also seen an increase in indicator species by more than the Reference Area (D), suggesting recovery. This increase comprises a similar composition to Area C (infilled furrows), and appears to be occurring at the boundary with Area C, suggesting that vegetation is expanding and creeping into it. Often, the width of Area B was narrower than the quadrats, which may introduce some error if this was not included in the baseline survey, as some adjacent vegetation was included. This may also be due to expansion of vegetation into this Restoration Area.

The increase in pleurocarpous and other non-Sphagnum moss (such as non-native Campylopus introflexus) may reflect the dryness of the peat as these species thrive in dry conditions. Although some increase in Sphagnum was observed, this was less than in Area C (infilled furrows), and plants were desiccated. Although Area B has a long way to go to become functioning bog like the Reference Area, and is vulnerable to drying and burning, the change since restoration shown on the NMDS plot is striking and clearly indicates that recovery is occurring.

Following placement of heather-dominated turves in Area C, the NMDS plot shows that this Restoration Area has changed slightly in its composition. There is now more overlap with the Reference Area (D), showing that some quadrats have become more similar, and indicator species have increased by more than the Reference Area between survey years. Although not by as much as the Reference Area (D), Area C has also seen an increase in Sphagnum, comprising sensitive, peat-forming species like Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum magellanicum sl. which have collectively expanded by more than pleurocarpous mosses. This indicates that the peat is becoming wetter, the site is holding water and the composition of vegetation is moving in the right direction.

These results clearly show that recovery is occurring at this site, but that this will be subject to ongoing management of tree colonisation.

Figures BML9 – BML27

Carsegowan Moss

Site description and summary of past management

Carsegowan Moss is a lowland raised bog located ~3km north of the town of Wigtown, Dumfries and Galloway, situated centrally at OS grid reference NX 4272 5887, which is ~50ha in area. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure C1 showing an overview of the site itself.

It is one of the largest surviving areas of un-afforested and relatively intact raised bog in southwest Scotland. As such, it is designated as an SAC primarily for its Annex I ‘active raised bog’ habitat, with additional secondary feature ‘degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration’ also present. It is also a SSSI notified for its raised bog.

The bog is surrounded by coniferous plantation woodland to the north and east, with strips of trees to the south and west. Drains surround the site on the north, east and west, with these and other waterbodies in woodland to the north. This woodland is edged by the Bishop Burn watercourse. The wider landscape comprises improved pasture and farmland, with more substantial coniferous plantations located to the north-east and west.

Historic management has modified the bog, and includes drainage works concentrated in the east of the bog, with grazing and peat cutting assumed to have taken place at its drier edges. The bog has also suffered from periodic fires, caused by the former adjacent railway line (SNH, 2010) which served a World War II black powder works in woodland to the north. The associated lagg-fen area of the bog has been taken up by woodland, and farmland in the south and west (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Forestry operations have taken place at the site, with some Scots pine planted across the open bog – which is now standing deadwood (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

The majority of the site is managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT). It is publicly accessible, with information and marked trails present, but no formal path.

The latest SSSI condition assessment of the site in 2007 found it to be ‘unfavourable, no change’.

Restoration measures undertaken

Prior to the Peatland Action funded restoration work that this study focuses on – other previous restoration has taken place between 2009 and 2014, comprising scrub removal and drain blocking with plastic piling as part of a Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agreement (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Peatland Action-funded restoration is mapped on Figure C1, and comprised:

• Bunding of drains with peat. This included a large drain in the west of the site along the eastern and southern edges of it; and,
• Tree clearance along the southern edge was also planned, but had not been carried out at the time of the baseline survey.

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, after bunding had taken place.

The repeat survey of Carsegowan Moss, was carried out on 5^th - 7th October 2021 by Senior Ecologist and Botanist Steven Heaton MSc MCIEEM.

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure C2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure C3.

Restoration, Reference and Un-restored Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed as detailed in the Methodology section above. The Areas surveyed incorporated 15 quadrats in each, and included two Restoration Areas, one Un-restored Control Area, and a relatively unmodified Reference Area, which are listed below:

• Area A – Peat bunds at bog edge;
• Area B – Peat bunds along former drain;
• Area C – Relatively unmodified bog – Reference Area; and 
• Area D – Proposed birch clearance (Un-restored Area).

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table C1), and the description for each Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table C1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species showing their relative abundance - Area A (bunds at bog edge) and B (bunds along drain) C (unmodified Reference Area) and D (un-restored woodland), Carsegowan.

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D
Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	D	D	-	R
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	O	A	A	A
Bog myrtle	Myrica gale	F/O	F/O	O	R
Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	O	R	R	O
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	R	R	A	R
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	R	R	F	R
Bog rosemary	Andromeda polifolia	-	O/R	O	R
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	O	-	O	-
Cranberry	Vaccinium oxycoccos	-	R	O/F	-
Broad buckler-fern	Dryopteris dilatata	-	-	-	F
Sweet vernal-grass	Anthoxanthum odoratum	-	-	-	O
White beak-sedge	Rhynchospora alba	-	-	R	-

 Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	O	D	-	A
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	O	O	R	A
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	R	O/R	A	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum papillosum	R	R	F	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	-	R	O	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum magellanicum sl.	-	-	O	-

Area A – Peat bunds at bog edge

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located in the north-east of the raised bog. It is dominated by purple moor-grass, with frequent bog myrtle, and rare cross-leaved heath, and hare’s-tail cottongrass which is flowering. It is considered to have closest affinity to NVC community M25 ‘Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire’.

Sphagnum moss cover is low, being <10%, and dominated by Sphagnum capillifolium subsp rubellum, as well as occasional other species including Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum palustre. Other mosses make up less than 5% cover, and comprise Hypnum jutlandicum, with few other species present.

Tree colonisation is occurring at low levels, with <1% cover of young downy birch present.

Deer dung was observed, and grazing levels are estimated at ~30-40% of last year’s bog myrtle shoots grazed.

Restoration observations

Area A was restored with peat bunds, from areas of stripped peat, with water being held back in the intended stripped areas, which during the survey was ~30cm deep, vegetated with mainly purple moor-grass. The bunds are also vegetated with purple moor-grass.

This Restoration Area does not appear to be being actively eroded, and no bare peat was recorded.

Area B – Peat bunds along former drain

Habitat and condition observations

Area B starts in the north-east of the raised bog, next to Area A (bunds at bog edge), and extends into the raised bog along a former drain, where the vegetation becomes indicative of drier peat. This Restoration Area is also dominated by purple moor-grass, with frequent bog myrtle, and rarer cross-leaved heath, bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) and hare’s-tail cottongrass. This was also judged as having closest affinity with M25 ‘Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire’.

Cover of bryophytes was estimated as being at similar levels to Area A, with <10% and <5% cover of Sphagnum, and other mosses, respectively. Sphagnum palustre and Sphagnum capillifolium sl. dominate among mosses, as well as Hypnum jutlandicum. More occasional are Sphagnum fallax and Aulacomnium palustre.

Like Area A, downy birch is colonising this Restoration Area, and makes up around 1% cover across it.

Deer dung is also present and the bog myrtle is grazed to similar levels, with ~30-40% last year’s growth grazed.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area B consists of horseshoe-shaped peat bunds constructed across the former drain. This bunding is holding back water, which was ~30cm in places, with no bunding having obviously failed. Bunds are also vegetated on top with vegetation similar to that surrounding – being purple moor-grass-dominated.

Active erosion is not occurring in this Restoration Area, which also did not have bare peat at the time of survey.

Area C – Relatively unmodified bog – Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is close to the centre of the raised bog, and contains vegetation that matches M18 ‘Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’. It has abundant heather, with frequent hare’s-tail cottongrass, and more scattered cross-leaved heath, bilberry and bog myrtle.

Sphagnum moss forms carpets and hummocks across the majority of this Reference Area, constituting ~60% cover, which are made up of mainly Sphagnum capillifolium subspecies capillifolium, with some Sphagnum medium (magellanicum), Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum tenellum. Non-Sphagnum moss makes up less than 5% cover, and comprises Hypnum jutlandicum; other mosses such as Polytrichum commune and Aulacomnium palustre are sparsely distributed.

Tree colonisation is at similar levels to the Restoration Areas, comprising downy birch, with additional pine and Sitka spruce forming ~1% cover.

Deer dung is present across the Reference Area, and grazing was observed as being concentrated on heather and bilberry, with ~20- 40% of last year’s shoots being grazed.

Area D – Proposed birch clearance (yet to be completed)

Habitat and condition observations

Area D comprises a southern strip of the raised bog, which has not been felled and is still wooded with young downy birch. This Un-restored Area is considered to be W4 Betula pubescens - Molinia caerulea woodland, with a canopy of birch, under which is abundant purple moor-grass, and occasional bilberry, sweet vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), broad buckler-fern (Dryopteris dilatata), and rare bog rosemary.  

Sphagnum moss and other mosses share similar proportions, with both having ~40% cover, with the dominant bryophytes comprising mainly Sphagnum palustre, Hypnum jutlandicum and Polytrichum sp., Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum fallax also occur occasionally.

Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) were seen during the survey and deer dung was present, with bilberry grazed to ~50% of last year’s shoots.

Restoration observations

Restoration proposals included felling this woodland, but it had not been felled prior to the repeat survey.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure C2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure C3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure C4 is the NMDS ordination plot calculated from the Carsegowan quadrat data, representing the dissimilarities between communities. The points represent quadrats, the shapes of them represent the survey year, and the colour shows the different Restoration, Reference and Un-restored Areas.

The ordination uses three dimensions, used because this lowered the stress level to 0.1, which is considered to be an acceptable representation of the community dissimilarities. The NMDS calculation was not possible within this dataset using two dimensions, even after 2000 attempts, which is why three dimensions were used. Further details on this can be found in the Methodology section.

This plot shows that there is the most variation in the community composition of the Un-restored Area D, which remains wooded.

The communities in some individual quadrats in Areas A and B (peat bunds at bog edge and along a drain, respectively) have shown movement towards the Reference Area (C), however, overall more points in Area A are now further from the Reference Area in 2021 than 2015, suggesting more dissimilarity in vegetation communities. In both Restoration Areas A and B there is a high degree of similarity between survey years. The Reference Area (C) shows less dissimilarity between quadrats in the repeat survey, indicating that the reference community has remained stable.

Figure C5 shows the average percentage cover of all species recorded in the quadrats, as a stacked bar chart.

This figure shows that the communities of Areas A and B (bunded with peat at bog edge and along a drain, respectively) are similar – being dominated by purple moor-grass, which has increased in A by 24.5% to cover 82.3%, and in B has stayed relatively constant at around 75% cover. Bog myrtle is the most common vascular indicator species in these Restoration Areas, as detailed below.

The Un-restored Area D differs from all other Areas, being still covered with birch trees, and comprising a composition that is similar over time in its cover of broad-buckler fern, purple moor-grass, acrocarpous moss Aulacomnium palustre, and indicator species cross-leaved heath. It has seen a reduction in the cover of pleurocarpous moss Pseudoscleropodium purum of 19.2% less cover, as well as of indicator species bilberry, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Cover of sweet vernal-grass has increased slightly (with an additional 4.7% cover recorded), as has the indicator species Hypnum jutlandicum (by an additional 23% cover).

The Reference Area (C), has a noticeably different community composition to Restoration Areas A, B, and D. It has changed little between survey years and is dominated by peatland indicator species such as hare’s-tail cottongrass, cross-leaved heath, heather and bryophytes such as Sphagnum capillifolium ssp. rubellum as detailed below. Purple moor-grass which dominates in the Restoration Areas has not been recorded here.

Indicator species

Figure C6 shows sum of the average cover of indicator species within each Restoration, Un-restored and Reference Area over time.

It shows that the sum of the average cover of indicator species has decreased (with 12.8% less cover) in the bunded area (A) and increased (with an additional 11% cover estimated) in the Area where the drain was blocked (B).

Un-restored Area D has had 9.5% less cover of indicator species recorded while the Reference Area (C), has seen the smallest change in its indicator species cover, an estimated increase of 3.3% additional cover.

Figure C7 is a stacked bar chart illustrating the average percentage covers of indicator species recorded in quadrats.

This figure shows that the highest percentage covers of indicator species have been recorded in the Reference Area (C), across both survey years. The community composition has remained consistent here, although noticeable changes include a decrease in hare’s-tail cottongrass of 15.3% cover and an increase in heather cover, with an additional 18.6% estimated on average. The cover of Vaccinium spp. (bilberry and cranberry) and bog myrtle has remained relatively constant in the Reference Area (C), although slightly lower cover of both was estimated (2.8% and 2.1% less on average); similarly, slightly greater cover of Sphagnum spp. was estimated (3.2%).

This figure also shows bog myrtle remaining the most abundant vascular indicator species in Areas A and B (bunded with peat at bog edge and along a drain, respectively); staying around 16% in Area A, and increasing by 4.1% cover to become 10.1% cover in Area B. A slight increase of Sphagnum spp. cover has also been recorded in Area A – with 6.1% additional cover estimated. Levels of Sphagnum were recorded as changing little in Area B, with just 2.9% estimated additional cover. These increases comprise mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., with some Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum palustre.

This contrasts with a decrease in heather cover (9.5% less) in Area A (bunds at bog edge) and a reduction in pleurocarpous moss by 5%, whereas the levels of Vaccinium spp. have changed little, with only a slight reduction in recorded cover of 2.8%. Area B (bunds along drain) however has seen an increase of heather by an additional 5.7% cover estimation.

Area D (un-restored wooded area) contains limited indicator species, and of these, a decrease in Sphagnum spp. has been recorded over time (10.9% lower cover), whereas the cover of Vaccinium spp. and hare’s-tail cottongrass has stayed relatively constant, with only a slight decrease in cover of 2.9% and increase of 2.2% estimated for these species, respectively.

Environmental variables

Figure C8 shows the cover of other environmental variables recorded in the quadrats, as a bar chart.

This figure shows a large increase in litter cover in Area A (bunds at bog edge) to 70.1%, and the cover of litter has also increased in Un-restored Area D, with an additional 13.9% cover estimated, constituting 23.3% average cover. The cover of litter is still high in Area B (bunds along drain), but has decreased slightly to become 57.3%.  The cover of litter in the Reference Area (C) has stayed more constant, with just 1.6% less cover estimated, to become 2.5% on average.

Other environmental variables across Areas also stayed relatively constant between survey years, with an additional 2.9% cover of open water recorded at Area A (bunds at bog edge); and 2.9% less in Area B (bunds along drain).

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

In contrast to the positive signs seen in the Restored Areas, the Reference Area (C) has experienced some changes in community to a lesser degree. This includes a decrease in bilberry, cranberry and Sphagnum cover, with an increase in heather cover. This suggest that the peat is drying becoming more like a heath, rather than bog community. This Reference Area is also under threat from tree colonisation, with tree saplings also seen across it.

Peat bunds

Peat bunds at the edge of the bog (Area A) and along the drain (Area B) were found to be holding water back during the survey, with the bunds themselves vegetated with mostly purple moor-grass.

Area A (bunds at bog edge) shows signs of becoming more different to the Reference Area (C), as shown in the NMDS plot. This may be attributed to the decrease in cover of indicator species like heather, bilberry and pleurocarpous moss, and increase of purple moor-grass.

However, Sphagnum moss has increased in Area A, comprising mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. as well as Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum palustre and Sphagnum papillosum, which are peat-forming species.

The reduction in dwarf shrub and pleurocarpous moss cover, and increase in Sphagnum moss in Area A indicates that bunding and subsequent water retention has led to some rewetting of peat, which favours Sphagnum and are initial signs that restoration is working. The increase in purple moor-grass may be because this species outcompetes dwarf shrubs in wetter peat, or may reflect other influences such as grazing by deer: with evidence of grazing on bog myrtle, heather and bilberry but not purple moor-grass recorded.

In Area B (bunds along the drain), there has been an increase in indicator species cover by more than in the Reference Area (C), and the NMDS plot shows some quadrats with more of a similar community to the Reference Area than in the baseline survey. This change is characterised by an increase in Sphagnum, including peat-forming species Sphagnum capillifolium sl. and Sphagnum palustre (although by less than in Area A), again suggesting an impact of peat rewetting. Contrary to Area A (with bunds at the bog edge), the average cover of heather and pleurocarpous moss has also increased, whereas non-indicator species purple moor-grass has stayed consistently dominant. This indicates that the re-wetting impact of blocking the drain on the vegetation has been less here than the bunding in Area A, or that other influences are involved.

Although changes have been subtle, the increase in Sphagnum suggest that restoration is leading to peat rewetting, and is favouring bog specialists. However, the pre-existing dominance of purple moor-grass may be impacting the potential for the vegetation to change, and factors like deer grazing may also be favouring this non-indicator species at the expense of indicator species like cottongrasses. The whole site also remains under threat from tree colonisation, with seedlings of mainly downy birch seen in Areas A and B, as well as pine and Sitka spruce in the Reference Area (C).

Proposed birch clearance (yet to be completed)

Area D has not been restored and supports very different vegetation compared to other Restoration and Reference Areas. However, without restoration, and with a canopy of trees remaining, signs of further drying of the peat are indicated by the reduction in cover of bilberry, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum capillifolium sl., coupled with the increase in Hypnum jutlandicum, which succeeds in drier conditions; as well as neutral grassland species sweet vernal-grass.

The decrease in Pseudoscleropodium purum is notable, and may indicate acidification in some areas as Hypnum jutlandicum is more tolerant of extremely acid conditions and has increased at the same time. In the absence of restoration, this Area may see further deterioration in its ability to support bog vegetation.

Figures C9 - C25

Drumrunie

Site description and summary of past management

Drumrunie is an ~480ha area of upland blanket bog, located ~15km north-east of the town of Ullapool, Ross and Cromarty, Highlands of Scotland, situated centrally at OS NC 1825 0790. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure DR1 showing an overview of the site itself.

This site is located within the Inverpolly SAC and SSSI – both of which designated for a range of habitats and species, which include blanket bog, which forms the largest area of upland blanket bog in the UK. This exists in a mosaic of other habitats such as dry and wet heath, sub-alpine and alpine heath, lochs and lochans.

This site is surrounded by unenclosed bog and heath, with the A835 road ~100m to the east of it, and small lochs and lochans scattered to the south-west (Clar Loch Mor), west (Clar Loch Beag) and between parts of the site in the north (Lochan Fada).

Historically, the site has been impacted by drainage – with grips dug across the majority of flatter ground in the 1900s, thought to be for agricultural use, leading to fast flows and erosion making them deeper and wider, as well as patches of bare peat (Green Stimulus Peatland Restoration Project, 2014). Numerous smaller gullies have also formed between these artificial grips.

The site is within the Drumrunie Estate that was historically a sporting estate, but is now owned by the charitable Assynt Foundation as part of a community land buy, and is managed for nature conservation. Part of this management includes deer-stalking to control numbers and allow regeneration of trees; tree planting and restoration of bog as detailed below.

The site is publicly accessible and popular with tourists – with a path running through the centre of the restored site. The site is also grazed by wild red deer.

A peat depth survey was undertaken in 2014 at the site during restoration, and found that peat depths up to 216cm occur to the east of the site, and up to 255cm to the west of Lochan Fada (Scotland’s Soils, 2021).

In 2005 the blanket bog within the Inverpolly SSSI was classed as being in ‘unfavourable declining’ condition overall.  Further assessment in 2007 indicated that reduced grazing pressure in the form of reduced sheep stocking and deer management should result in some improvement in habitat condition. 

Restoration measures undertaken

Figure DR1 shows the grips where restoration has taken place, although the specific locations of grip blocks was not provided. 

Restoration was informed by a trial by the John Muir Trust in 2008 to assess the effectiveness of installing dams on 146ha of the site. Given the success of this, a further 334ha of bog was restored in 2014 – which this study assesses (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Restoration measures for this site were informed by the latest best practices by the RSPB in the Flow Country, and included:

• 17,000 peat dams which were installed using specialist, very low ground pressure excavators (under 0.15kg.cm²) in winter 2014, apparently leaving little damage behind (Green Stimulus Peatland Restoration Project, 2014); and,
• Plastic piling dams were installed on steeper areas by hand in 2014 (Green Stimulus Peatland Restoration Project, 2014).

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey of Drumrunie was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2014, after the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey was carried out between 10th – 13th August 2021 by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM and Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure DR2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure DR3.

Restoration, Control and Reference Areas in the baseline survey were re-surveyed as detailed in the Methodology section above. The Areas re-surveyed incorporated 15 quadrats in each, and included two Restoration Areas, and an un-restored Control Area, listed below:

• Area A – Grips blocked with plastic dams;
• Area B – Unblocked grips – Control Area; and
• Area C – Grips blocked with peat dams.

As no relatively unmodified area of bog had been surveyed during the baseline survey, an additional area was identified using the knowledge of Gearóid Murphy from Peatland Action (Murphy, 2021, pers. comm.) and Lewis MacAskill from the Assynt Foundation (MacAskill, 2021, pers. comm.). This identified a region to the west of Lochan Fada, which contained a flat area of bog that has not been artificially drained, in proximity to the other Restoration Areas. As such, the following Reference Area was additionally surveyed with 15 quadrats and according to the Methodology:

• Area D – Relatively unmodified Reference Area.

In addition to the 2x2m quadrats, grip block monitoring ‘quadrats’ were established ‘upstream’ of grip blocks in the baseline survey. These comprised different dimensions to the 2 x 2m quadrats, which are outlined below:

Table DR1. Detail of grip block monitoring ‘quadrats’ in Area A (grips blocked with plastic dams) and Area C (grips blocked with peat dams), in Drumrunie, with the number of quadrats in each Area and their size.

Area	Grip block quadrats	Size of 'quadrats' (m)
A	A_ditch 1	0.5 x 4
A	A_ditch 2	0.5 x 4
A	A_ditch 3	0.5 x 4
A	A_ditch 4	0.5 x 4
A	A_ditch 5	0.5 x 4
C	C_ditch 1	2 x 2
C	C_ditch 2	2 x 2
C	C_ditch 3	2 x 2
C	C_ditch 4	2 x 2
C	C_ditch 5	2 x 2

 

As Table DR1 shows, the grip block quadrats within each Restoration Area are the same size, therefore they can be combined for analysis within each Area, but not between them.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table DR2), and the description for each Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table DR2. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for relative abundance in Area A (plastic grip blocks), B (Control Area), C (peat grip blocks) and D (Reference Area), Drumrunie.

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D
Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	D	A-D	F-A	D
Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	O-R	A-D	D	O
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	A	F-A	F	A
Bog asphodel	Narthecium ossifragum	F-A	F-A	F	F-A
Bog myrtle	Myrica gale	LF	A	F	-
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	R	F	F	F
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	O-F	O	O-R	F
Round-leaved sundew	Drosera rotundifolia	F	O	O-R	F
English sundew	Drosera anglica	F	O	O-R	F
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	O-R	R	R	LA
Tormentil	Potentilla erecta	R	O	F-O	O
Club-moss	Huperzia sp.	O	R	R	R
Common butterwort	Pinguicula vulgaris	R	R	-	O-F
Carnation sedge	Carex panicea	-	R	R	-
Star sedge	Carex echinata	-	R	R	-
Bell heather	Erica cinerea	-	-	R	R
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	R	-	-	R
Heath rush	Juncus squarrosus	R	-	R	-
Flea sedge	Carex pulicaris	R	R	-	-

 Non-vascular plants

Acrocarpous moss	Racomitrium lanuginosum	F-LA	A	D-A	D
Leafy liverwort	Pleurozia purpurea	F	F-LA	F	F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	F	LA	O	F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum denticulatum	F-LA	O-R	O-R	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum papillosum	F-A	O	O-R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	O-R	O	O	F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	LA	R	R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum subnitens	O-R	O	O	O
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	R	R	R	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	R	R	R	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Hylocomium splendens	R	R	R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum compactum	-	-	R	-

Area A – Grips blocked with plastic dams

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located in the north of the site, and is intersected with frequent grips. The habitat is best described as M17 'Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, where it is dominated by deergrass, with widespread bog myrtle, bog asphodel and common cottongrass. Cross-leaved heath is frequent but thinly distributed, and both round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia) and English sundew (Drosera anglica) were sparsely scattered throughout. This Restoration Area contained more standing water than other Restoration, Control and Reference Areas.

It was also noted that bog myrtle, tormentil (Potentilla erecta) and purple moor-grass are much less prevalent in this, than other Restoration, Control and Reference Areas.

Heather was rarely flowering, with some unhealthy or dead – possibly due to heather beetle. However, other shrubs and grasses were noted to be flowering.

Sphagnum moss cover is variable, estimated at ~30% overall, and comprising mostly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., which in places forms dense hummocks. Racomitrium lanuginosum is dominant among other mosses, with a cover of ~30%, and Pleurozia purpurea ~5%. Drainage ditches contained much Sphagnum denticulatum and Sphagnum cuspidatum.

During the survey, occasional signs of deer were observed mainly at wet areas where there were hoof prints, but the level of grazing by deer was low, with <1% last year’s shoots visibly grazed.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area A involved regular blocking of grips with plastic piling dams, every ~20m. The dams were all seen as working, although there were occasional trickles around sides of them, with less than 5% having slight flooding over the top of them, suggesting they were at capacity at the time of the survey.

The grips are partially revegetating (estimated as ~45%) with Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum denticulatum. They are often unvegetated immediately behind the dam, becoming vegetated further up, meaning that the quadrats placed behind the dam are generally representing the least vegetated areas – with the majority of the grips further ‘upstream’ being vegetated.

Within this Restoration Area, there are small patches of bare peat with deer hoof prints indicating that the bare peat may be caused, or exacerbated, by trampling.

Area B – Unblocked grips – Control Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Control Area (B) is located within the centre of the site, on a flat, regularly gripped area, between a track and a small loch – Clar Loch Beag. The habitat in the Control Area is comprised of purple moor-grass and hare’s-tail cottongrass equally dominant, with scattered heather, bog myrtle and smaller amounts of cross-leaved heath. Little heather was flowering (~5%), with some also looking unhealthy and dead, whereas other dwarf shrubs were flowering as would be expected.

Of the bryophytes, Racomitrium lanuginosum is the most abundant in places, constituting ~20-30% cover, with Sphagnum moss cover being variable across the Control Area, estimated at 20% or less total cover, comprised of mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., as well as occasional Sphagnum denticulatum and Sphagnum papillosum. Both round-leaved sundew and English sundew were also sparsely scattered and occurred in lower quantities than Area A (plastic grip blocks).

Given these species, the habitat is considered to be most closely aligned with M17 'Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’.

Although occasional dung and deer prints were found, grazing levels on plants were not detectable, therefore considered to be <1% of last year’s shoots.

Area C – Grips blocked with peat dams

Habitat and condition observations

Area C lies to the south of the Control Area (B), closer to the road A835 than the loch, and is also heavily gripped. The habitat is similar to that of the Control Area (B), except purple moor-grass is more dominant, with frequent cross-leaved heath, deergrass and heather and scattered common cottongrass, English and round-leaved sundew. Hare’s-tail cottongrass was rarely encountered, and bilberry not recorded. As with other Areas, this is considered to be best described with reference to M17 'Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’.

Heather was weakly flowering - most of it not flowering and some dead or dying, therefore possibly infected with heather beetle. Other dwarf shrubs, grasses, sedges and rushes were flowering in the usual way.

Racomitrium lanuginosum dominates the bryophyte layer in this Restoration Area, with frequent patches of Pleurozia purpurea. However, litter and areas without moss are common, and Sphagna are occasional - mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl.

Deer prints were noticed around grips and blocked grips putting pressure on breached dams. Small mammal droppings were also seen on Sphagnum capillifolium sl. mounds occasionally. However, only purple moor-grass was visible grazed, with less than 5% of last year’s shoots grazed.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area C comprised blocking grips with peat dams, the majority of which are functioning and holding back water.

The only erosion evident was a small amount (<5%) bare peat and occasional breached dams where water was trickling around the dam. Coverage of bare peat is estimated at <1%. Damage due to restoration was not apparent.

Grip blocks are mostly vegetated (~95% cover), with communities similar to the surrounding area – comprising mainly purple-moor grass. Where deer congregate at peat dams the integrity of these dams can be compromised evidenced by bare peat with deer hoof prints.

The grips themselves are mostly unvegetated (~80%), with patches of revegetation comprising mainly of hare’s-tail cottongrass and occasional Sphagnum denticulatum.

Area D – Relatively unmodified Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (D) was not surveyed during the baseline survey, and was chosen based on liaison with Peatland Action and the landowner (Murphy 2021, pers. comm. and MacAskill, 2021, pers. comm.).

It is located in part of the site that has not been artificially gripped, west of Lochan Fada. Despite the lack of artificial grips, it contains frequent pools and occasional gullies, particularly around a large pond which they drain into, suggesting some erosion may be occurring. Quadrats were located north of this feature, around areas which did not appear to be actively eroding.

The majority of the Reference Area (D) is best described by M17 'Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, although there is little hare’s-tail cottongrass, with the habitat mainly containing deergrass and heather with scattered cottongrasses, cross-leaved heath, purple moor-grass.

The ground was wet during the surveys, with Racomitrium lanuginosum mounds dominating at around ~40-50% cover, and Sphagnum moss with ~20-30% overall cover, which is variable across the Reference Area. Pleurozia purpurea was also estimated as having ~5-10% cover.

Although there were more deer prints seen in this, compared with other Areas, the vegetation was not visibly very grazed here, with last year’s shoots being <1% grazed. Patches of bare peat were also concentrated around the large pond and pools, which may be due to deer trampling.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure DR2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure DR3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure DR4 shows the NMDS ordination for Drumrunie. This excludes the grip block quadrats which had different sized quadrats therefore are not comparable. The ordination represents a calculation using three dimensions, for which the stress value is 0.14. The programme R struggled to find an acceptable ordination with the calculation using two dimensions, after 2,000 attempts, justifying the use of three dimensions. Rationale is explained further in the Methodology section. The stress value is considered to be acceptable as it is below 0.2, however, will be approached with caution since it is above 0.1.

This NMDS plot shows that in the repeat survey, Area A (plastic grip blocks) overlaps the Reference Area (D) with the majority of its points.

The Control Area (B), has also changed, with many of its points moving upwards, closer to, and overlapping the Reference Area (D), and with more concentrated points indicating a more similar set of quadrat data and consistent community composition than in the baseline year.

Area C (grips blocked with peat) also has some quadrat communities that are more similar to those in the Reference Area (D) than previously, however some points have also moved away from this – with quadrat C9 being very dissimilar to all other quadrats.

It is not known how the Reference Area (D) has changed as this was not surveyed during the baseline survey.

Figure DR5 shows the community composition of Areas A- D, with the average cover of all species shown, where they have above 5% cover. Where they have less than this, they have been combined into groups of similar types of species.

This figure shows that the species composition between all Restoration, Control and Reference Areas is similar, with dominant-to-abundant vascular plants including deergrass, heather, bog asphodel, bog myrtle and non-vascular plants including Racomitrium lanuginosum and Sphagnum capillifolium sl. The Reference Area (D) has a noticeably greater cover of Cladonia portentosa and Sphagnum spp. than Restoration and Control Areas – made up of an even quantity of Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum denticulatum, Sphagnum subnitens and Sphagnum tenellum.

All Restoration, Control and Reference Areas are made up mostly of indicator species, which are discussed below; with other species present that are not included in this list including the liverwort Pleurozia purpurea, which is distinctive for the north-west of Scotland.  Purple moor-grass is dominant to abundant in the Control Area (B) and C (grips blocked with peat) especially, although it has decreased in both, with a 5.4% and 11.1% reduction in average estimated cover, respectively. 

Figure DR6 shows the community composition of ‘A_ditch’ (plastic grip blocks), which it is not possible to compare with other Restoration, Control or Reference Areas, or grip block quadrats as the quadrats are a non-standard size (0.5 x 4m).

A limited number of species are present within these quadrats, but the cover of species has increased overall between survey years. Much of this is due to algae cover, which has increased by 18%. The cover of Sphagnum denticulatum has also decreased by 3.4%, and Sphagnum cuspidatum remained constant.

Figure DR7 also shows the community composition as average cover of species in the ‘C_ditch’ grip block monitoring quadrats (in Area C, where grips were blocked with peat), which were 2m x 2m and therefore included more of the banks of the grips than the A_ditch ‘quadrats’ which were 0.5 x 4m in Area A.

This shows that the composition is comprised of a variety of species with similarly low cover, and contains more species than in the ‘A_ditch’ (plastic grip blocks) quadrats.

Indicator species that make up the majority of the composition will be discussed below, but of non-indicator species cover, the cover of algae has decreased, with 5% less cover estimated than in the baseline survey.

Indicator species

Figure DR8 shows that the percentage cover of indicator species has increased the most in the Control Area (C), with an 8.7% additional coverage of indicator species recorded since the baseline survey, with a marginal increase recorded in Area A (grips were blocked with plastic dams) (5.2% additional cover) and stayed relatively constant cover in Area C (peat dams on grips), with only 1.7% greater cover estimated.

The highest cover of indicator species was recorded in the Reference Area (D), which was not surveyed in the baseline survey. This is marginally higher than the cover of indicator species than where drains were blocked with plastic dams (A).

This Figure shows a sum of the grip block monitoring quadrats’ average indicator species cover, on one axis despite the differing quadrat sizes of the grip block quadrats between areas, to allow more easy comparison.

This shows that an additional 34.8% indicator species cover was recorded in ‘C_ditch’, whereas no discernible change was found in ‘A_ditch’, with just 0.7% less cover recorded.

Figure DR10 shows the average cover of indicator species as a stacked bar chart, for the all quadrats except the grip block quadrats, which are treated separately.

This figure shows that the cover of Sphagnum spp. has increased by the most in the Control Area (B), followed by Area A (plastic grip blocks), with an additional 6.5% and 6.1% average cover estimated, respectively – an increase made up mainly by Sphagnum capillifolium sl., and Sphagnum denticulatum. The average estimated cover of Sphagnum in Area C (grips blocked with peat) has stayed relatively constant, with only an additional 1.1% cover estimated.

Racomitrium lanuginosum makes up the greatest bryophyte cover in all Areas, and this has increased in Area A (plastic grip blocks), with an extra 9.7% cover recorded; and increased in the Control Area (B) with an extra 5.2% cover recorded; but again has changed little in Area C (grips blocked with peat), with 1.9% lower cover estimated.

This is combined with a reduction in the cover of non-crustose lichens (comprising Cladonia spp.) in Area A by 4.6% less estimated cover, with the Control Area (B) and Area C maintaining similar cover, with a reduction of just 2% and 1.9% cover, respectively.

Of dwarf shrubs, heather has increased most in the Control Area (B) (increase in cover of 8.2%), and increased by marginal amounts in Restoration Areas A and C.

Other vascular indicator species which have changed the most include bog myrtle, which has increased its cover in all Restoration, Control and Reference Areas, but most notably in the peat-dammed Area C, with 7.2% additional cover recorded, followed by the Control Area (B), with 4.7% additional cover recorded. Plastic-dammed Area A has seen little change in bog myrtle cover, with just 1.9% additional area of cover estimated.

Bog asphodel has reduced its cover in Areas A-C by 5.7%, 7.9% and 6.7% respectively. Other changes to vascular plants are limited to changes of a few percent.

There is no baseline survey to compare changes in the Reference Area (D), but the composition of this can be seen as mostly heather (more than in other Areas) and deergrass, with some hare’s-tail cottongrass and bog asphodel. Bryophytes include mostly Sphagnum spp. and Racomitrium lanuginosum. Notably bog myrtle is absent from the Reference Area (D) which contrasts with all other Areas where it has increased.

Figure DR11 displays the average cover of indicator species in the quadrats directly upstream of plastic dams – ‘A_ditch’.

This figure shows that Sphagnum spp. dominate the cover of indicator species, comprising mainly Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum denticulatum. The overall cover has decreased slightly by 3.4%. Otherwise, the cover of hare’s-tail cottongrass has increased.

Figure DR12 displays the average cover of indicator species in the quadrats directly upstream of peat dams - ‘C_ditch’.

This figure shows that there are more indicator species present in ‘C_ditch’ than ‘A_ditch’, and these are more varied, with vascular plants made up of deergrass having increased in cover by 10.6%, and common cottongrass having increased in cover by 5.4%. The cover of other indicator species have stayed more constant, with a marginal increase in bog asphodel, cross-leaved heath and heather estimated (2.6%, 1.6%, 1.5% and extra cover, respectively).

Bryophytes present comprise Sphagnum spp. which have also increased by 9% additional cover between survey years; and of other mosses, Racomitrium lanuginosum dominates, and has increased slightly by 3.4% additional cover.

Environmental variables

Figure DR13 shows other environmental variables recorded by percentage cover as a bar chart.

This figure shows that litter cover has been estimated as increasing where grips have been blocked with plastic dams (Area A) (8.3% additional cover) but decreasing in peat-dammed Area (C)  (4.1% less cover). The levels of litter are more constant in the Control Area (B), with just a 1.7% cover increase estimated.

Open water was recorded as being present in the Control Area (B) and the peat-dammed Area (C) where previously it was absent, with cover changing little in Area A, constituting 1.3% extra cover.

Damaged peat was recorded in Area A (0.8% cover) and the Reference Area (D) (3.3% cover).

Table DR3. The change in the average percentage cover of environmental variables recorded at grip block monitoring ‘quadrats’ in Area A (grips blocked with plastic dams) and in Area C (grips blocked with peat dams).

Environmental variables	Grip block monitoring change in environmental variables (%) A_ditch	Grip block monitoring change in environmental variables (%) C_ditch
Bare ground cover	0	2.8
Damaged bryophytes	0	0
Litter cover	0.4	2.8
Open water cover	58	-13
Damaged bare peat	N/A	N/A

Table DR3 shows the changes in the average cover of other variables recorded in the grip block quadrats.

The cover of open water has increased in grips blocked with plastic dams – ‘A_ditch’, whereas has decreased in grips blocked with peat dams – ‘C_ditch’.

The cover of bare ground is also marginally greater in grips blocked with peat dams – ‘C_ditch’ than in the baseline year, as well as cover of litter in both Areas.

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

As the Reference Area (D) was not surveyed in the baseline survey, the change in this cannot be compared with the change in Restoration Areas, but the current habitat and condition can be compared with the current condition of the Restoration Areas.

The chosen Reference Area is subject to much deer-damage and natural gullies are located nearby, suggesting that some drainage may be occurring which may affect the quality of the bog.

Control Area

A Control Area (B) was surveyed during the baseline year, and repeat survey year, therefore this allows for comparison with changes recorded in the Restoration Areas.

Despite containing un-blocked grips, the Control Area (B) has moved closer to the Reference Area (D), with some overlapping points in the NMDS plot suggesting that they have become more similar. The cover of indicator species in the Control Area (B) has increased more than in the Restoration Areas (A and C). The Control Area (B) is located geographically between these two Restoration Areas, therefore may be partly impacted by peat and plastic damming in the adjacent Restoration Areas.

However, the increase in indicator species is caused mainly by an increase in heather, which can thrive in drier conditions, therefore conversely may indicate a drying of peat due to the drainage grips.

Grips blocked with plastic dams

The plastic dams blocking grips in Area A were found to be retaining water, with a few being overtopped, or with water trickling round the sides. The peat in this Restoration Area was notably wetter than others, suggesting that dams are helping to raise the water table. Around half of the grips themselves were also vegetated with Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum denticulatum. Small areas of bare peat remain in this Area, with red deer hoof prints suggesting that herbivores are damaging it, limiting revegetation.

Grip block monitoring, which took place in addition to the 2x2m standard quadrat monitoring, was limited in its statistical robustness and comparability, with most observations made during the qualitative walkover survey. The ‘A_ditch’ data shows limited material change, with the most notable change being an increase in algae cover. This is considered to be a flaw of the monitoring technique, which targeted the consistently least-vegetated areas immediately ‘upstream’ of the dam, whereas vegetation was concentrated just below each dam. It is not known whether this has changed since the baseline survey, but the retention of water and high coverage of Sphagnum in half of the grips suggests that this restoration is working.

Across the main expanse of vegetation in Area A surveyed with 2x2m quadrats, there appears to have been some response from the vegetation to grip blocking, as the vegetation communities in the quadrats have moved closer to those in the Reference Area (D) on the NMDS plot. This likely reflects the slight increase in cover of indicator species including Racomitrium lanuginosum and peat-forming Sphagnum capillifolium sl., although Sphagnum increase has been less here than in the Control Area (B).

Despite the drainage features, the potential for successful restoration at the site was recognised prior to the commencement of the restoration work (Green Stimulus Peatland Restoration Project, 2014). The results indicate that grip blocking is promoting the spread of bog indicator species and showing signs of recovery.

Grips blocked with peat dams

Peat dams in Area C were also found to be retaining water, with the dams being mostly vegetated. However, the steep-sided grips remain mostly unvegetated, and appear to be actively eroded. Red deer prints were also noticed around areas of bare peat and dams, damaging and exacerbating bare peat, and putting pressure on the dams, which may cause them to breach.

The findings of the grip block ‘quadrats’ of ‘C_ditch’ (grips blocked with peat) were quite different to that of ‘A_ditch’ (plastic grip blocks), having low cover of vegetation within grips and being more eroded with steeper sides, exposed because water was not filling them. Although some positive are changes evident, including an increase in Sphagnum capillifolium, the walkover survey highlighted that there is still much bare and steep peat in the blocked grips to be stabilised and recolonised. Restoration would have been enhanced here by reprofiling steep-sided grips.

The impact of this grip blocking on vegetation in Area C appears limited, having the lowest increase in average indicator species cover and the lowest average increase in Sphagnum. The vegetation community here is very variable, with overlap with the unrestored Control Area (B) and the Reference Area (D) in the NDMS plot indicating similarity to both.

The lack of change in indicator species despite the functioning peat dams is thought to be due to the dominance of purple moor-grass limiting the ability of bog specialists to colonise, and the peat may not have become wet enough to allow bog species to outcompete it. The trampling and impact of herbivores may also prevent indicator species colonising bare peat, and may favour the spread of non-indicator species purple moor-grass, despite the restoration intervention.

Figures DR14 - DR40

Dundreggan

Site description and summary of past management

Dundreggan comprises an area of coniferous plantation woodland on upland blanket bog, located ~13km west of the Invermoriston village near Loch Ness, Highland, at central OS grid reference NH 2802 1508. The site is not subject to statutory designations. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure DG1 showing an overview of the site itself.

The site is within a commercial plantation planted in the mid-1980s with Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and Scots pine. The restoration site itself is located on a relatively flat area, although the topography of the whole plantation is undulating, and various watercourses intersect it, with areas of intact blanket bog present between plantation blocks. A peat depth survey in 2013 found that much of the plantation was on peat >0.5m deep (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Deer numbers are controlled within an area containing the site, but deer remain present despite attempts to fence a wider 200 ha area (which contains the site) (Gilbert, 2021, pers. comm.). This is included in restoration measures, which are detailed below.

The hydrology of the site is monitored with automated water level loggers – located just north-east of the restoration site, which were installed in 2015 (Peatland Action 2021).

Restoration measures undertaken

The Dundreggan site was restored over the winter of 2014/15, with Figure DG1 showing the extent of restoration treatments, which comprised (Tierney, 2021, pers. comm.):

• Felling ~18ha of conifer plantation felled using excavators and mulching them – with larger trees felled with a chainsaw;
• Furrows were filled with mulched debris and blocked with felled trees using the stump flipping technique;
• 62 peat dams were installed on flowing forest drains, mainly in the central part of the site;

In addition to this, a deer fence has been erected around the perimeter of a 200ha area, within which the site is located.

Although further restoration to seed Sphagnum moss and control non-native regeneration was originally planned (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016), neither have been considered necessary to date, given that deer browsing is inhibiting tree growth, and that it is considered that there is enough Sphagnum moss present to seed itself (Gilbert, 2021, pers. comm.).

A Restoration Report has been produced by Trees for Life, detailing the work undertaken (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Trees for Life is committed to removing woody regeneration until 10 years after the grant – until 2025 - 2026, after which some native planting is planned (not in Restoration Areas). It is understood that some of the peat dams have been observed as slumping and have become less effective (Gilbert, 2021, pers. comm.).

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey of the Dundreggan site was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, after the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey was carried out between 20^th- 21^st September 2021 by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM, and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure DG2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure DG3.

Restoration and Reference Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed as detailed in the Methodology section above. Fifteen quadrats were re-surveyed in each Area, and comprised three Restoration Areas, and a relatively unmodified Reference Area, listed below:

• Area A – Former Control Area – felled plantation on north-facing slope;
• Area B – Relatively unmodified blanket bog – Reference Area;
• Area C – Felled plantation on north-facing slope; and
• Area D – Felled plantation on a lower-lying wetter area.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table DG1), and the description for each Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table DG1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for their relative abundance, on sloping felled woodland (Area A and C), unmodified Reference Area (B) and felled low-lying woodland (D), Dundreggan.

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	O-R	A	O	F-A
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	R	F	R	O-F
Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	O	R	R	LD
Star sedge	Carex echinata	O-R	LF	F-O	O
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	R	O	R	O-F
Bulbous rush	Juncus bulbosus	R	LF	R	O
Heath rush	Juncus squarrosus	R	R	O	O
Tormentil	Potentilla erecta	R	R	O-R	O-R
Compact rush	Juncus conglomeratus	R	R	R	R
Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	R	R	R	R
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	R	O	-	O-R
Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	-	D	-	R
Soft rush	Juncus effusus	R	R	-	R
Rosebay willowherb	Chamaenerion angustifolium	R	-	-	-

Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	R	D-A	R	F-LD
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum commune	F	O-R	O	F-A
Acrocarpous moss	Campylopus introflexus	O	R	F-O	F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum papillosum	R	A-F	R	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	R	A-F	R	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Hylocomium splendens	O	O	O	O-F
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	O	O	R	O-F
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	R	F	R	R
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum strictum	O	O-R	O	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	R	O	R	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum subnitens	R	O-R	R	R
Acrocarpous moss	Dicranum scoparium	R	O-R	R	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Rhytidiadelphus loreus	R	-	R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	-	F	-	-
Pleurocarpous moss	Brachythecium rutabulum	-	O-R	-	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum majus	-	R	-	-

Area A - Former Control Area – felled plantation on north-facing slope

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located within a cleared part of Dundreggan forest. Standing coniferous plantation remains to the west of it, in a fenced part, but as Area A has been felled, it cannot act as the Control Area as initially intended. Nevertheless, this Area was surveyed as normal so that change could be examined since its felling.

This Restoration Area is on a gentle north-facing slope, and covered with felled brash and stumps (making up ~55% cover), sparse moss and vascular plants, which consist of mainly hare’s-tail cottongrass. Vascular plants were rarely found flowering. The lack of vegetation means that it is not attributable to a NVC community.

Scattered vascular plants across Area A include hare’s-tail cottongrass, common cottongrass, purple moor-grass, star sedge (Carex echinata) and rarely cross-leaved heath.

Polytrichum spp. mounds have the greatest cover, at approximately 10-20%, with Pleurozium schreberi and Hylocomium splendens rare. Of very limited Sphagnum moss cover, Sphagnum capillifolium sl. was the most common, which overall was estimated at <5% cover.

Non-native moss Campylopus introflexus also occurs on patches of bare peat.

Being close to an existing forestry plantation, there are occasional seedlings of pine and spruce.

Deer dung is ubiquitous throughout this Restoration Area, with all visible graminoids grazed to the ground, as well as bilberry and heather grazed. Damage to Sphagnum moss by animals was also estimated as being ~20%.

Restoration observations

This Area no longer counts as a Control Area as it has been felled, therefore can be treated as another Restoration Area.

Restoration here includes felling of the coniferous plantation and covering the Area in brash, with logs, stumps and brash filling furrows.

Area B – Relatively unmodified blanket bog – Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (B) is located north of Restoration Area A, at the bottom of a shallow valley, close to a stream. The stream just north of the Area was noted as having excessive bare peat and erosion, with abundant deer prints were seen either side of this watercourse suggesting that deer gather and cross here. Despite being nearby, the Reference Area (B) itself had significantly less bare peat and deer-damage.

The habitat of the Reference Area (B) is considered to be NVC community M17 'Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, which is dominated by deergrass and to a lesser extent hare’s-tail cottongrass, with Sphagnum moss carpets prevailing over other mosses.

Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum cuspidatum are common throughout the Reference Area, forming a carpet of ~70- 80% cover in total. Other mosses cover ~5-10% of it, comprising an even mixture of Pleurozium schreberi, Aulacomnium palustre and Hylocomium splendens. Cladonia portentosa is also scattered throughout, with Cladonia arbuscula and Cladonia uncialis much rarer.

Very rare seedlings of pine and spruce were observed in this Area (<0.1% cover), which appear to be having limited impact on habitat.

Campylopus introflexus is again occasionally present.

The abundant deer prints had damaged an estimated ~10% Sphagnum, and there was also high a level of grazing, with ~50% grasses and sedges grazed. Evidence of grazing was rarely visible on cottongrasses and cross-leaved heath.

Area C – Felled plantation on north-facing slope

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is located to the north-east of the valley, on a slightly higher shallow north-facing slope, which had been felled. Despite the time elapsed since felling, this Restoration Area was still mostly brash-covered, with occasional mosses and even less frequently vascular plants, which were barely flowering. The lack of vegetation means that it is not attributable to an NVC community.

Of the limited species present, star sedge, heath rush and hare’s-tail cottongrass were of the few which were present and identifiable.

Sphagnum moss cover was <1%, comprising predominantly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Other mosses were more common, being ~5-10%, and including mainly non-native Campylopus introflexus colonising bare peat and Polytrichum commune.

Very occasional spruce, pine and birch seedlings were observed, constituting <1% cover.

As with other Restoration and Reference Areas, there was abundant deer dung and prints. The majority of graminoids ~90% had been grazed to the ground or at least grazed so there were no flowers.

Restoration observations

Area C contained felled trees, with stumps evident, and furrows which had been mostly blocked with trees – although the ground was still very uneven and the grips are not completely sealed. The prevailing dry weather conditions and the dryness of the site meant that it was not evident if water was retained on the site during wetter periods.

Some non-Sphagnum mosses are present within blocked ditches but were mostly obscured by brash, which covers the majority (~70%) of the ground.

Area D – Felled plantation on a lower-lying wetter area

Habitat and condition observations

Area D is located to the north-east of the other Restoration and Reference Areas, skirting round the edge of a mound, and on a mainly flat area, which is much wetter and more vegetated than other Areas.

The habitat is very variable within this – the eastern part was drier and more purple moor-grass-dominated with less Sphagnum moss. The western part of this could be described as M17 'Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, with some pools of water in ditches present and patches of various rushes. Hare’s-tail cottongrass was frequent across the Area, with more scattered common cottongrass.

Some parts of the Area have carpets of Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Overall Sphagnum moss cover is approximately ~40%, but very patchy in distribution. Polytrichum mounds/carpets are mainly in the east of site, and non-Sphagnum moss cover was estimated as being ~40%, comprising Polytrichum commune, Polytrichum strictum, Hylocomium splendens, Pleurozium schreberi and Hypnum jutlandicum.

Non-native Campylopus introflexus is colonising bare peat.

Occasional spruce seedlings are present, showing some colonisation.

Deer dung was abundant, and graminoids were frequently visibly grazed, with approximately 10-20% of them grazed almost to the ground. Approximately ≤5% of Sphagnum moss was estimated as being damaged by deer.

Restoration observations

Area D had also been felled, with furrows blocked with trees and brash. The Area was also dry overall, but there were pools of water in some ditches amounting to ~10% overall. No damage from restoration was observed.

Compared to other Restored and Reference Areas, there was little brash, with this scattered across the surface.

In wet areas there is abundant Sphagnum moss, and drier areas have abundant other mosses.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure DG2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure DG3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure DG4 shows the NMDS ordination plot for Dundreggan, with each point representing the community of one quadrat; the point shape representing the year; and the colour representing the Restoration or Reference Area. The NMDS was calculated using three dimensions, with a stress value of 0.12, which being close to 0.1, indicates that the ordination is a reasonable and acceptable representation of the dissimilarities between communities. Although the calculation produced a result in two dimensions, this was with a stress value of 0.16, therefore closer to 0.2, and a less accurate representation.

This plot shows that the Restoration Areas C and D have moved from constituting more scattered points representing more variable communities in the baseline year, to more similar communities, which overlap with each other and the other Restoration Area (A).

Despite being felled since the baseline survey, Area A has changed less, with its points moving only slightly between survey years, representing a more similar community between survey years, although some quadrats have moved slightly closer to the vegetation community in the Reference Area (B).

The points in the Reference Area (B) have also moved slightly towards the cluster of points consisting of Area A, and the 2021 communities of Areas C and D, with no overlap between survey years in the Reference Area (B), showing that its community has changed notably.

Figure DG5 is a stacked bar chart which shows the average percentage cover of species recorded within the vegetation communities of each Restoration and Reference Area. It combines species where cover is less than 5%, into groups of similar species.

This figure shows that overall species were recorded with lower cover in Area A (felled woodland on a slope) compared to the baseline survey. The cover of indicator species pleurocarpous mosses Hylocomium splendens, Pleurozium schreberi and Plagiothecium undulatum have declined by an estimated average cover of 25.2%, 5.4% and 10.8% respectively, as well as other pleurocarpous mosses and cross-leaved heath. Cover of Polytrichum commune has increased by an estimated 10.7% however.

The community of Area C (felled woodland on a slope) is very similar to that of Area A in 2021, and in this Restoration Area, there has been an increase in the cover of all species, which again includes an increase in Polytrichum commune of 14.4% additional cover, as well as Hylocomium splendens (6.2% additional cover), graminoids comprising a mixture of sedges including mainly star sedge, and rushes with mainly heath rush (4.6% additional cover); and acrocarpous moss like Campylopus introflexus mainly, as well as Campylopus flexuosus, Aulacomnium palustre, Dicranum spp. and Leucobryum glaucum, amounting to a 6.4% cover increase.

The felled low-lying woodland (Area D) has seen the greatest increase in combined cover and number of species recorded over the survey years, with purple moor-grass increasing by 21.3% additional cover, graminoids by 8.3% extra (with similar species to those in Area C), Polytrichum commune by 18% and the indicator species heather and Sphagnum capillifolium sl. (see below).

The Reference Area (B) has a visibly different community composition to the Restoration Areas. It is dominated by indicator species, with the most obvious changes to its community being in its reduction in deergrass cover, and increase in heather.

Indicator species

Figure DG6 illustrates the change in combined average cover of indicator species recorded in each Restoration and Reference Area of Dundreggan.

The total cover of indicator species in Area A (felled woodland on a slope) and the Reference Area (B) have decreased, with a 48% and 32.9% cover reduction, respectively. Whereas the total average cover of indicator species has increased in Area C (felled woodland on a slope) and D (low-lying felled woodland), with an additional 23.7% and 46.5% cover estimated, respectively.

Figure DG7 displays the average cover of indicator species recorded in each Restoration and Reference Areas, as a stacked bar chart to show their relative proportions.

This figure shows that the decrease seen in Area A (felled plantation on a slope), of total indicator species cover is primarily driven by a reduction of pleurocarpous moss by 49.4% cover – which is predominantly Hylocomium splendens, Plagiothecium undulatum and Pleurozium schreberi (see Fig. DG5). Sphagnum spp. cover has also decreased slightly by 2.4%, with lower cover of Sphagnum capillifolium sl. estimated, although there has been a minimal increase in Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum palustre and Sphagnum subnitens.

The composition and proportion of indicator species in the Reference Area (B) has stayed the same, but there has been a reduction in overall cover. This is due to a decrease in bog asphodel (5.7% cover reduction), Sphagnum spp. (22.5% cover reduction - with less Sphagnum tenellum, Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum capillifolium sl.) and sundews (6.3% cover reduction) However, the cover of hare’s-tail cottongrass has been recorded as increasing, with an additional 6.6% cover estimated.

The other area of felled woodland on a slope – Area C, has increased its cover of indicator species over time from almost none, to having a similar species composition and cover to that of similarly-treated Area A, with this dominated by an increase in pleurocarpous moss, with an additional 14.8% cover recorded. Slight increases in other indicator species were estimated, including non-crustose lichen (Cladonia spp.) (of 2.4% cover), and hare’s-tail cottongrass (of 2.9% cover). The level of Sphagnum spp. cover has also stayed relatively constant, with 1.5% higher cover estimated, comprising an increase in Sphagnum papillosum, Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum subnitens.

The felled low-lying woodland (Area D) as also seen an increase in indicator species cover, comprising pleurocarpous moss, hare’s-tail cottongrass and heather (12.3%, 4.8% and 11.2% additional cover). Average Sphagnum spp. has also increased by 9.1% cover, with a range of species making this up, including all mentioned species above, as well as Sphagnum fimbriatum and Sphagnum denticulatum.

Environmental variables

Figure DG8 shows the average cover of other recorded environmental variables as a bar chart.

This Figure shows that the cover of litter has decreased significantly in Restoration Areas C and D (a decrease of 54.1% and 68.9%, respectively), and increased slightly in Restoration Area A (with 9% additional cover), while being stable in the Reference Area (B).

Damaged bare peat was also consistently recorded at between 20% and 37% cover across all Restoration and Reference Areas, much higher than in the baseline survey for Areas A – C. The most damage in 2021 was recorded in the Reference Area (B).

A marginal increase in the cover of bare ground was recorded in Areas A, B and C by 3.5%, 1.9% and 3.1% additional cover, respectively; whereas decreased slightly in Area D (the felled low-lying woodland), (5.6% less cover) with damaged bare peat showing a similar trend.

Very little open water was recorded in Restoration and Reference Areas during the repeat survey, with a reduction in estimated cover of open water of 6.7% cover in Area the Reference Area (B).

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

The Restored Areas at Dundreggan can be compared to the relatively unmodified Reference Area (B), which was surveyed during the baseline and repeat survey.

The survey found that the Reference Area (B), has showed some decline in quality since the baseline survey. The NMDS plot shows its vegetation community is moving slightly towards that in the Restoration Areas. This is explained by a reduction in the cover of indicator species – mainly Sphagnum moss, as well as bog asphodel. Conversely, hare’s-tail cottongrass has increased.

Damage caused by deer is most concentrated in the Reference Area (B) compared to other Areas – with the most damaged bryophytes, and increase in bare ground and peat damage recorded. The peat is noticeably wetter here and more susceptible to damage. The reduction in Sphagnum suggests that grazing and trampling by deer is impacting it by directly affecting it and affecting the ability of the peat to support bog indicator species.

Felled plantation woodland

The survey identified that Area A, the former Control Area had also been felled, with furrows blocked with brash and brash on the surface elsewhere. Therefore it has been assessed as a Restoration Area. Despite similar treatment to Area C and D, the NMDS plot for Area A remains largely the same compared to the baseline survey, whilst the NMDS plots for Areas C and D (where trees were also felled and furrows blocked with brash), have changed slightly to become more like the Reference Area (B). The whole site was too dry during the survey to observe whether furrow-blocking has stopped water flow and is facilitated water retention.

The lack of recovery seen in Area A (felled plantation on a north-facing slope) may be due to its more recent felling then the other Restoration Areas. It also may be due to its high cover of brash (litter), which may be preventing the establishment of some indicator species, and concealing others, leading to a recorded decline in indicator species including of Sphagnum – the greatest decline in indicator species of all Restoration Areas. The large size of the brash; dryness of the site; and the fact that it is on a slope might also explain the slow progress seen, as water may collect and run off the slope, and make it less suitable for supporting bog communities. This is applicable to all Restoration Areas. All graminoids present were grazed to the ground by deer, which will be affecting their potential to establish and spread.

Area C, where felling and covering with brash has also occurred on a north-facing slope, has moved marginally closer to the Reference Area (B). This change has been caused by the increase in pleurocarpous and acrocarpous mosses, including non-native Campylopus introflexus; and slight increase in sedges and rushes, including indicator species like hare’s-tail cottongrass and generalists like soft rush, despite heavy grazing by deer.  Despite the persistence of peat-forming Sphagnum capillifolium sl. and Sphagnum papillosum, the predominance of pleurocarpous and acrocarpous mosses over Sphagnum is reflective of the dry substrate. As with Area A, brash covers the majority of Area C, with a little dry peat accessible for colonisation, which appears to be inhibiting recolonisation, as well as the heavy grazing by deer.

Area D, which has been restored in the same way as Area A and C but is located on a wet, low-lying area, has shown the greatest signs of recovery and transition towards a bog community. It contains more varied habitat types, and has more similar vegetation communities to the Reference Area (B) compared to other Restoration Areas, as shown by the NMDS plot. It also had less litter cover and bare ground than other Restoration Areas.

This change in community can be seen in the greater increase in indicator species compared to the other Restoration and Reference Areas, characterised by the greatest increase in Sphagnum cover, comprising peat-forming Sphagnum capillifolium sl. and Sphagnum papillosum. Other indicator species that have increased are heather, pleurocarpous moss and hare’s-tail cottongrass, as well as non-indicator graminoids and Polytrichum commune.

The positive change in Area D is thought to be influenced by its location – it is lower, flatter and closer to the Reference Area (B) than other Restoration Areas, which are on dry slopes. The density of trees prior to felling in this Area is unknown, however, it is considered likely that the area was already wetter with more bog indicator species prior to removal of trees, enhancing its ability to improve more rapidly compared with other Restoration Areas. Overall, the peat here seems to be becoming rewetted and moving towards supporting bog vegetation.

Despite being a former plantation and bound by trees to the west, very limited tree colonisation was occurring in any of the Restored or Reference Areas – this again may be due to deer high levels of deer grazing preventing this.

Figures DG9 - DG29

Dunruchan Farm

Site description and summary of past management

Dunruchan Farm is a ~55ha area of enclosed upland blanket bog, which is located ~5.6km north-west of the village of Braco, Perth and Kinross, at central OS grid reference NN 7991 1416. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure DN1 showing an overview of the site itself.

It comprises a gently south-west sloping area and a plateau above, on the slopes of Meall a’ Choire Odhair. The site is not subject to any statutory designations.

It is surrounded in the wider landscape by blanket bog to the north, with a commercial plantation woodland to the south-east, and the B827 running along its south-western boundary. Numerous drains and watercourses drain off the slope into the River Knaik to the south-west. Deep peat is present across the site, with depths of ≥3m (Scotland’s Soils, 2021).

Historically, grips have been installed across the site to drain it for agricultural use, and has been heavily-grazed, which has led to lowering of the water table and reduction in area of blanket bog, and replacement of this with purple moor-grass grassland and rushes. There are also gullies present – with bare peat sides - eroding peat into the watercourse. There is evidence of historic peat cutting at the northern edge of the restoration site (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Current land use on the site includes grazing with sheep at a variable density – with around 150 young sheep and 30 dry ewes over summer, until the end of August when further ewes are added, to make up around 555 in total until October where they are removed again for the winter. Breeding ewes and lambs are not put on the bog due to disease caused by bog asphodel (Paterson, 2021, pers. comm.).

Restoration measures undertaken

The restoration extent and treatments are mapped in Figure DN1. Restoration was intended to stabilise and improve the hydrology of the site and prevent further drainage, drying and erosion of the peat to restore peatland vegetation. Ultimately this was funded to assist with flood prevention and alleviation of the Allan Water Catchment (Aldridge, 2021, pers. comm.).

It is understood from the Peatland Action Project Officer that Area C was only partially restored as some of the drains were on shallow peat and peat dams couldn’t be put in. Figure DN1 shows that some of the grips were blocked and reprofiled, and others were not. Approximately 6/7 drains weren’t re-profiled or blocked with peat dams because the peat depths in the drain bottoms were either too shallow, or down to the mineral layer.

Restoration works were undertaken in January to March 2016, after the baseline survey, and was coordinated by the Forth Rivers Trust (FRT) (Aldridge, 2021, pers. comm.).  Restoration treatments included:

• Construction of 800 dams (mostly peat, with approx. seven plastic) along 12km of grips;
• Construction of 10 timber sediment traps;
• Construction of two 20m trench bunds;
• Reprofiling of eroding gullies to aid natural regeneration.

The report from Bellini (2016) after the restoration cited problems with the sediment traps, which proved inadequate to hold the amount of water present, but this was subsequently corrected. The specific locations of sediment traps has not been provided.

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey of the Dunruchan site was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, before the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey was carried out between 15^th– 19^th July 2021 by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM, and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure DN2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure DN3.

Restoration and Reference Areas established in the baseline survey were re-surveyed as set out in the Methodology section above. Fifteen quadrats were re-surveyed in each Area, comprising two Restoration Areas, and a relatively unmodified Reference Area, listed below:

• Area A – Grip blocking;
• Area B – Relatively unmodified blanket bog – Reference Area; and
• Area C – Partially restored.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table DN1), and the description for each Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table DN1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for their relative abundance, at Areas A (grips blocked), B (unmodified Reference Area) and C (where some grips were blocked and reprofiled and some were not), Dunruchan Farm.

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C
Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	D	A	F
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	D	A	F
Bog asphodel	Narthecium ossifragum	F-A	LA	O-R
Purple moor-grass	Molinia caerulea	O	O	D
Wavy hair-grass	Avenella flexuosa	O	F	F
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	F	F	R
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	F	F	R
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	O	O	R
Cranberry	Vaccinium oxycoccos	O	O	-
Round-leaved sundew	Drosera rotundifolia	O	O-F	-
English sundew	Drosera anglica	R	O-R	-
Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	R	O	R
Tormentil	Potentilla erecta	R	R	F
Heath bedstraw	Gallium saxatile	R	R	F
Heath wood-rush	Luzula multiflora	-	R	F
Common bent-grass	Agrostis capillaris	-	-	F-O
Heath rush	Juncus squarrosus	-	-	F
Soft rush	Juncus effusus	-	-	LA
Cowberry	Vaccinium vitis-idaea	R	-	-

Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	F	F	O
Acrocarpous moss	Polytrichum commune	F	A	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	O	O	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum fallax	-	R	LF
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum magellanicum sl.	F	F-A	-
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum papillosum	R	O-R	R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum palustre	R	O-F	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum tenellum	O-R	O-R	-
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	LF	LA	A
Pleurocarpous moss	Hylocomium splendens	-	R	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	R	LA	A
Pleurocarpous moss	Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus	-	-	LA

Area A – Grip blocking

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located closest to the Reference Area (B), and to the north of Restoration Area C, on an area which is gently sloping to the south-west, close to the summit of Meall a’ Choire Ohair. This Restoration Area was dry during the survey.

It is best described with reference to M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, and is grass and sedge dominated, comprising much deergrass and hare’s-tail cottongrass, frequent patches of bog asphodel, with cross-leaved heath and heather in similarly limited amounts.

There was variable cover of Sphagnum moss, estimated as covering ~20-30% overall, comprising frequent Sphagnum magellanicum sl., frequent Sphagnum capillifolium sl. and more occasional Sphagnum cuspidatum. Other mosses comprise scattered Polytrichum commune mounds, and variable amounts of others such as Hypnum jutlandicum and Campylopus flexuosus; Cladonia portentosa is also scattered throughout.

This Restoration Area was noticeably more heavily grazed than other Areas, but still with less than 5% last year’s shoots visibly grazed by sheep, which were seen at low density within this Area.

Restoration observations

The grips in Area A were blocked with peat dams, which were identified during the survey, and reprofiling was noted to have taken well with vegetation well grown. The grip blocks were holding water up to 1m in depth, some dominated by Sphagnum cuspidatum and some other Sphagna, with some grips quite dry and vegetated with a similar composition to surrounding land.

This Restoration Area had more bare peat than other Area C and the Reference Area (B), with some trampling evident, bare areas mainly near grips and gullies, and occasional apparent borrow pits still mostly bare. Nevertheless, there were no recent signs of erosion, and grips were hard to see, suggesting that they had been well blocked and significantly revegetated.

Area B – Relatively unmodified blanket bog – Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (B) is located at the north-eastern edge of the land parcel, on a relatively flat area close to Area A, but at higher altitude than this and Area C. It had very wet peat and some vehicle tracks were noted along the edge of the fence to the east.

The Reference Area is considered to be a good example of M17 ‘Scirpus cespitosus – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, with scattered heather and frequent cross-leaved heath. It is dominated by deergrass and hare’s-tail cottongrass, with patches of bog asphodel, and wavy hair-grass common but in low density. Heather appeared to be mostly young and alive.

There are frequent Polytrichum mounds constituting ~20% of the Reference Area, and Sphagnum carpets common, with a total estimated ~20-50% cover, mostly Sphagnum magellanicum sl. and Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Other mosses include patches of Hypnum jutlandicum and Pleurozium schreberi.

There were minimal signs of grazing, with sheep dung frequent but in a very low concentration.

Area C – Partially Restored

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is present to the south of the Restoration and Reference Areas, and encompasses a slope which is south-west facing, and intersected with a drainage network.

The habitat has quite a different composition to the other two Areas, being purple moor-grass-dominated, mostly dry and grassy, and most similar to NVC community M25 ‘Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire’, with very few dwarf shrubs which include cross-leaved heath, heather and bilberry. The sward also includes frequent wavy hair-grass, hare’s-tail cottongrass and deergrass, with common bent (Agrostis capillaris), heath wood-rush and heath rush also frequent. Tormentil straggles through the sward, as well as heath bedstraw.

Bryophytes present comprise mainly Pleurozium schreberi, Hypnum jutlandicum, Polytrichum commune and Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus, with non-Sphagnum mosses creating ~40% cover in total. There is estimated to be ~10% or less cover of Sphagnum moss, comprising Sphagnum fallax and Sphagnum capillifolium sl.

Soft rush with Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum fallax dominate within grips.

Despite the proximity to a plantation, no tree seedlings were seen.

There was a very low sheep density, with very few signs of them, or of grazing, with <1% last year’s shoots visibly grazed.

Restoration observations

Area C was partially restored with some grips blocked with peat, which the survey identified as holding back water, and are well-vegetated with a species composition similar to the surrounding vegetation. Bare peat is limited to occasional patches, and damage from restoration is not obvious.

Grips are well vegetated with soft rush and Sphagnum cuspidatum, with active erosion not apparent.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure DN2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure DN3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure DN4 shows the NMDS plot for the Restoration and Reference Areas in Dunruchan, with each point representing the community of one quadrat; the point shape representing the year; and the colour representing the Area. The NMDS was calculated in three dimensions to produce this plot, as it had a stress value of 0.12, which is lower than in two dimensions (0.16), and closer to 0.1, therefore is a reasonable ordination.

This plot shows that most points in the grip-blocked Area A and the Reference Area (B), have moved in the same direction between survey years, reflecting a community change in a similar way, with much overlap and similarity between the communities of these Areas.

Area C, where a subset of grips were blocked, is located further from Area A and the Reference Area (B), and has also experienced a community change, represented by a change in the points in a similar direction: parallel, but not closer to Area A or the Reference Area.

Figure DN5 is a stacked bar chart showing the average percentage covers of species recorded in each Restoration and Reference Area, to illustrate their relative proportions.

This plot shows that grip-blocked Area A and the Reference Area (B) are the most similar in terms of species composition, compared to  Area C, where a subset of grips were blocked. Both are dominated by indicator species, with most changes relating to these, which are discussed below.

Already-dominant purple moor-grass has increased in cover by 28% in Area C; indicator species deergrass has increased in cover by 6%, and the cover of wavy hair-grass has stayed relatively constant. A noticeable decrease in the indicator species hare’s-tail cottongrass (39.8% less cover) has also been recorded; as well as a reduction in cover of acrocarpous moss Polytrichum commune (of 8.2%).

Indicator species

Figure DN6 shows the change in the summed average percentage cover of indicator species, for each Restoration and Reference Area between survey years.

The combined cover of indicator species has increased in Area A (grips blocked), with 16.4% additional cover, and decreased in the Reference Area (B) by 1.4% cover, and in Area C (where a subset of grips were blocked) by 9.9% estimated cover.

Figure DN7 shows the composition of indicator species, by showing the average cover of all indicator species recorded in the site.

Area A (grips blocked) and the Reference Area (B) remain dominated by indicator species, with the main vascular plants hare’s-tail cottongrass decreasing in cover by 20.2% and 27%, respectively; but deergrass increasing in cover by 23.3% and 12%, respectively. Bog asphodel has also increased, with cross-leaved heath maintaining similar levels to the baseline survey (with a minimal decrease), and heather also decreasing slightly (by 3.7% and 6.6%, respectively).

In Area A (grips blocked) and the Reference Area (B), pleurocarpous moss (mainly Hypnum jutlandicum) has increased slightly, estimated as having 7.1% and 5.6% additional cover, respectively. Sphagnum spp. have also increased in both Areas (with 10.2% and 9.9% additional cover, respectively), again comprising Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum magellanicum sl. – but with a slight decrease in Sphagnum papillosum.

In Area C (where a subset of grips were blocked), a decrease in hare’s-tail cottongrass of 39.8% cover has been estimated. However, in this Area there has been an increase in pleurocarpous moss, Sphagnum and deergrass cover, of an additional 12.4%, 6.6% and 6%, cover respectively. The Sphagnum increase comprises mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., and Sphagnum fallax; a slight decrease in Sphagnum papillosum cover was recorded. The increase in pleurocarpous moss cover comprises Hypnum jutlandicum, Pleurozium schreberi and Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus. Few other indicator species are present in Area C except a limited quantity of bilberry and cross-leaved heath.

Environmental variables

Figure DN8 shows environmental variables recorded within quadrats as a bar chart.

This figure shows that the cover of litter has been recorded as much higher in the Restored and Reference Areas in the repeat survey compared with the baseline survey. An additional 28.4%, 28.2% and 34.5% cover of litter was estimated in Area A, the Reference Area (B) and Area C, respectively.

Damaged bare peat was also recorded in Restoration Areas A and C in the repeat survey where they had not in the baseline.

A slight increase in damaged bare peat proportion was also recorded in Area A and the Reference Area (B) in the repeat survey, with 2.1% and 3.3% greater proportion of peat damaged. The most bare ground was recorded in Area A in both years – having increased to an average of 2.2% cover.

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

The Reference Area (B) is located closest to the Restoration Area A (grips blocked). It has stayed mostly consistent in vegetation composition between surveys, although some changes can be seen in the movement on the NMDS plot in a similar direction to Area A. Most notable is its decrease in hare’s-tail cottongrass and increase in bog asphodel and deergrass. The change in these graminoids may be due to preferential grazing by the sheep, whose impact was most notable in this Area, or other impacts.

Grip blocking

Restoration measures at Area A and C were found to be functioning as intended. Peat dams at Area A were retaining water, with some grips dominated by Sphagnum, and others being dry and barely discernible, well-vegetated with a community similar to the surrounding area. Active erosion is not obviously occurring, and although limited in area, more bare peat was identified here compared to Area A or the Reference Area (B). Where it was present, it is being exacerbated by sheep trampling, with the impacts of sheep grazing also more evident here compared to other Areas.

Although the overall cover of indicator species did not increase materially in Area A, the average cover of bog specialists Sphagnum and deergrass increased by more than the Reference Area (B), suggesting that the grip blocks are retaining water and rewetting peat, making it more suitable for these species. This is partly balanced by a reduction in hare’s-tail cottongrass cover, which may be because it is more palatable to sheep than other species, or may reflect a complex interaction between species as restoration takes effect. As the NMDS plot shows, Area A and the Reference Area were found to contain similar bog communities in the baseline and repeat surveys, having also generally moved in a similar direction and changed in a similar way botanically. This is thought to be influenced by their proximity geographically, on a flatter, wetter area, more subject to similar influences than Area C.

Where peat dams were installed in Area C they were noted to be retaining water, and well-vegetated with soft rush and Sphagnum cuspidatum, with no active erosion evident, and fewer impacts of sheep-grazing were found here. However, the vegetation seems to have responded little to functioning restoration features, with a decrease in indicator species recorded, including hare’s-tail cottongrass, and an increase in the dominant purple moor-grass.

It is noted that Area C was only partially restored as some of the drains were on shallow peat and peat dams couldn’t be put in. The Peatland Action Project Officer noted that there is not such a good species mix and recovery here with more grass sp. recorded which might be due to the partial restoration, shallower peat etc.

Area C has more sloping topography than Area A and the Reference Area (B) and had a community dominated by purple moor-grass in the baseline survey, as the NMDS plot shows. This different starting point to the other Restoration Area appears to have influenced its ability to recover and transition to bog. Small positive signs have been seen in the increase of Sphagnum – although pleurocarpous moss has increased by twice the amount, which may indicate drying of peat despite functioning grip blocks; or may show the drier lens created by the purple moor-grass litter cover, on which pleurocarpous mosses are living.  This suggests that despite functioning restoration, it is likely to take longer for the peat to rewet enough to favour bog specialists over purple moor-grass, and may rely on the breakdown of litter.

An appreciable increase in litter was recorded at both Restoration and Reference Areas, which could be attributable to a decrease in grazing pressure by sheep and/ or increase in aerial deposition of nitrates causing increased primary productivity.

The results therefore show that the grip blocking at Area A has started to influence the vegetation and lead to an increase in bog indicator species, whereas Area C has shown little change, being influenced by its already-dominant purple moor-grass, despite successful blocking of a subset of the grips. Restoration features elsewhere on the site such as sediment traps were not seen and may contribute towards these findings to a lesser degree.

Figures DN9 - DN38

Edinglassie

Site description and summary of past management

Edinglassie is an upland blanket bog located ~6km south-east of Dufftown, Morayshire, the site comprises two parts, including a plateau around the summit of ‘The Scalp’ mountain, situated at ~470m altitude, centred as OS NJ 3695 3668. Whereas the other part of the site is ~1km to the south-west of this, with Restoration Areas located on a gently north-east sloping area close to the summit of Meikle Balloch Hill, centred at NJ 36707 35257. Neither part of the site is subject to any statutory nature conservation designations. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure E1 showing an overview of the site itself.

The surrounding area comprises unenclosed blanket bog, with the southern part of the site, known as ‘the Swiles of Glen Markie’, located at the head of the Markie Water watercourse valley. Patches of plantation woodland are scattered within the landscape, and the River Spey is located ~2km to the west.

The Scalp (northern part of the site) has been heavily modified by peat cutting eastwards from the western edge of the hill, to approximately 3m, so that little peat remains and the mineral soil is frequently exposed to the west of the cutting. Peat was cut historically for smoking by the local whisky distilleries, as well as for domestic burning, although this has now stopped (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

The Swiles of Glen Markie (southern part of the site) has been subject to drainage, with grips having been dug in the past to reduce the water table, which may have been for grouse rearing or livestock grazing. 

The whole site is currently managed as a sporting estate, notably for grouse, but since initial restoration in 2014, no burning of the heather (muirburn) is allowed until at least 2027. Nearby areas are still burnt however. There is also sheep grazing on site, which in 2017 was noted as being at a rate of 0.05 LU/ha (Hooper, 2021, pers. comm.).

The hydrology of the southern, Swiles of Glen Markie part of the site is monitored with automated water level loggers, located at NJ 36781 35450, NJ 36606 35450 and NJ 36535 35235 among the grips (Peatland Action, 2021). These were installed in 2015, following restoration which is detailed below.

Restoration measures undertaken

The Restoration Areas within Edinglassie are mapped at Figure E1.

Restoration of the two parts of the Edinglassie site has taken place in two stages. The first restoration treatments took place in 2014, with a second bout of restoration in September 2017 to address failures and complete other work identified as being needed (Hooper, 2021, pers. comm.).

The work undertaken in 2014 to The Scalp (the northern part of the site) included (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016; Hooper, 2021, pers. comm; Hay, 2021, pers. comm.):

• Reprofiling haggs and former peat cuttings and subsequent patching with turves;
• Covering bare peat with mulch (containing heather and Sphagnum a few centimetres thick) harvested from nearby blanket bog; and
• Blocking erosion gullies (which were up to 2m wide and 3m deep).

Restoration carried out in 2014 at the Swiles of Glen Markie (southern part of the site) comprised:

• Reprofiling, flattening and blocking of ~2.7km of grips with peat dams.

Apparently, the full extent of the work in the contract was not completed, therefore these numbers have not been included above, as the full extent of completed works is uncertain, but the intention was for 0.5ha of bare peat to be restored; seven gullies to be blocked; and 100m of peat faces and gullies reprofiled at The Scalp (Hooper, 2021, pers. comm.).

As this work was not fully completed in 2014, and that the experimental bare peat restoration of mulch application did not take, (due to the thin layer applied and extremes of temperature and wind), the site was revisited for remediation works and further restoration in 2017(Hooper, 2021, pers. comm.; Hay, 2021, pers. comm.).

Further restoration included (Hooper, 2021, pers. comm):

• Restoration of 0.2 ha of bare peat at The Scalp comprising covering bare peat with wood and wire;
• 618 m of gully blocking and reprofiling; and
• 3,870 m of hagg/peat bank reprofiling.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the covering of bare peat with wire has also had limited success as wires kept snapping. Exposure, and cold winter extremes are still limiting success and heather beetle is present on lower ground (Hay, 2021, pers. comm.).

Other problems are Sitka spruce seedlings and native tree species colonising where grips have been blocked.

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, after the first restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey at Edinglassie was undertaken between 23rd – 25th August 2021 by Senior Ecologist and Botanist Steven Heaton MSc MCIEEM and Ecologist Robyn Guppy BSc (Hons) ACIEEM.

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure E2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure E3.

Restoration, Control and Reference Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. The Areas that were identified in the baseline survey and subsequently re-surveyed, incorporated 15 quadrats in each, and included four Restoration Areas, and an un-restored Control Area, and a relatively unmodified Reference Area, as listed below:

• Area A - Reprofiled and patched former peat cutting (The Scalp);
• Area B - Bare peat basin covered with mulch (The Scalp);
• Area C - Blocked and flattened grips (Swiles of Glen Markie);
• Area D – Unblocked gullies – Control Area (Swiles of Glen Markie); and,
• Area E – Relatively unmodified Reference Area (The Scalp).

Another Area was surveyed using fixed-point photography and a walkover survey, to show changes in this way, but no quadrats were sampled.

• Area F - Bare peat at base of former peat cutting covered with mulch (The Scalp).

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table E1), and the description for each Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table E1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for their relative abundance, at Area A (reprofiled peat cutting), B (mulch on bare peat), C (grips blocked), D (Control Area) and E (Reference Area).

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D	Area E	Area F
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	D	R	A	A	A	LD/A
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	O	R	F	F	F	LA/O
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	R	R	F	F	O	R
Bog asphodel	Narthecium ossifragum	R	R	O	O	R	R
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	R	R	R	R	R	LF/R
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	R	R	R	R	R	R
Heath rush	Juncus squarrosus	-	-	-	-	-	R
Scot’s pine seedling	Pinus sylvestris	-	-	-	-	-	R
Cowberry	Vaccinium vitis-idaea	R	-	-	-	-	-
Cloudberry	Rubus chamaemorus	-	-	-	-	R	-

 Non-vascular plants

Non-crustose lichen	Cladonia portentosa	F	R	A	D	D	O
Acrocarpous moss	Racomitrium lanuginosum	R	R	O	D	R	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Hypnum jutlandicum	O	O	O-R	O-R	O	O-R
Acrocarpous moss	Campylopus introflexus	R	R	R	R	R	LA/R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	R	R	R	R	O	R
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	R	R	R	R	R	R
Acrocarpous moss	Aulacomnium palustre	-	R	R	-	-	LF/R
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum cuspidatum	-	-	R	-	-	R

Area A – Reprofiled and patched former peat cutting (The Scalp)

Habitat and condition observations

Area A incorporates a ~500m peat cutting on the summit of The Scalp, where there is a thin layer of peat with exposed mineral soil in places, to the west of the cutting.

The habitat in this Restoration Area is considered to be mostly M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’. It is dominated by heather, some of which is flowering, with locally dominant Cladonia portentosa, and scattered hare’s-tail cottongrass, Hypnum jutlandicum and Hylocomium splendens. Cowberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) is also present.

Moss cover is variable with around 25% cover of pleurocarpous mosses, and rare patches of Sphagnum palustre forming <1% cover overall.

Occasional Campylopus introflexus is colonising bare peat and Sitka spruce scattered thinly within Area A, making up ~0.1% cover.

Sheep, hare and grouse dung and grouse were seen within this Restoration Area, although grazing levels on dwarf shrubs and grasses were low, estimated at <20% last year’s shoots grazed.

Restoration observations

Area A was restored by reprofiling the cutting to an angle of 45⁰ or less, and applying turves of vegetation to the exposed peat.

During the survey, eroded haggs were seen but the Area was revegetating in most places, leaving ~20% bare peat remaining. No damage from restoration or grazing animals in particular was evident.

Area B – Bare peat basin covered with mulch (The Scalp)

Habitat and condition observations

Area B comprises a patch of bare peat, also on the summit of The Scalp, which had been restored.

The survey found that this was still mostly bare peat, therefore not attributable to an NVC community, with occasional mosses present, amounting to ~5% non-Sphagnum mosses and <0.5% Sphagnum moss cover.

Species present include occasional Hypnum jutlandicum, rare Pleurozium schreberi and rare non-native species Campylopus introflexus. The latter of which is consistently present throughout in small amounts.

Heather, hare’s-tail cottongrass and common cottongrass are the main vascular plants present.

Tree colonisation comprises ~0.1% Sitka spruce seedlings, which were all <5cm tall during the survey, but which could become a problem if they survive.

Grouse and hare dung were observed on this Restoration Area, with low grazing levels by sheep and deer observed, estimated at <20% grazed shoots.

Restoration observations

Area B was covered with mulch, to provide a source of propagules to vegetate the peat. Limited success from this was visible, with some mosses and occasional heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass colonising in limited places. Bare peat was seen as still eroding in places.

The places where wooden slats were on the peat basin floor were found to be vegetating better than the rest, and fencing also appears to be assisting in revegetation by stabilising peat.

Area C – Blocked and flattened grips (Swiles of Glen Markie)

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is within The Swiles of Glen Markie region, which is a bowl-shaped feature forming part of the upper part of the Markie Water catchment. It is intersected with grips, with quadrats scattered among these.

The habitat present is considered to be best described as M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, with abundant heather and the lichen Cladonia portentosa. Hare’s-tail cottongrass and cross-leaved heath are frequent, with occasional deergrass, which had all flowered this season.

The cover of Sphagnum was estimated to be less than 5% during the walkover, with the cover of other mosses being greater, covering ~20%. Species include mainly Hypnum jutlandicum, and much rarer Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus and Rhytidiadelphus loreus, as well as Sphagnum capillifolium sl. and Sphagnum subsecundum.

Grazing levels on dwarf shrubs and graminoids was relatively high at 40-50%, with grouse and deer dung observed. However, limited damage to Sphagnum from animals was observed.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area C comprised flattening of the extremities of the grips, and on the wider grips, regular peat dams.

Grip blocks were generally holding water, with the majority of the grips becoming revegetated, as are reprofiled areas.

However, active erosion was observed on some haggs and gullies.

Area D – Unblocked gullies – Control Area (Swiles of Glen Markie)

Habitat and condition observations

The Control Area (D) is located south of Restoration Area C, forming the southern part of The Swiles of Glen Markie. It contains two deep eroding gullies, although it has not been artificially drained with grips. It has not been restored, and is considered to be actively eroding, which is why it is considered to be a suitable Control Area.

The habitat here has closest affinity with M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, being dominated by heather, with scattered cross-leaved heath, hare’s-tail cottongrass and deergrass, bog myrtle and a carpet of Cladonia portentosa dominating among the lichens as well as over bryophytes, with scattered patches of Sphagnum moss making up ~1%, with other mosses including dominant Racomitrium lanuginosum and more occasional to rare Hypnum jutlandicum.

Grazing levels were estimated as being 20-40% of last year’s shoots grazed on dwarf shrubs and graminoids, likely by deer as there was deer dung, and grouse dung observed.

Area E – Relatively unmodified Reference Area (The Scalp)

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (Area E), comprises an area of relatively unmodified bog, located on The Scalp, west of the area of peat cutting along the scalp and further west of a gully network, being itself not actively drained.

The best habitat description is thought to be NVC community M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, due to the abundance or dominance of heather, with Cladonia portentosa also dominant. Hare’s-tail cottongrass is consistently present with low cover, with occasional other dwarf shrubs such as cross-leaved heath and crowberry (Empetrum nigrum). Heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass was all readily flowering. Cloudberry was also observed.

There is patchy coverage of bryophytes and lichens, which is up to 50% in places; Cladonia portentosa is often the most abundant lichen, often 90%. Sphagnum capillifolium sl. dominates over other scattered Sphagna, comprising Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum subnitens with a coverage of ~5% overall.

Grazing levels on dwarf shrubs and graminoids were low – up to 30%, with grouse dung also found.

The Reference Area does not appear to be actively eroding, with no grips or bare peat present, making it a suitable Reference Area.

Area F – Bare peat at base of former peat cutting covered with mulch (The Scalp)

Habitat and condition observations

As per the baseline survey, quadrats were not surveyed in Area F, but a walkover was undertaken to assess the habitat and condition.

This Restoration Area is also located on The Scalp, at the base of a peat cutting area, north of all other Restoration, Reference and Control Areas. It is heather-dominated where vegetation occurs – but is mostly bare peat. Heather was found to be flowering profusely despite this.

Coverage of bryophytes was scattered - ~10% non-Sphagnum mosses and ~1% Sphagnum cover.

Grouse and hare dung was seen in small quantities, and ~40% of last year’s heather shoots were grazed.

Restoration observations

Area F was considered similar to Area B (bare peat basin treated with mulch), and was treated with mulch applied to bare peat.

Large areas of bare peat are still present although it is beginning to vegetate in places with heather, cottongrasses, heath rush and bryophytes.

Active erosion is still occurring in small areas where water flow is eroding peat. Large areas of undisturbed heather brash are still present. Wooden baffles had also been installed in two locations since the previous survey.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure E2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2, and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure E3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure E4 is the NMDS ordination for Edinglassie, visualising the calculation done using three dimensions, as this achieved a stress value of 0.08, which is below 0.1, therefore indicates that this is a good visual representation of the dissimilarities between the communities.

The different Restoration, Control and Reference Areas are shown as different colours; the years as different shapes; and each point represents the community present at each quadrat.

This plot shows that Area B (bare peat treated with mulch) has changed from having very close points showing quadrats that were consistent in terms of composition, and quite different to Restoration Areas A and C, the Control Area (D) and the Reference Area (E), to more scattered points, with many moving closer to the other Areas, therefore becoming more similar, but still with wide variation.

Area A (reprofiled peat cutting) has moved from having scattered points showing a community with some variation, to contracting and moving so it overlaps with other Restoration Areas B and C, and the Control Area (D), showing it has become more similar to those communities and having more consistently between quadrats.

There is much overlap between Restoration Area C, the Control Area (D) and Reference Area (E), meaning they have similar species compositions, and although they all appear to have moved slightly, showing some vegetation changes within quadrats, overall they have moved little and show little change between survey years.

Figure E5 is a stacked bar chart showing the community composition of Edinglassie based on the average percentage cover of species in each Area.

This Figure shows that Area C (with blocked and flattened grips), the Control Area (D) and Reference Area (E) have relatively similar compositions compared to Areas A and B, with all having higher overall percentage cover, which has increased over time.

Indicator species dominate these communities in Restoration Area C, the Control Area (D) and Reference Area (E), and species such as heather and lichen Cladonia portentosa have increased in all, which are discussed below. Other non-indicator species which are present include acrocarpous mosses which have stayed constant in cover in Area D with 4.4% average cover.

Area A has changed to look more similar to Restoration Area C, the Control Area (D) and Reference Area (E), with a notable increase in indicator species like heather (see below), Hypnum jutlandicum (6.1% additional cover) and Hylocomium splendens (9.8% additional cover), and an overall increase in estimated species cover of 51.2%.

Area B, the bare peat basin covered with mulch, has also increased in overall species cover, which in surveyed quadrats, this totalled an additional 22.8% cover on average. The species that increased the most in this Restoration Area were also indicator species – predominantly heather, Hypnum jutlandicum (6.1% cover increase) and Pleurozium schreberi (2.4% cover increase), which are discussed below.

Indicator species

Figure E6 shows the change in indicator species cover over time as the combined average cover of indicator species identified within Edinglassie Restoration, Control and Reference Areas.

This Figure shows that Area A (the reprofiled peat cutting) has had the greatest increase in combined average cover of indicator species between survey years, amounting to 65.5% additional cover, and has moved considerably closer to the Reference Area (E).

The Areas treated with mulch on bare peat (B) and with grips blocked and flattened (C), and Control Area (D) have all also seen an increase in indicator species cover of 18.9%, 30.1% and 32.5% additional cover respectively, with the Reference Area (E) seeing the smallest increase in cover of 8.6% additional cover.

Figure E7 shows a stacked bar chart of the combined average cover of indicator species in each Restoration, Control and Reference Area.

This figure shows that Area C (with blocked and flattened grips), the Control Area (D) and Reference Area (E) are dominated by vascular indicator species heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass, and non-crustose lichen (Cladonia spp. – mainly Cladonia portentosa). Heather cover has increased in these Areas slightly by 7.3%, 3% and 4.3%, respectively, whereas hare’s-tail cottongrass has decreased by 6.5%, 10.2% and 18.9%, respectively. There has also been an increase in cross-leaved heath in the Control Area (D) of 8.3% additional cover, the cover of this species has stayed relatively constant in the Restoration Area C (1% estimated cover increase) and the Reference Area (E).

Sphagnum cover is the greatest in the Reference Area (E), having increased slightly by 4.7% cover between survey years, with no real increase seen in Restoration Area C and the Control Area (D). Sphagnum cover remains low in these Areas, with an average of 3.9% in Area C; 4% in the Control Area (D); and 16.6% in the Reference Area (E), comprising mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum subsecundum.

The reprofiled and patched peat cutting (Area A) has seen an increase in heather, pleurocarpous moss and Cladonia portentosa (43.3%, 16.6% and 7.5% additional cover estimated, respectively). Less dead heather has also been recorded in this Restoration Area compared to other Areas. Cover of Sphagnum moss in this area is just 0.8% on average, although this has increased from 0% recorded in the baseline survey. However, there has been a lack of change in hare’s-tail cottongrass which is notably poorly represented in comparison with Area C, the Control Area (D) and the Reference Area (E).

Indicator species were recorded with slightly higher cover in the bare peat basin covered with mulch (Area B) in the repeat survey, with an increase in cover of heather and pleurocarpous moss of 9.1% and 8.3%, respectively. Sphagnum moss cover in this Restoration Area is the lowest of all Areas, being 0.07% on average, with little change in cover recorded.

Environmental variables

Figure E8 shows the average cover of other environmental variables recorded in each Restoration, Control and Reference Area of Edinglassie.

This figure shows that cover of bare ground has been recorded as the highest in Area B (bare peat treated with mulch) in the baseline and repeat surveys – with an additional 33.1% recorded, constituting 78.3% cover. Litter cover has also remained high here, despite a slight decrease of 2.4%. No value was given for damaged peat in the baseline survey, which has been recorded as being 17.3% on average in the repeat survey. The proportion of damaged bryophytes was estimated at being just 3.3% more than in the baseline survey.

Within Area A (the reprofiled peat cutting), the cover of bare peat has increased by a lesser amount – 8.6% additional cover to become 17.5%, with a reduction in the proportion of damaged bryophytes recorded, of 12.1%. Notably, the cover of litter has also decreased by 26.6% coverage.

In Area C (containing blocked and flattened grips), the Control Area (D) and Reference Area (E), the cover of litter remains low, with a minimal reduction recorded (3% 1.4% and 3.3% less cover, respectively).

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

The Restoration Areas (A, B, and F) are comparable to the Reference Area (E) as they are located near to each other at The Scalp.

The Reference Area (E) is located on an undrained area, which the surveys found has changed the least of all Restoration Areas: with the lowest increase in indicator species cover recorded. Despite most species remaining consistent in cover, the cover of Sphagnum has increased more than Restored Areas A and B, balanced with a decrease in the cover of hare’s-tail cottongrass. As no intervention has happened here, the cause of these changes is unknown, but may indicate influences of sheep grazing or the ceasing of muirburn for grouse management.

Control Area

The Control Area (D) is comparable to Restoration Area C, as they are both located at the Swiles of Glen Markie. The Control Area comprises a grip system in the Swiles of Glen Markie, which has not been treated, and has not changed greatly between survey years. Although its total average cover of indicator species has increased more than Area C. This increase is seen mainly due to Cladonia portentosa and other non-crustose lichens increasing, as well as heather and some cross-leaved heath.  This result highlights a flaw in combining indicator species, as some of the species considered positive indicators, such as Cladonia spp and heather thrive on drier peat. The increase in Cladonia portentosa cover and heather indicate drying of peat, which is likely due to drainage of peat caused by the grips. Despite apparent drying, the persistence of Sphagnum suggests that years of erosion since the baseline survey has not led to severe degradation and vegetation change.

Reprofiled and patched peat cutting

The survey found that the reprofiled former peat cutting at Area A (on The Scalp) had been reprofiled to a shallow angle, with only a few eroding peat haggs evident; and turves of vegetation had established and appeared to be spreading, leaving ~20% bare peat.

The successful placing turves of vegetation has had an immediate impact on the results, with this Area seeing the greatest increase in indicator species cover of all Restored and Reference Areas between survey years, and its community has become more similar to the Reference Area (E), as seen in the NMDS plot. This change appears to be mainly due to the increase in heather cover, becoming the greatest of all Areas; as well as pleurocarpous mosses Hypnum jutlandicum and Hylocomium splendens, and lichen Cladonia portentosa. Although the abundance of these species and lack of Sphagnum and hare’s-tail cottongrass indicates drier peat, their survival and increase in cover shows that the former peat cutting is reprofiled suitably to allow the survival of turves and revegetation.

Despite the success of the turves, more bare peat was recorded in Area A between survey years, which may show that despite layers of vegetation forming where turves are, revegetation has not colonised bare peat much, and some active erosion may be occurring. This Restoration Area is also under threat from Sitka spruce colonisation, and non-native moss Campylopus introflexus is also increasing, as a coloniser of bare peat.

This mixed picture shows that more time is needed for recovery to take place, but may also highlight the need for further intervention to prevent further erosion of bare peat, and promote rewetting to encourage bog specialists.

Bare peat covered with mulch

The bare peat basin covered with mulch at Area B, located on The Scalp, comprises bare peat treated with mulch and subsequently, fencing and wiring. The survey found that it is still dominated by bare peat, which has increased in area since the baseline survey.

It was noted during the walkover that the 2017 remediation treatment to pin down heather brash with mesh and wooden posts, has produced more revegetation than other parts of Area B, which indicates that this stabilises peat and prevents erosion to allow revegetation to occur.

The scattered points on the Area B NMDS plot reflect the variable patches of vegetation that occur among the bare peat, with the lowest increase in indicator species seen of Restored Areas, although still higher than the increase in the Reference Area (E). Indicator species that have increased are heather and pleurocarpous mosses Hypnum jutlandicum and Pleurozium schreberi, with a decrease in the almost-absent Sphagnum moss. This indicates, as has been communicated by Hay (2021, pers. comm.) and Hooper (2021, pers. comm.), that the restoration of Area B has seen limited success, thought to be due to the extreme weather conditions of the site preventing mulch leading to propagation, and showing that this is not a suitable method for this location.

Sitka spruce seedlings were found scattered thinly across Area B, and may present a threat to the bog vegetation if left uncontrolled. Non-native moss Campylopus introflexus was also seen in these Areas.

Area F had also been treated with mulch, as well as the installation of wooden baffles, showed a similar lack of success to Area B. Active erosion is occurring and this Restoration Area is dominated by bare peat. However, some of revegetation is occurring, mainly comprising heather, cottongrasses and heath rush, with pleurocarpous moss dominating over Sphagnum, which has low cover. This suggests that some slow recovery may be occurring, but impacts of restoration are limited and fragile.

Blocked and flattened grips

Area C is located in the Swiles of Glen Markie, and its grips were blocked with peat dams and reprofiled. Most dams were holding water and revegetated, and reprofiled areas were seen to be holding water, although limited active erosion appears to be occurring still.

Area C has a similar species composition to the Control Area (D); being dominated by indicator species heather, which has increased along with cross-leaved heath and pleurocarpous mosses, which have led to an overall increase in indicator species cover. This is still less than the increase seen in the Control Area however, being affected by a decrease in cover of hare’s-tail cottongrass, with Sphagnum moss cover remaining low.

Although restoration including blocking and reprofiling grips appears to be working, this has had limited impact on vegetation, which has changed in ways suggesting the peat is still dry, and no positive changes in peat-forming Sphagna or Eriophorum spp. were seen. This suggests that although the restoration appears to be mostly working, the peat is still too dry to support bog specialists.

Figures E9 - E48

Glen Ey

Site description and summary of past management

Glen Ey is an area of upland blanket bog (650m – 770m altitude, located at approximately ~13km south-west of Braemar village, Aberdeenshire, centrally at NO 0514 8158. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure GE1 showing an overview of the site itself.

It is located within the Cairngorms Massif Special Protection Area (SPA), which is of international importance for its breeding population of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).

The site itself is located at the head of the Ey Burn, and is set within the Cairngorms mountains, which comprise expanses of unenclosed bog and heath, intersected with watercourses, with scattered areas of woodland, generally over 500m altitude.

The site has not been artificially gripped, but erosion has occurred from gullies and haggs and collapsing peat (suggesting peat pipes), across the landscape.

It is currently managed as a sporting estate for species including deer, and subject to burning to maintain grouse populations for shooting (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Restoration measures undertaken

Restoration of the Glen Ey site took place in 2014- 2015, between bouts of bad weather (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).  The areas that were restored have been shown on Figure GE1.

The site was restored in a way that was different to the original Peatland Action funding application and simplified, meaning that restoration implemented was (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016):

• Extensive reprofiling of the gullies and haggs using excavators and subsequent turfing to cover any remaining bare peat – mainly at the base of reprofiled gullies and haggs;
• Covering the existing areas of bare peat with mulch – comprising vegetation from the surrounding blanket bog;
• Peat bunds installed to block some gullies.

A conversation with Mark Nicolson (2021, pers. comm.) established that no works had taken place since the restoration. He judged that reprofiling of haggs and blocking gullies has worked, whereas repairing the bare peat has not worked, with only small patches of heather present on this, thought to be due to extreme weather conditions given the altitude. The transition in vegetation noted has been that bare peat has been colonised by Polytrichum sp., followed by Sphagnum moss.

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, while some restoration treatments were taking place, and before other treatments had been completed. This is detailed in bullet points below.

The repeat survey was undertaken between 10^th – 12^th August 2021 by Principal Ecologist Gordon Haycock CEcol CEnv FCIEEM, Senior Ecologist and Botanist Steven Heaton MSc MCIEEM and Ecologist Robyn Guppy BSc (Hons) ACIEEM.

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure GE2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure GE3.

Restoration, Reference and Control Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. The Areas re-surveyed incorporated 15 quadrats in each, and included three Restoration Areas, two un-restored Control Areas, and a relatively unmodified Reference Area, as listed below:

• Area A – Reprofiled and patched gullies (assessed post-treatment during the baseline survey);
• Area B – Bare peat trough reprofiled and covered with mulch (assessed pre-treatment during the baseline survey);
• Area C – Gully sides reprofiled and covered with mulch (assessed pre-treatment during the baseline survey );
• Area D – Relatively unmodified bog – Reference Area;
• Area E – Untreated peat haggs and gullies – Control Area; and
• Area F – Untreated peat haggs and gullies – additional Control Area.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table GE1), and the description for each Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table GE1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for relative abundance in Area A, B, C (reprofiled haggs and gullies, peat trough, and gully sides), D (Reference Area) and E and F (Control Areas).

Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D	Area E	Area F
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	A	A	A	D	A	D
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	A	D	A	F	A	A
Deergrass	Trichophorum germanicum	F	O	R	O	F	O
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	R	O	LF/O	R	R	R
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	O	-	R	R	R	R
Cloudberry	Rubus chamaemorus	R	R	R	R	R	R
Heath rush	Juncus squarrosus	R	R	LD/O	-	R	-
Star sedge	Carex echinata	R	R	LA/O	-	-	-
Bilberry	Vaccinium myrtillus	R	-	R	R	-	R
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	R	-	-	-	R	-
Cowberry	Vaccinium vitis-idaea	-	-	-	R	-	R
Mat-grass	Nardus stricta	-	-	LF/O	-	-	-

 Non-vascular plants

Acrocarpous moss	Racomitrium lanuginosum	O	F	O	O	O	O
Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	A	-	O	O	O	F
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	O	R	R	A	O	A
Non-crustose lichen	Cladonia portentosa	R	R	R	O	R	O
Pleurocarpous moss	Hylocomium splendens	R	-	R	F	-	F
Pleurocarpous moss	Rhytidiadelphus loreus	R	-	R	R	-	R
Acrocarpous moss	Dicranum scoparium	R	-	-	R	-	R

Area A – Reprofiled haggs and gullies (assessed post-treatment during the baseline survey)

Habitat and condition observations

Area A comprises a linear area along a ~20m network of gullies and haggs, north of other surveyed Restoration, Control and Reference Areas, east of Carn a’ Butha.

The habitat present is considered to have closest affinity with NVC community M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, being dominated by heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass, with frequent deergrass and occasional crowberry.

There is a low moss cover - ~25% with mainly Racomitrium lanuginosum and Pleurozium schreberi, and <5% Sphagnum moss cover – mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., accompanied by rarer Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum denticulatum. Cladonia portentosa is rare in this Restoration Area.

The non-native moss Campylopus introflexus has ~5% cover.

Hare, grouse and deer dung were all seen, with abundant deer prints observed, with an estimated 20-40% of last year’s heather shoots browsed. Deer prints were also noted on the limited Sphagnum cover.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area A comprised reprofiling gullies to a shallower angle (40-45°), and patching the bank with turves of vegetation from overhanging areas. Occasional peat bunds have also been installed at the heads of the gullies, but which are outside the Restoration Area.

During the survey, it could not be ascertained whether vegetation is recolonising and it is considered that turves have not successfully established.

Furthermore, there is evidence of active erosion in the patches of bare peat and gullies.

It was noted that gully blocking is working up the slope, with <50cm deep pools behind, although one dam was observed as having failed.

Area B – Reprofiled bare peat trough (assessed pre-treatment during the baseline survey)

Habitat and condition observations

Area B is located just south of Area A, further following the gully network to encompass an expanse of bare peat at the base of two gullies, on gently sloping topography.

M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ is considered to best describe the vegetation community that was found here, which was again dominated by flowering heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass. Deergrass was scattered throughout and cloudberry was also seen. Wavy hair-grass, heath rush and heath bedstraw were among other rare vascular plants identified.

Moss cover constituted less than 5%, and was dominated by non-Sphagnum mosses including Racomitrium lanuginosum, Pleurozium schreberi and Polytrichum commune, which were all scattered in small quantities. Sphagnum mosses identified include Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum subnitens.

Grouse dung and red deer hoof prints were seen, with grazing levels considered to be comparatively high compared to Area A – the reprofiled haggs and gullies, comprising ~60% last year’s heather shoots grazed. Damage to Sphagnum and other impacts of due to grazing animals was also apparent – with sheep tracks appearing to exacerbate erosion.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area B included previous reprofiling of the confluence of the two gullies to a shallower angle (~45⁰), which had also been bunded along the southern edge – which formed a trough. The baseline survey observed that vegetation turves produced during reprofiling had been placed at the base of the east-facing banks of the trough, and upper parts of this were covered with mulch from vegetation harvested from intact blanket bog.

The 2021 survey found that the gully is actively draining, with lots of bare peat still present, which is all actively eroding. The vegetation outside of the gully is not in bad condition, however, some bunds have been breached. The gully is still too steep and wide for the bunds to function as intended, which is why active erosion is occurring.

Overall, it appears that turves and mulch applied have not been successful, as there was no sign of recolonisation of vegetation.

Area C – Reprofiled gully sides (baseline pre-treatment)

Habitat and condition observations

Area C also comprised a ~200m long linear expanse stretching from Restoration Areas A and B, along the gully system, where bare peat on the upper part of the gully sides were sampled.

Habitats present include that best described as NVC community M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ on the sides and tops around the gully, which contained abundant flowering heather, and hare’s-tail cottongrass, with locally frequent to occasional common cottongrass, and patches of heath rush, bulbous rush (Juncus bulbosus), mat-grass (Nardus stricta), star sedge and bent-grasses (Agrostis spp.).

Bryophytes made up ~40% cover, estimated during the walkover, comprising mainly pleurocarpous mosses with scattered Sphagna limited to mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Sphagnum denticulatum and rare Sphagnum papillosum.

Hare and grouse dung were observed, with approximately ~40-60% of last year’s heather shoots browsed, and limited trampling was observed on Sphagnum.

Restoration observations

Area C had been restored by reprofiling the gully to a shallow angle ~45⁰, and patching the base of the banks along part of the length, and covering the rest with mulch obtained from intact bog vegetation.

The survey observed that the sides of the gully are actively eroding and flowing water is present (such that the surveyor referred to the gully as a ‘burn’). Large patches of bare peat are present, in particular at the top of the banks, with turves of vegetation at the base of the slope and bare peat above it, and no evidence that the mulch applied has led to propagation. The angle of the banks appeared to be the same as in the photographs taken during the baseline survey, and active erosion still appears to be occurring.

Two dams were observed to be holding ~40cm deep water, although a small number of failed gully blocks were also observed. Not many dams were evident – which is not known whether this is the number that were installed or if they have been washed away entirely.

Area D – Relatively unmodified bog – Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (D) is located far west of surveyed Restoration Areas, on a limited patch of relatively unmodified bog that has not been artificially drained, but represents an island surrounded by gullies.

The vegetation comprised mainly heather, hare’s-tail cottongrass, with occasional deergrass, cloudberry, bilberry and crowberry, best described as the NVC community M19c ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, Vaccinium vitis-idaea – Hylocomium splendens sub-community’. There was evidence of hare’s-tail cottongrass flowering and heather was in flower during the survey.

Bryophytes were dominated by non-Sphagnum mosses – predominantly Hylocomium splendens, making up over 50%, with Ptilidium ciliare and very occasional Barbilophozia floerkei, Racomitrium lanuginosum and Dicranum scoparium. Sphagna were limited to <5% cover, made up by Sphagnum capillifolium ssp. rubellum.

A range of Cladonia species were found, with Cladonia portentosa being the most common.

Similar to Restoration Areas - grouse droppings, red deer and also hare dung were present. Heather showed signs of heavy grouse grazing, to >50% of last year’s shoots.

Considering the relatively unmodified nature of this bog and the level-ground it sits on, the peat surface was found to be remarkably dry and lacking in Sphagnum spp. Nevertheless, there is no active peat erosion visible in the Reference Area. It is suspected that underground peat pipes drain it and issue downslope initiating gullies. These will likely erode back and cause hagging in this Area in due course.

However, this part of the bog would be regarded as being in good condition based on vegetation present.

Area E – Untreated peat haggs and gullies – Control Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Control Area (E) is located south-east of the Restoration Areas, south of Allt an Stuic Ghiubhais, comprising a gully system that has not been restored as it is outside of the four ‘Sections’ identified in the Restoration Plan. It is considered to contain habitats attributable to M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ and M15 ‘Scirpus cespitosus - Erica tetralix wet heath’, and is very eroded with bare peat down to mineral in places.

Vascular plants include abundant hare’s-tail cottongrass and heather, with frequent deergrass and rare cloudberry.

Moss cover overall is <5%, with non-Sphagnum moss dominated by Pleurozium schreberi, with some Racomitrium lanuginosum, Polytrichum commune and Plagiothecium undulatum. Sphagnum moss makes up less than 1% cover, with species recorded including Sphagnum tenellum and Sphagnum papillosum.

Hare and grouse dung was scattered across the site, and as with Restoration and Control Areas, heather has been moderately grazed, with ~40-60% last year’s shoots grazed.

The sides of peat slopes were found to be actively eroding, and water was flowing down the gully, however, no artificial grips are present.

Area F - Untreated peat haggs and gullies – additional Control Area

Habitat and condition observations

Additional Control Area (Area F) comprises a gully system located to the south-west of Restoration Areas A- C. It consists of two parallel north-west facing gullies and associated haggs, with smaller haggs between; these have steep slopes ~80° had overhanging mats of vegetation.  Less steep slopes comprised bare peat with very little vegetation.

The community which best describes vegetation is the NVC community M19c ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, Vaccinium vitis-idaea – Hylocomium splendens sub-community’, dominated by heather, with abundant hare’s-tail cottongrass. Deergrass is occasional, and cloudberry, crowberry and bilberry are rare. These plants had evidence of previous or current flowering.

Bryophytes include much Sphagnum capillifolium ssp. rubellum with occasional Sphagnum papillosum; pleurocarpous mosses – mainly Pleurozium schreberi dominate the remainder, to create 100% bryophyte coverage. At the top of peat haggs there is evidence of drying out with an increase in Racomitrium lanuginosum, Cladonia spp., and where haggs are stable, a mat of small liverworts.

Creeping willow (Salix repens) and dwarf birch (Betula nana) are both scattered sporadically within this Additional Control Area.

Red deer hoof prints were observed, and grouse droppings, red deer and hare dung was present. Heather showed signs of heavy grouse grazing. Dwarf birch was seen growing back strongly after winter grazing by red deer.

Restoration observations

The baseline survey sampled this Additional Control Area prior to restoration with the assumption that similar restoration would take place as Restoration Areas A- C. However, this does not appear to have happened, with reprofiling not evident, and actively eroding turves and active erosion estimated on ~90% of the haggs. Hence why this is being treated as an Additional Control Area for Areas A – C.

Overall, the area has approximately 60% bare peat, both peat haggs, areas of bare peat and evidence of mass movement of peat. Several watercourses eroded to the mineral layer are present, with peat pipes issuing in places. However, there is no evidence of artificial drainage.

Deer hoof prints were also seen in bare peat patches using haggs as routes through the area.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure GE2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

The baseline data contained rows with no species recorded in as the quadrat was entirely bare peat:

• Area B, quadrats 4, 5, 6, and 10.

In the repeat survey, quadrats that were entirely bare peat were:

• Area B quadrat 2;
• Area C quadrat 12;
• Area E quadrats 7 and 11; and
• Area F quadrat 6.

This will be taken into account in the interpretation.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as figures below, with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure GE3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure GE4 is the NMDS plot for Glen Ey, calculated in three dimensions as the stress value for this is 0.1, which means that the ordination is a reasonable representation of the dissimilarities between communities.

This plot shows that of all surveyed Areas, the Reference Area (D) has the most consistent community in the baseline and repeat surveys.  There is a lot of overlap between the rest of the Restoration and Control Areas, which all have scattered points, which appear generally to have moved in a similar direction towards the Reference Area (D), but which represent much variation in their vegetation communities.

Figure GE5 shows the average percentage cover of all species recorded in Glen Ey. Unlike all other surveyed sites in this study, Glen Ey had such consistently low cover of most species that similar species with less than 1% cover were grouped together, as opposed to <5% for other sites. This has produced large species lists for the range of species grouped together.

This figure shows that the very low total cover of species in Restoration Areas B and C, and Control Areas E and F have increased in all of these Areas between survey years, with an estimated 13%, 35%, 34.5% and 9.3% additional cover, respectively. This is mainly due to the increase in the indicator species heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass, which are discussed in the section below.

Area A, where haggs and gullies have been reprofiled, has maintained a similar species composition to the baseline year, which comprises mostly heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass, but has seen a slight decrease in average total cover of these species, notably from the reduced indicator species deergrass and Pleurozium schreberi (7.8% less cover).

The Reference Area (D) is dominated by heather, and has the greatest species cover of all Areas, which has seen an increase in cover between survey years. This again is due to the increase in cover of indicator species heather, Pleurozium schreberi (21.2% additional cover) and Hylocomium splendens (28.2% additional cover).

Indicator species

Figure GE6 shows the sum of the average percentage cover of indicator species, and their change over time.

This figure shows that the total cover of average indicator species has increased most in the Reference Area (D), (an additional 50.6% cover recorded). This is followed by the Control Area (E) with a cover increase of 32.8%; the Restoration Area C (comprising reprofiled gully sides) with a 26.8% cover increase, Restoration Area B (reprofiled peat trough) by 10.1% and Additional Control Area F by 7.5%. Area A, with its reprofiled haggs and gullies is the only Area which has seen a slight decrease of 5.9% average cover.

Figure GE7 shows the average cover of indicator species recorded in each Restoration, Control and Reference Area within the site, as a stacked bar chart.

This figure shows that the average cover of indicator species in Restoration Areas B and C, and Control Areas E and F have increased from being very limited in cover. This increase comprises the estimated increased cover of hare’s-tail cottongrass (6.7%, 9.2%, 9.1% and 2% additional cover, respectively); and of heather (1.7%, 8.5%, 14% and 1.9% additional cover).

Sphagnum cover has increased the most in Area C (containing reprofiled gully sides), by 4.1%, followed by Control Area E, (an additional 3.2% cover); whereas this has increased by a minimal amount in Control Area F (1.4%) and no real change was seen in the reprofiled peat trough in Area B (0.1% additional cover estimated). Species which have increased, comprise Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Sphagnum cuspidatum and Sphagnum papillosum.

The overall slight decrease in indicator species in Area A (containing reprofiled haggs and gullies) comprises a combination of an increase in heather (of 10.8% cover) and similar levels of hare’s-tail cottongrass; contrasting with a decrease in deergrass (of 10.7% cover). Sphagnum spp. has increased in estimated cover by 8.2% – namely Sphagnum capillifolium sl., with some Sphagnum cuspidatum and less Sphagnum denticulatum, Sphagnum fallax, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum subnitens.

The Reference Area (D) has the greatest cover of all indicator species, which in total have increased as a result of a mainly pleurocarpous moss increase (of 47.3% cover) and heather (17% additional cover); while hare’s-tail cottongrass has changed very little (slight decrease of 1.7%). No real change has been seen in the cover of Sphagnum spp., with a 0.5% estimated decrease in cover recorded.

Environmental variables

Figure GE8 shows the average percentage covers of environmental variables recorded for each Restored, Reference and Control Area as a bar chart.

This figure shows that the cover of bare ground remains dominant in Restoration Areas B and C (containing reprofiled bare peat trough and gully sides, respectively), and Control Areas E and F. Bare peat cover has decreased in Areas C and E, with a reduction in cover of 16.7% and 22.2%, respectively; whereas it has remained relatively constant in Areas B (0.8% estimated increase) and F (0.9% estimated increase). Damaged peat has not been recorded in the baseline survey, but the majority of this bare peat was damaged in Areas B, C, E and F.

Less open water has been recorded in Area B in the repeat survey (a reduction in cover of 10.7%).

In Area A (containing reprofiled haggs and gullies) the cover of bryophyte damage was recorded as being higher in the repeat survey, with an increase in cover of 8.3% estimated, but damaged peat and litter cover were both lower.

Of the variables recorded, the Reference Area (D) had a relatively constant cover of litter, with just a 1.7% cover increase estimated.

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

The Reference Area (D) is located far-west of the Restoration Areas (A, B and C), on an island of unmodified bog surrounded by gullies. This context could provide an explanation as despite the Reference Area being in ‘good’ condition overall with the greatest cover of overall species and indicator species, it was notably dry, and dominated by pleurocarpous mosses and Racomitrium lanuginosum, with low cover of Sphagnum, which had decreased slightly between surveys. Peat-forming hare’s-tail cottongrass has also decreased on average.

Although the greatest increase of indicator species cover was seen in this Area, this is due to an increase in pleurocarpous moss and heather, which thrive in drier peats, suggesting that this Area is being drained, possibly by peat pipes, which will lead to its degradation into the future.

Control Areas

Control Area (E), located far south-east of the Restoration Areas, (A, B and C), contains actively eroding gullies that have not been restored.

Despite this, Area E has shown positive changes in terms of its vegetation, compared with Restoration Areas: it had a greater increase in overall species cover compared to Areas B and C, and the second-greatest increase in indicator species and Sphagnum cover of Restored, Reference and Control Areas. The indicator species increase seen was due to this Sphagnum increase, as well as heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass. This may show that changes in management such as lighter grazing pressure from deer or sheep, climatic or other factors are leading to changes in vegetation, although the cause is not clear.

The Additional Control Area (F) does not appear to have been restored, as was initially planned, with observations on site being of steep-sided eroding gullies, dominated by bare peat.

The cover of indicator species in this Additional Control Area increased by the lowest percentage cover of all Areas, having the second-lowest increase in Sphagnum cover of all. This shows that without any restoration treatment, existing gullies will continue to drain peat, causing erosion and preventing the spread of bog specialist indicator species.

Peat haggs, gullies and bare peat basin reprofiled, patched and covered in mulch

The surveys at Glen Ey focus on a system of gullies and haggs that have been restored, where Area A, B and C are located. These Restoration Areas have been restored by reprofiling haggs and gullies to a shallow angle, placing turves at the base of these features, and covering the remaining bare peat areas with mulch from the surrounding intact blanket bog. Peat bunds have also been installed at Area A and B.

At Area A, which is a system of peat haggs and gullies, bunding appeared to be working in places, but active erosion was evident elsewhere, with bare peat having increased since the baseline survey. Although erosion features have been reprofiled to a shallow angle, turves of vegetation do not appear to have taken, and there is no evidence of propagation from the mulch; the overall cover of indicator species has decreased slightly between survey years, with a noticeable reduction in the cover of pleurocarpous mosses recorded, as well as deergrass.

However, in Area A, cover of heather and Sphagnum moss has increased, including peat-forming Sphagnum capillifolium sl., suggesting that restoration and some water retention by bunds is having a positive impact in places. Although, evidence of grazing and deer damage on vegetation such as Sphagnum may be limiting its success. The results are too mixed to draw firm conclusions, but it is clear that the mulching and even the application of turves are not appropriate methods for the high altitude and extreme weather conditions.

Area B is an area of bare peat at the base of the gully system. It was noted in the walkover survey that although some bunds are holding back water here, others have been breached, with active erosion occurring and bare peat dominant, comprising the majority of the Restoration Area. It was judged that the reprofiled gullies are still too steep to allow revegetation, or for bunds to be effective here. Impacts caused by herbivores were concentrated the most in this Area, with sheep tracks appearing to exacerbate erosion.

The condition of Area B is reflected in the figures – with the disparate points in the NMDS plot reflecting the high proportion of bare ground and absence of most species in the quadrats, with only occasional species present. Despite this, the average cover of indicator species has increased, albeit by the second-lowest difference compared with other Restoration, Reference and Control Areas. This change comprises an increase in heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass, on the turves that have survived since restoration. Sphagna remain almost absent, with no material change seen in cover. These results show that reprofiling has not stabilised the bare peat trough, with bunding unable to contain water on such an active system, and active erosion preventing revegetation.

Area C comprises reprofiled and patched gully sides as part of the above system. During the survey, these were found to be steep-sided despite apparent reprofiling, with little vegetation at the top of the banks, and active erosion occurring. This is reflected in the vegetation although improvements have been seen in the quadrats including an overall increase in vegetation cover, which show that some turves have survived and expanded. There has been some movement towards the Reference Area in the NMDS plot, although there is great variation between quadrats due to the amount of bare ground and patchy vegetation. The indicator species have increased by a similar amount to the Control Area however, with the second-greatest Sphagnum increase recorded – higher than the Reference Area, which indicates some success. Overall, it appears that some survival and spreading of vegetation is occurring, although this may be limited by the steep gully sides and ongoing erosion.

Figures GE9 - GE42

Glenmullie

Site description and summary of past management

Glenmullie is a ~170ha area of upland blanket bog within the Cairngorms National Park, located ~3.5km east of the village of Tomintoul, Morayshire, located centrally at NJ 2121 1874. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure GM1 showing an overview of the site itself.

The site is not subject to any statutory nature conservation designations but is part of the River Spey catchment, which itself is an SAC.

The site is situated mostly on the south-west face of the summit of an unnamed mountain (588m altitude), accessible by a track to the Breac Leathad transmitter, and surrounded by unenclosed upland habitats, with coniferous plantation woodlands in patches to the north, west and south.

The site has suffered historically from artificial drainage grips, as well as peat cutting and areas of bare peat in the north, leading to active erosion and networks of gullies and haggs.

A peat depth survey found that the peat depth varied between 2.0m- 4.3m above 550m in the north of the site, where the habitat was M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ with abundant Cladonia portentosa, whereas in the peat cuttings and areas of bare peat, peat depth was between 0.2- 0.3m. Peat depth in the drained area was between 0.2m- 2.3m, with most below 1m (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

The site is currently managed as a shooting estate, as well as being under an agricultural tenancy and subject to sheep grazing (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

Ongoing monitoring of the site includes an automated water level logger at four locations across the hill installed in 2015 and monitored by NatureScot (Peatland Action, 2021).

Restoration measures undertaken

The Restoration Areas at Glenmullie were restored in a range of ways during winter 2014/2015, with these shown on Figure GM1.

Although no restoration report was available, a summary of restoration techniques employed are below (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016):

• Reprofiling the former peat cuttings, haggs and gullies and subsequent patching with turves;
• Blocking grips with peat dams; and
• Covering flat areas of bare peat and reprofiled haggs with mulch or heather brash harvested on the site.

Some conifer removal had also taken place prior to the baseline survey.  At the time of the repeat survey, the estate was also intending on removing spruce regeneration from the restoration site (Johnston, 2021, pers. comm.).

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2015, after the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey at Glenmullie was undertaken between 16^th – 18^th August 2021 by Senior Ecologist and Botanist Steven Heaton MSc MCIEEM and Ecologist Robyn Guppy BSc (Hons) ACIEEM.

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure GM2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure GM3.

Restoration and Reference Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. The Areas which were identified and surveyed in the baseline survey and subsequently re-surveyed, incorporated 15 quadrats in each, and included five Restoration Areas and an Area used to supply brash and mulch for restoration:

• Area A - Former peat cutting reprofiled and covered in mulch;
• Area B – Steep-sided peat hagg covered in mulch;
• Area C – Bare peat covered in mulch;
• Area D – Grips in degraded blanket bog blocked with peat dams;
• Area E – Grips in dry blanket bog blocked with peat dams; and
• Area F – Area mown for mulch/heather brash.

As no relatively unmodified Reference Area had been surveyed during the baseline survey, an additional area was identified based on observations made on site, of un-drained unmodified bog, close to the other Areas, and approved by the land manager (Page, 2021, pers. comm.). As such, the following Reference Area was additionally surveyed with 15 quadrats and according to the Methodology:

• Area G – Relatively unmodified Reference Area.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table GM1), and the description for each Restoration and Reference Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

Table GM1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for relative abundance in Area A (reprofiled peat cutting), B, C (treated with mulch),D, E (grips blocked), F (mown for mulch) and G (Reference Area). Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C	Area D	Area E	Area F	Area G
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	A	A	LA / F	A	A	A	A
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	A	F	LA / F	A	A	F	F
Heath rush	Juncus squarrosus	R	R	O	R	R	F	F
Common cottongrass	Eriophorum angustifolium	O	R	LF/O	R	R	R	R
Crowberry	Empetrum nigrum	O	R	LF / R	R	R	R	R
Sitka spruce	Picea sitchensis	R	R	R	R	O	R	R
Cross-leaved heath	Erica tetralix	R	-	-	R	-	R	R

Table GM1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for relative abundance in Area A (reprofiled peat cutting), B, C (treated with mulch),D, E (grips blocked), F (mown for mulch) and G (Reference Area). Non-vascular plants

Sphagnum moss	Sphagnum capillifolium sl.	LA/O	R	R	A	R	F	F
Pleurocarpous moss	Hylocomium splendens	R	R	R	F	A	F	F
Pleurocarpous moss	Pleurozium schreberi	F	O	O	O	F	O	R
Non-crustose lichen	Cladonia portentosa	O	R	R	R		R	R

Area A – Former peat cutting reprofiled and covered with mulch

Habitat and condition observations

Area A is located across an access track leading into a transmitter, and follows patches of bare peat from a former peat cutting, which mostly faces south, although the far-eastern section faces west.

The habitat present is best described by the NVC community M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ community- dominated by heather, with hare’s-tail cottongrass common in places, both of which were observed to be flowering. Crowberry, common cottongrass and cross-leaved heath were also scattered.

Moss cover was estimated at 10%, comprising mostly pleurocarpous mosses such as Pleurozium schreberi, with ~1% Sphagnum, mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. Additional species in low quantities include Polytrichum commune, Plagiothecium undulatum and Rhytidiadelphus loreus. Cladonia portentosa is also occasionally present.

There was abundant evidence of hare, with hare and grouse dung observed, and limited trampling on Sphagnum. However, grazing on these were not obvious, with levels of grazing estimated at <1% last year’s shoots grazed. Deer dung was not seen.

Restoration observations

Area A was restored by reprofiling the peat cutting bank to ~30°, and partially revegetating it with turves of vegetation produced by reprofiling, as well as from borrow pits from intact bog. Remaining bare patches were covered with mulch from vegetation at the base of the cutting bank.

The survey found that there is significant weathering and drying of peat on haggs where bare peat is still exposed, producing active erosion.

Conifers are also still present in low numbers.

Area B – Steep-sided peat hagg covered with mulch

Habitat and condition observations

Area B comprises a north-west-facing peat hagg, which lines the access track into the site. The slope of this hagg was between 30° and 50°, with the top standing 2.5m - 3.0m above the track. Two lengths of hagg were sampled, which were separated by a flat area of peat cutting.

Bare peat made up ~25% cover, with the remaining being patches of heather-dominated vegetation, with associated hare’s-tail cottongrass, rare heath rush, crowberry and Scots pine seedlings forming the limited vascular plant community. This vegetation had closest affinity with the M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ NVC community.

Bryophytes present formed ~10-15% of the cover, and comprised mainly Pleurozium schreberi, Hylocomium splendens, Aulacomnium palustre, Polytrichum juniperinum and Polytrichum commune. Sphagna comprised less than 1% cover, of predominantly Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum capillifolium ssp. capillifolium, Sphagnum fallax and Sphagnum denticulatum. Lichen coverage was dominated by Cladonia portentosa, which itself had limited cover.

Hare and grouse dung were seen, and grouse were present during the survey. Grazing levels on last year’s dwarf shrub and graminoid shoots were estimated at 20-30%.

Restoration observations

Restoration in Area B entailed application of mulch and heather brash on the bare peat between patches of vegetation. 

The survey found that most of the bare peat is not currently actively eroding except on some steep slopes. In addition, some patches are revegetating where there had been application of brash.

Sitka spruce is also regenerating from nearby plantation woodland, which may present a problem in the future.

Area C – Bare peat covered with mulch

Habitat and condition observations

Area C is a relatively flat (0-10⁰) expanse of bare peat, at the base of the peat cutting of Area A, with surveys focussed on patches of bare peat, as opposed to patches of established vegetation.

Vegetation is best described by its affinity with the M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’ NVC community, with dominant heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass consistently present and flowering, as well as crowberry, and other sedges (Carex spp.), common cottongrass and rushes (Juncus spp.) (e.g., heath rush) occasionally present.

The walkover estimated 5-10% moss cover, of which <1% is Sphagnum moss. Non-Sphagnum moss present includes mainly Hypnum jutlandicum, Campylopus flexuosus, and of Sphagnum mosses, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum subnitens were recorded.

Sitka spruce seedlings constitute ~2% of this Restoration Area.

Hare and grouse dung were observed, and ~20 - 30% of last year’s heather shoots had been browsed.

Restoration observations

Area C had been restored through application of mulch and heather brash to patches of bare peat.

It was observed during the survey that most of the bare peat appears to be stable, although active erosion may still be occurring on the steepest haggs and on flat ground where running water is present.

Hare’s-tail cottongrass and Sphagnum species are beginning to colonise some patches of the bare peat, however the majority of bare peat is still unvegetated.

Sitka spruce seedlings are also still present in this Restoration Area.

Area D – Grips in degraded blanket bog blocked with peat dams

Habitat and condition observations

Area D lies south-west of Restoration Areas A-C, also beside the access track and close to a coniferous plantation to the south-west. This Restoration Area is part of the drained section of the site.

The habitat present is dominated by abundant flowering heather as well as hare’s-tail cottongrass, occasional heath rush and rare cross-leaved heath, common cottongrass and round-leaved sundew. It has closest affinity therefore with NVC community M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’.

Bryophyte cover is estimated at ~80%, comprising mainly non-Sphagnum mosses such as Hylocomium splendens, Hypnum jutlandicum and Pleurozium schreberi; with rare Sphagnum moss (~1%) such as Sphagnum capillifolium sl., and scattered Sphagnum denticulatum, Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum palustre in similarly low quantities. Cladonia portentosa is the most abundant lichen, also scattered across this Restoration Area.

Tree colonisation is also occurring, with widespread Sitka spruce regeneration throughout.

A small amount of grouse and hare dung was found, and grazing levels on heather comprised ~20% of last year’s shoots.

Restoration observations

Area D had been restored by installing peat dams on drainage grips, approximately every 10m.

All of the peat dams on one of the blocked grips were inspected, and were holding water well, with a depth in excess of 40cm, and no grip blocks had noticeably overtopped or failed. Sphagnum moss was noted colonising pools.

Area E – Grips in dry blanket bog blocked with peat dams

Habitat and condition observations

Area E is located south of Restoration Areas A- D, within a part of the drained section of the site. The habitat was drier here, and heather dominated, along with hare’s-tail cottongrass, with scattered wavy hair-grass, crowberry and bilberry. As such, it is also best described as M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’.

Cover of bryophytes was estimated at being ~80%, dominated by ~60% non-Sphagnum mosses and ~5% Sphagnum moss. This includes mostly Hylocomium splendens, with low cover of Pleurozium schreberi, Ptilidium ciliare, Plagiothecium undulatum, Campylopus spp. and Rhytidiadelphus loreus. 

Sphagna comprised Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum subnitens and Sphagnum fallax.

The cover of non-native Campylopus introflexus was estimated at being ~0.01%.

Colonisation of this Restoration Area by Sitka spruce amounted to ~5% cover.

Deer trails were observed within Area E, which has caused trampling of Sphagnum, with a small amount of grouse dung. However, grazing was not noticeable within the Area, therefore is estimated at being <1% last year’s shoots grazed.

Restoration observations

As with Area D, this Restoration Area had been restored by installing peat dams on drainage grips, approximately every 10m.

All of the peat dams on one of the blocked grips were inspected and were holding water well at a depth in excess of 40cm. No dams had obviously been overtopped or failed, and Sphagnum moss was found to be colonising in pools.

No erosion features are present.

Revegetation was also observed on small patches of bare peat that remain (potential from borrow pits using in the creation of the dams), by heather, wavy hair-grass and bryophytes.

Area F – Area mown for mulch/heather brash

Habitat and condition observations

Area F comprises an area close to the track in the north of the site, which had been mown to provide mulch for the restoration of the other Restoration Areas, to monitor its recovery.

The surveys found that the habitat present is best described as M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’, being heather- dominant, with frequent hare’s-tail cottongrass, heath rush, and occasional wavy hair-grass, crowberry, carnation sedge and common sedge.

Bryophyte coverage was estimated at ~50%, comprising mainly pleurocarpous mosses such as Hylocomium splendens, as well as Polytrichum commune and Polytrichum juniperinum with occasional other Sphagnum – predominantly Sphagnum capillifolium sl., followed by Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum fallax.

Unlike other Areas, no tree colonisation was apparent.

Hare and grouse dung were also seen in this Area, and approximately 20% of the last year’s growth of heather had been grazed.

Area G – Relatively unmodified Reference Area

Habitat and condition observations

The Reference Area (G) was selected as a relatively unmodified Reference Area, which had not suffered peat cutting, hagging, drainage or burning that Restoration Areas had. This is located to the north of the access track.

The habitat present here comprised heather-dominated vegetation, with hare’s-tail cottongrass, cross-leaved heath and heath rush frequent and occasional deergrass and rarer bilberry and round-leaved sundew. The community is best described by NVC community M19 ‘Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire’.

Sphagnum capillifolium sl. dominates the moss cover, with total Sphagnum cover at around 60%, where it is accompanied by Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum subnitens. Other mosses constitute mainly Hylocomium splendens and occasional Pleurozium schreberi.

Sitka spruce is colonising the Reference Area, making up an estimated 1% cover.

Deer, hare and grouse dung were observed, and grazing levels on predominantly heather comprises ~20% cover.

Despite that the Reference Area had not been artificially cut or drained, patches of bare peat were identified.

Quadrat results

The locations of quadrats and location of notable observations are shown on Figure GM2, with full results from quadrat surveys provided in Annex 2 and illustrated in the section below.

Fixed-point and additional photographs

Fixed-point and additional photographs are provided as Figures below with their details such as location, compass bearing and description at Annex 2 and their location illustrated on Figure GM3.

Statistical analysis

Community composition

Figure GM4 shows the NMDS plot for the Restoration Areas at Glenmullie, showing each Restoration and Reference Area as a different colour; each point representing the community at each quadrat; and the shape of the point showing the survey year. This ordination represents a calculation done in three dimensions, with a stress value of 0.13. This is close to 0.1, showing that it is a reasonable and acceptable representation of this ordination, whereas that trialled in two dimensions was 0.17 – closer to 0.2 which is not as representative an ordination – hence the calculation in three dimensions was chosen.

In the repeat survey, quadrat 6 in Area D (grips blocked with peat) had no species recorded, therefore this row of data had to be deleted for this analysis, and this will be considered in the interpretation section.

This plot shows that Areas B (peat hagg covered with mulch), D and F (the mown area) have moved slightly in the direction of the Reference Area (G), showing more similarities with this over time, with the points of Area D in the repeat survey being closer together, showing they have become more similar than in the baseline year.

The vegetation community in Area E (grips blocked with peat) appears to have remained relatively constant between survey years, with the points grouped more tightly for the 2021 data, showing some reduction in variation between quadrats.

Areas A (reprofiled peat cutting) and C (bare peat covered with mulch) do not appear to have moved towards the Reference Area (G), and also have more dissimilar quadrats within them.

The Reference Area (G) is not comparable over both the years as it was only surveyed during the repeat survey.

Figure GM5 shows a stacked bar chart of the average species covers of all found within the Areas, with similar species grouped where they have below 5% cover.

The overall average cover of species recorded has increased in Areas B and C (restored with mulch spreading), and mown Area F. Whereas the total average cover of species has decreased in Restoration Areas A (reprofiled peat cutting), D and E (grips blocked with peat), with no between-year comparison possible for the Reference Area (G).

The majority of Restoration and Reference Areas are similar in that they comprise mainly heather, but have variable proportions and presence of other species – which are mainly indicator species and are discussed below.

In Area D, where grips were blocked with peat dams, the indicator species of bryophyte Sphagnum capillifolium sl., Pleurozium schreberi and Hypnum jutlandicum share around 10% cover each, with the former two decreasing in cover by 4.1% and 14.1%, respectively, with Hypnum jutlandicum increasing by 2.7% cover.

Pleurocarpous moss Pleurozium schreberi makes up a large proportion of bryophyte cover in all Areas except the Reference Area (G), also increasing in Areas B and C (covered with mulch) by 8.8% and 6.2% additional cover, respectively, while decreasing also in Area A (the reprofiled peat cutting) by 3.5% on average.

Hylocomium splendens is another pleurocarpous moss which makes up 11% cover in Area E (grips blocked with peat), and is also frequent in most Restoration and Reference Areas. In Area E, this species was recorded with an additional 2.9% in the repeat survey, and Hypnum jutlandicum with an additional 3.1% cover. Of vascular non-indicator species, the cover of wavy hair-grass has reduced, with 33.5% less cover recorded in the repeat survey.

Area F, which was mown to provide mulch for restoration in other Areas, is different to all other Areas in that it contains a high proportion of non-indicator species, with heath rush abundant (4.18% cover), with an additional 9.5% cover recorded during the repeat survey. Polytrichum commune, Polytrichum juniperinum and Polytrichum sp. are also abundant, collectively being recorded with 6% additional cover, constituting 20.7% of the Area.

The bryophytes present in the Reference Area (G) are mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl. (58.3% cover) and pleurocarpous moss Hylocomium splendens (26.8%).

Indicator species

Figure GM6 shows the average cover of indicator species cover for each Area and their change over time.

This shows that the average cover of indicator species has increased the most in Area B (peat hagg covered in mulch), followed by mown Area F, Area C (bare peat covered with mulch) and E (grips blocked with peat dams), with an additional 56.3%, 46.7%, 28.6% and 17.3% cover estimated, respectively.

The average cover of indicator species has decreased the most in Area D (grips blocked with peat dams), followed by A (reprofiled peat cutting), with a reduction in cover of 15.4% and 14.4% on average, respectively.

A comparison in the cover of Reference Area (G) indicator species is not possible.

Figure GM7 shows the average cover of indicator species recorded in each Restored and Reference Area.

The average cover of indicator species in Areas B and C (peat hagg and bare peat covered with mulch, respectively), Area E (peat dams blocking grips) and mown Area F has increased between survey years. In Area B, this mainly comprises an additional 40% heather cover, as well as an additional 11.2% pleurocarpous moss cover, and minimal change in hare’s-tail cottongrass (2.8% increase).

Heather, pleurocarpous moss and hare’s-tail cottongrass have also increased, being recorded with an additional 11.3%, 6.9% and 9.3% cover in Area C (bare peat covered with mulch), on average.

Heather, pleurocarpous moss and Sphagnum spp. have increased with an additional 28.6%, 8.5% and 9% cover estimated for mown Area F.

The decrease in indicator species in the reprofiled peat cutting – Area A, comprises mainly a decrease in heather cover by 21.8%, as well as pleurocarpous moss by 3.9%, whereas hare’s-tail cottongrass has increased, with an additional 8.8% estimated.

The Areas with grips blocked by peat dams – Areas D and E contain significantly greater cover of indicator species than other Restoration Areas, and their vegetation communities are much closer to the Reference Area (G). In the former two, heather has been recorded with an additional 4% and 16.3% cover; and hare’s-tail cottongrass with an additional 3.1% and 12.5% cover, respectively. However there has been a decrease in pleurocarpous moss, with 9.1% and 10.6% less cover recorded in Area D and E, respectively. The repeat survey estimated a slightly lower average cover of common cottongrass (3.6% cover reduction), and cross-leaved heath (2% cover reduction) in Area D, with Sphagnum and non-crustose lichen remaining consistently low in coverage.

Sphagnum cover across the site is dominated by Sphagnum capillifolium sl., which has increased in coverage in Area F, with an additional 9% recorded in the repeat survey; staying relatively constant in its coverage in Restoration Areas A, B and C (an increase of less than 1% cover).

Quadrats in the Reference Area (G) have an average of 59.3% cover of Sphagnum spp., which is more than 17.3% in Area D - the highest cover of all Restoration Areas. Cross-leaved heath is also more abundant here than in other Restoration Areas.

Environmental variables

Figure GM8 shows the average percentage cover of other environmental variables recorded in quadrats.

The percentage cover of bare ground has increased in Areas A (reprofiled peat cutting), B (peat hagg covered with mulch) and C (bare peat covered with mulch), with an additional 30.3%, 6.8% and 1.3% cover recorded in the repeat survey, respectively. These Areas all have over 45% average cover, and nearly 60% of this was found to be damaged in Area A. The proportion of damaged bare peat is also high in Area E, where grips have been blocked with peat, although cover of bare peat remains below 5%.

The cover of bare ground has decreased in mown Area F (5.6% less cover estimated), and has changed little in Area D (with grips blocked with peat dams), with just a 1.8% less recorded. The cover of bare peat remains below 2% in these Areas.

Bryophyte damage has also been recorded with lower cover in the repeat survey in Restoration Area A and mown Area F (3.1% and 12.4% lower estimation in proportion, respectively).

Litter cover has also reduced in all Areas – from over 57.5% in the baseline year in Area B to 1.7%, and from over 41% in Area C, to 5.7%. Others are more marginal decreases apart from mown Area F where 12.4% less litter cover was estimated in the repeat survey.

Interpretation and conclusions

Reference Area

The Reference Area (G) was selected as a relatively unmodified Reference Area, which had not suffered peat cutting, hagging, drainage or burning that Restoration Areas had. This is located to the north of the access track and Areas A-C, and F. As this was not surveyed during the baseline survey, the change in the Reference Area cannot be compared over time, but its current condition and habitat can be compared with the current condition of the Restoration Areas.

The habitat in the Reference Area (G) is heather-dominated vegetation, with a mixture of indicator species like hare’s-tail cottongrass, cross-leaved heath, deergrass and bilberry, as well as a carpet of mainly Sphagnum capillifolium sl.

Despite that it is relatively unmodified, some negative influences were seen in the Sitka spruce seedlings scattered across the Area, evidence of grazing by deer, hare and grouse dung was seen and patches of bare peat are present.

Reprofiled former peat cutting covered with mulch

The survey found that the former peat cutting at Area A has been successfully reprofiled to a shallow angle and turves of vegetation have survived. Observations made on site include that the hagged Restoration Area is drying out and active erosion is still occurring despite restoration, with areas of bare eroding peat.

Over half of Area A comprises bare peat, which has increased in cover despite restoration, with the cover of all species, including indicator species such as heather and pleurocarpous moss decreasing.

This suggests that patching and mulching has had limited success, and there was little evidence of the application of mulch leading to propagation, likely due to the exposed conditions of the Restoration Area, with extremes of cold and wind preventing propagation of loose mulch.

Despite this, limited signs of success have been seen in the increase of hare’s-tail cottongrass, and a minimal increase in Sphagnum including Sphagnum fallax, Sphagnum tenellum and peat-forming Sphagnum capillifolium sl.

With coniferous plantations nearby, Sitka spruce seedlings are scattered within the Area and present a threat to the establishment of blanket bog communities.

These results suggest that stabilisation of the peat cutting has created some suitable conditions for revegetation, but that the methods of patching and mulching are limited in their effectiveness in an exposed site with peat that it very weathered and dry, indicating that repeated interventions, including tree removal and rewetting measures may be necessary.

Steep-sided peat hagg covered with mulch

Area B comprises a steep-sided hagg of variable steepness covered with mulch, which was considered to be mostly stable, except on the steepest areas where drying of bare peat and active erosion was occurring.

On the stable parts of the hagg, applying mulch to the bare peat appears to have assisted in some revegetation. There has been an increase in cover of mainly indicator species between survey years, which is the greatest increase of all Restoration Areas, with the community having become slightly more similar to the Reference Area, as shown on the NMDS plot.  The increase in indicator species comprises mainly an increase in heather, as well as some hare’s-tail cottongrass and pleurocarpous moss, although the cover of Sphagnum has stayed relatively constant. This reflects the dryness of the peat, which favour species like heather and pleurocarpous moss.

Although increase in peat-forming species has been limited, the overall increase in cover of vegetation and dramatic decrease in litter recorded suggests that this covering with mulch has been partially successful.

As with Area B, Sitka spruce colonisation is a threat to the success of restoration, especially until peat is sufficiently rewetted to favour bog specialists.

Bare peat covered with mulch

Area C is a flat area which was also covered with mulch to facilitate revegetation. The walkover observed this Restoration Area to be mainly dominated by bare peat, with mulching showing limited signs of success.

The NMDS plot indicates that the resulting community present is the most variable of all Areas, not moving towards the Reference Area due to continuing abundance of bare peat. However, the results from quadrat surveys indicate that where vegetation is present, its cover has increased overall, suggesting a development of more layers of vegetation, with the third-highest increase in average indicator species cover recorded of Restoration Areas, with similar species to Area B like heather and pleurocarpous moss also increasing, reflecting the dryness of the peat.

Sitka spruce seedlings were seen across this Restoration Area, and presents a threat to restoration success.

Grips blocked with peat dams

Restoration Area D is located away from Restoration Areas A, B and C, in a drained area. Its grips have been blocked with peat dams, and these were observed holding water and containing colonising Sphagnum, with none having obviously failed.

Although the points for Area D have moved slightly closer to the Reference Area in the NMDS plot, and the overall average cover of species has increased, the cover of indicator species has decreased. Mainly pleurocarpous moss has decreased, as well as common cottongrass, cross-leaved heather, lichen Cladonia spp. and Sphagnum moss. This is contrasted with an increase in heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass. The movement towards the Reference Area is encouraging, however the changes in vegetation are not conclusive and suggest that the response of the vegetation from the rewetting will take longer to become evident.

Despite being recorded as a drier area in the baseline survey, Area E, which was also restored with grip-blocking with peat dams, shows more similarities in its composition to the Reference Area than Area D, as shown in the NMDS plot. Grip blocks were observed as holding back water and were intact, with Sphagnum colonising pools.

The increase in indicator species at Area E is attributable to an increase in heather and hare’s-tail cottongrass, with some reduction in pleurocarpous moss and a marginal increase in Sphagnum cover. Species were also seen colonising patches of bare peat, which may have been borrow pits from the initial creation of the peat dam. This again illustrates varied and slow change in vegetation in response to restoration, and while there are signs of positive changes, results are not conclusive, and depending on the starting condition of the peat during the baseline survey, it may take much longer to be rewetted and significantly impact the vegetation.

Sitka spruce seedlings were scattered across Areas D and E, and tree colonisation presents a problem to the recovery of bog vegetation if left unchecked.

Area mown for mulch/ heather brash

Area F was monitored as an Area mown for brash, to monitor its recovery.

It is considered that this has recovered since the baseline survey, having become more similar to the Reference Area, as shown in the NMDS plot. There has been an overall increase in all species, many of which are non-indicator species, as well as the second-greatest increase in cover of indicator species recorded of all Restoration Areas. The decrease in bare ground, litter and bryophyte damage supports its recovery to fully-vegetated area.

Figures GM9 - GM36

Portmoak Moss

Site description and summary of past management

Portmoak Moss is a 44ha lowland raised bog, located immediately west of the village of Scotlandwell, Perth and Kinross, located centrally at NO 1788 0162. Its location relative to other sites within this study is shown on Figure I1, with Figure P1 showing an overview of the site itself.

It is located ~1km east of Loch Leven SAC, SPA, SSSI NNR and Ramsar site for its bird assemblage. The site itself has no statutory designations.

The site has been modified by drainage grips intersecting it, and was planted for commercial forestry in the 1960s, which also created ridge and furrow features (Ross and Blackshaw, 2016). The site was also cut for peat, leading to a 2-3m high peat cutting around its perimeter (Castle, 2021a, pers. comm.).

Peat survey has found that the peat is up to 6.7m in the centre, but less than 2m at the edges, where peat cutting has also occurred.

The site is currently managed by the Woodland Trust, and Portmoak Community Woodland Group. The Woodland Trust has a Management Plan (2017- 2022), setting out its aims and actions, including maintaining the raised bog as NVC type M18 ‘Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum raised and blanket mire’, promoting establishment of an associated lagg fen and maintaining the standing water habitats present, through ongoing management such as tree and scrub removal, installing and maintaining grip blocks (Woodland Trust, n.d.).

Prior to the Peatland Action-funded restoration that this study assesses, in 2000 and 2004/05, ~12ha of mature woodland on the central area of the bog was felled, and a number of drains were dammed. Drains close to the vertical cut peat face were not dammed due to the risk of causing slumping of very wet peat under such unstable conditions. Despite the dams and forestry removal the peat surface remained dry and prone to ongoing tree colonisation, predominantly self-seeded birch (Castle, 2021a, pers. comm; Ross and Blackshaw, 2016).

The hydrology of the site is also monitored with two automated water level loggers located close to the main central drain, which were installed in 2014 (Peatland Action 2021a).

Restoration measures undertaken

Restoration at Portmoak follows the clear-felling undertaken in 2004/5. Restoration measures undertaken since this are shown in Figure P1 and comprise (Castle 2021a):

• In 2014, the ~9ha clear-felled area was mulched again, with all seedlings, brash and stumps mulched, covering this area;
• Ridges and furrows were also flattened and smoothed;
• Additional plastic piling dams were installed in drains; and,
• In 2016, some of the peat banks on the eastern edge of the peat dome was reprofiled to prevent water loss, drying and further bank erosion/collapse;

Further action is proposed by the Woodland Trust, although this has not been accepted and has not happened yet, but is worth noting for the future. This includes:

• Felling of 1.5ha of coniferous plantation on the western edge of the bog to prevent recolonisation and facilitate further restoration needing vehicular access – with felled trees stabilising banks;
• 460m of reprofiling, compacting, turfing and stabilising the peat edge in the west of the raised bog (as done on the east side in 2016);
• Surface-smoothing and stump flipping in ‘sub compartment 3b’, across 1.8ha of the raised bog; and
• Blocking main drains with eight turfed peat dams which will be more than 1m wide (Castle, 2021a, pers. comm.).

Since restoration, other restoration maintenance and activities have been ongoing, with conifer and scrub removal, and constructing further dams taking place (Castle, 2021a, pers. comm.).

Survey results

Survey details

The baseline survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates in 2014, after the restoration treatments had taken place.

The repeat survey at Portmoak was undertaken between 13^th – 15^th July 2021, by Ecologist Clare Cashon BSc (Hons) ACIEEM and Assistant Ecologist Richard Else BSc (Hons).

Surveyed quadrats and the location of notable observations are shown on Figure P2; and the location of fixed-point and additional photographs are shown on Figure P3.

Restoration Areas set out in the baseline survey were re-surveyed according to the Methodology section above. The Areas which were identified and surveyed in the baseline survey and subsequently re-surveyed, incorporated 15 quadrats in each, and included three Restoration Areas, as listed below:

• Area A - Mulched area, west of main drain;
• Area B - Mulched area east of main drain; and
• Area C - Mulched area south of main path.

Walkover results

The assessment of vegetation abundance and condition includes the DAFOR table below (Table P1), and the description for each Restoration Area below, which also includes an assessment of restoration effectiveness based on survey observations.

 

Table P1. ‘DAFOR’ scores (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional or Rare) given to main species for their relative abundance at Area A, B and C, where scrub and brash was mulched, ridges and furrows reprofiled and dams installed Portmoak. Vascular plants

Common name	Scientific name	Area A	Area B	Area C
Heather	Calluna vulgaris	D	D	D
Hare’s-tail cottongrass	Eriophorum vaginatum	D	F	O-F
Wavy hair-grass	Avenella flexuosa	LA	R	LA
Spruce