Upland Hydrology Group: What we know and what we need to know
(Working document – 20th December 2010)
What is the Upland Hydrology Group?
An opportunity to enhance the value of the UK uplands
The uplands, representing some 40% of the UK landscape, provide vital resources and amenities to
the benefit of the UK population. Mounting pressures, including climate change predictions, threaten
the value and viability of these resources, be they water supply (70% UK), biodiversity, carbon
storage, a working landscape or a leisure facility.
The UHG has been established for three years to coordinate and disseminate the work of some of the
key practical pilot projects that exist to tackle this range of issues and to retain or restore a working
balance between a number of competing interests.
The UHG brings together several organisations involved in the sustainable management of the
Uplands at policy, science and practitioner level, to promote and facilitate engagement, collaboration
and sharing of best practice. Through the development of a common understanding, the UHG aims to
establish a consensus over the principal hydrological issues affecting the management of the uplands
and seeks to identify practical, evidence-based changes to land management practice/use.
As a broad based body, the UHG represents a unique and highly cost effective conduit through which
the effectiveness of all these organisations can be improved, enhancing the value of the joint
outcomes and outputs currently being delivered.
Current core UHG membership is also follows:















The Moorland Association
The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Northumbria Water
Yorkshire Water
United Utilities
National Trust
Leeds University
Yorkshire Flood Defence Committee
The Environment Agency
Natural England
National Farmers Union
Country Land and Business Association
Moors for the Future
Yorkshire Peat Project
North Pennines AONB (Peatscapes project)
UHG meetings are generally restricted to a small number of delegates, but information is
disseminated to over one hundred corresponding members
We often hear about the multiple benefits that restoration of peat moorland can provide. This
document aims to focus on our current state of knowledge of upland hydrology - what we know, what
we don’t know and what we need to know. The information presented here should be seen as a
prompt to further debate – we intend to update this note as new research findings inform our
understanding, and where consensus emerges. For this reason we will welcome feedback from
anyone who makes use of the document.
Why this matters
For many years a ‘Holy Grail’ for those involved in upland management has been to understand
whether and how different land management regimes impact on water quality and rate of run off
relating both to water supply and Flood Risk Management. The imperative to get to grips with this
issue was reinforced when Michael Pitt’s review of the summer 2007 floods called for us all to “work
more with natural processes’ with a view to incorporating this approach as a central part of flood and
coastal erosion risk management planning.
2/16/2016
Page 1 of 14
Water is just one of a wide range of ecosystem services delivered by upland catchments. Even
where we know what we want in terms of water quality and water quantity, land management on the
ground will need to be achieved in partnership with those who own and farm our upland landscapes
with a view to achieving multiple benefits. Our ultimate goal is to be able to predict and quantify the
impact of land mgmt decisions, so we can optimise benefits. In the short term we need to identify ‘no
regrets’ options to inform the land management and policy decisions which need to be made today.
Who is this document aimed at?
The UHG aims to disseminate beneficial, practical and evidence-based advice to help both policymakers and land managers retain or restore a working balance between competing interests. Our
intention is that the information in this document is presented in a way which will be understood by a
wide audience, and not just to individuals who have a specialist interest in upland hydrology
Content
The main section of the document is three tables presenting information under the following
categories:
Table 1: Water Quality: ................................................................... 3
1a) Water colour .......................................................................... 3
1b) Other water quality issues ..................................................... 5
Table 2: Water Quantity .................................................................. 7
2a) Flood Risk Management........................................................ 8
2b) Water supply ....................................................................... 11
Table 3: Other issues .................................................................... 12
Table 3a: Greenhouse Gases and the uplands ......................... 12
Table 3b: Economic valuation.................................................... 13
Table 3c: Miscellaneous ............................................................ 14
Some key publications which have been drawn on in producing this document, and which contain
more detailed information:

Joe Holden (Dec. 2009) A grip-blocking overview Paper prepared for the Upland Hydrology
Group

Bonn, Allott, Hubacek and Stewart (2009) “Drivers of Environmental Change” in Uplands,

Richard Lindsay (2010) “Peatbogs and Carbon - a critical synthesis”.
.
Please send your comments / critique to:
David Mount, Upland Hydrology Group:
david.mount@peakdistrict.gov.uk
2/16/2016
Phone: 01629-816585
Page 2 of 14
Table 1: Water Quality:
1a) Water colour
Question
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
1. Do we know for
certain colour /
DOC is
increasing?
Yes, colour has been increasing over the last 30
years or so.
We need to understand the ecological impact of DOC /
colour, and how this relates to WFD.
We know a lot in particular about what has happened
in Yorkshire and the North East.
Why there are regional differences in degree of colour
increase.
Fred Worrall presented a
map showing the
geographical spread of
colour increase at the
BHS conference in 2009.
Increase in DOC has also now been reported in the
South West (where? Evidence?).
Underpinning science
2. Do we know what
is leading to
colour increase.
We have a long list of (possible) factors e.g.

Improving air quality (leading to an increase in
pH as SO2 inputs decrease, and an increase in
soil microbial activity)
Critical thing is to understand how the different factors
interact.
In terms of bare peat the depth of peat and history of
wildfires appears to be important.
In terms of burning (a particular sensitive topic…) we
need to understand the mechanisms by which burning
might have an effect on colour, and how this changes
with time since the last burn. We need to understand
the impact of

Areas of bare peat

Wildfires

Managed burning

Grazing type and intensity / seasonality

Vegetation cover

Climate change – e.g. intensity of summer
rainfall might be important

+ others?
Data such as it is often contradictory (e.g. in terms of
impact of controlled burns).
2/16/2016
Northumbrian Water has
35-40 years of data on
water colour.

Burning on the open moor vs. burns in gullies.

Frequency of burns
In terms of changing climate it would be useful to relate
colour to more extreme rainfall events – need to be
measure rainfall per hour and relate this to changing
colour.
Page 3 of 14
If we can be certain
about impact of bare
peat this might help us
prioritise restoration
sites.
Important to differentiate
between managed
burning and wildfires.
Cranfield are working on
this – results suggest 8fold increase in DOC
from managed burn
sites. Other studies do
not support this finding.
Burning is not a new
thing – but could a
change in the pattern of
burning over the last 30
years be having an
effect?
Joint SAC / SEPA
conference “Managing
our climate, water and
soil” (March-April 2010)
addressed these issues
106749014
Factors
Question
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
3. How does the
type of vegetation
influence colour?
Dominance of Molinia appears to lead to a reduction
in colour.
Does heather dominance on blanket bog increase
colour? (possible link with higher level of evapo
transpiration).
Two pieces of work by
Moors For the Future on
Sphagnum inoculation
are of relevance
What is the effect of heather seedlings putting roots
down into the substrate?
Strategy
Factors
What regime of grazing, burning, vegetation would be
most beneficial
4. Does grip / gully
blocking reduce
or increase
colour?
Blocking grips or gullies (in most circumstances)
leads to increase in DOC after 2-3 years, depending
on the previous condition of the peat. In general grip
blocking reduces colour in the longer term.
Need to better understand colour concentration and flux
at the whole catchment scale, and the way colour
changes with time following a range of different mgmt
changes.
5. When does
treatment for
colour become
unsustainable
Water companies are spending very large sums to
develop their treatment capacity, on chemicals and
on waste disposal. These costs are passed on to
the consumer, and do not therefore reduce water
company profits.
Once we identify beneficial land mgmt in different
situations, we should quantify the cost of this vs. the
cost of water treatment.
6. What should land
managers do to
minimise water
colour?
In general restoration of water table either by
revegetation or grip blocking will be expected to
reduce colour, by reducing the amount of dry peat
that is subject to oxidation.
Land managers require a set of straightforward
guidelines which can be applied in different situations.
2/16/2016
Page 4 of 14
Need to look at this at
the landscape scale as
on some sites gripping
increases colour (but
over what timescale?)
106749014
Strateg
y
Chemicals
Sediment
1b) Other water quality issues
Question
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
7. Sediment
Sediment (primarily particulate organic carbon POC) can be a significant issue downstream
(expensive removal to clear sumps / pipelines; silting
up of reservoirs).
Need to be clear about the specific problems
associated with drawdown of reservoirs.
Restoration projects
should already have
data on this?
8. What is the
impact of grip /
gully blocking on
sediment?
POC / sediment load is quickly reduced after blocks
are installed; the water table also quickly changes.
9. Is the rate of
sediment loss
likely to increase?
Has the worst
passed?
This is likely to be very site specific?
10. Nitrates
Uplands are receptors of significant amounts of
nitrates (primarily from vehicle emissions)
11. Phosphate
P finds its way into watercourses from agricultural
applications on in-bye, and from moorland following
burning. Also will increase when NPK is applied as
part of restoration works?
12. Pesticides
Generally relatively low in the uplands?
13. Manganese
Mn levels are linked to water colour?
14. Other heavy
metals
Lead, Mercury and Cadmium are all found in high
concentrations in some moorlands. In storm events
it has been shown that dissolved organic carbon
mobilises and transports Pb downstream
15. Acidity
Dry and aerobic peats will lead to high acidity
16. Should we
concentrate on
the in-bye in
order to address
Some data show that fertiliser and muck spreading
at the wrong time of year is a significant issues.
Evidence from some Pennine Dales suggests this is
still happening
2/16/2016
More monitoring resources and risk modelling required
(not much sediment monitoring going on at the
moment?).
What will be the impact of increased intensity of rainfall
events and increased floods on erosion rates?
Which of these are significant in terms of either
chemical or ecological water quality downstream?
Walk-over surveys in the
highest risk areas would
provide some idea of the
scale of the problem?.
Frost action is a factor.
Are WFD levels for P low
enough? Is this an issue
also for other chemical
pollutants? Since
biological activity
increases with
temperature will climate
change have an impact
on eutrophication?
As Moorland is de-stocked will in-bye land be used
more intensively?
Monitoring taking place
in Laver Skell
Need a simple picture of chemical / sediment pathways,
How will climate change
impact on the in-bye
Page 5 of 14
106749014
Question
sediment and
general water
quality issues?
17. Should we focus
our efforts on
bare peat to
address water
quality?
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
Application of targeted rural sustainable drainage
system approach (SuDS) as in the case of flood risk
will also help reduce sediment e.g. Belford
and quantify impacts in different parts of the catchment.
land? Will we see a
move from sheep to
cattle, and/ or from stock
to arable?
Bare peat releases much more POC than vegetated
peat. Soil pipes are also an important POC source.
Aerial pollution (via effect on bryophyte communities)
is likely to continue to have a water quality impact.
Trends
Re-vegetating bare peat in general raises the water
table which reduces DOC and POC loss
18. How will climate
change impact on
water quality?
It is likely upland farming will become more intensive,
the grazing and cropping season will extend
Need to develop scenarios and possible impacts – e.g.
increase in bracken cover, might result in increased use
of Asulox, possible impact on water quality?
19. What happens as
more peat is lost?
Peat breakdown results in the production of a variety
of chemicals.
Link here also to what happens as atmospheric quality
improves.
20. What should land
managers do to
minimise
sediment and
chemical
pollutants?

Maintain / restore vegetation cover.

Create buffers alongside watercourses.
Need pragmatic advice in terms of (e.g.) grazing and
burning regimes.

Avoid spraying and fertiliser applications
alongside watercourses

Avoid poaching and soil compaction, and so
promote good soil structure to aid water
movement through the soil profile

Follow the Grass and Heather Burning Code of
Practice
2/16/2016
Page 6 of 14
106749014
Table 2: Water Quantity
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
21. What do we know
about the way
uplands contribute
to flood events?
Upland catchments in general, and upland
peatlands in particular, are inherently flashy.
Surface waters quickly respond to rainfall before
rapidly returning to low flows, particularly following
extended periods of dry weather. The widely held
view that peatlands behave like a sponge –
buffering floods and sustaining low flows – is
unhelpful.
Ideally we need to develop a sophisticated
understanding of the way different catchment
characteristics and variables interact. We would like to
be able to predict the hydrological response of any given
upland catchment to different meteorological conditions.
In a perfect world the data required to make these
predictions would be collected via remote sensing.
Are there some
catchments which are
NOT sensitive to landuse change?
Underpinning science
Question
Most of the water movement in peat occurs either
on the surface or in the surface layers. In bare and
gripped situations the water tables are generally
suppressed. Once the peat has been restored
either by revegetation or grip blocking, the water
table rises. This in effect further reduces storage
capacity and reduces the time before run off
occurs
In situations which result in downstream flooding
overland flow is often the principal pathway for
water joining the river channel network. Surface
roughness (often created by vegetation cover) is a
primary determinant of the rate of overland flow.
The variables which would input into such a model
include:

Topography

Soil type, depth and condition. Network of pipes
could be critical (and potentially overlooked)

Land-use history – e.g. drainage, erosion,
restoration activity

Vegetation cover

Current land-use practises – e.g. burning and
grazing regimes
Intact deeper peat has very low hydraulic
conductivity. Upland peats however often contain
networks of pores and larger pipes. These allow
water to pass quickly through peat, and have been
shown to contribute between 10-50% of
streamflow.
Non peat moorland and improved in-bye land also
contribute to surface runoff. Soils that are well
structured are more likely to allow water to infiltrate
the soil profile and reduce run off.
2/16/2016
Page 7 of 14
106749014
Climate scenarios
Question
What we know
What we really need to know
22. What are the key
factors to think
about relating to
climate change
Expected increase in high intensity, localised
rainfall events (as a result of this local FRM
impacts might become relatively more important.)
Notes
Need to develop a set of scenarios against a spread of
realistic (UKCIP?) predictions.
Climate change may result in vegetation
succession.
Hotter drier summers will lead to an increase in
wildfire risk
This would enable us to plan for likely futures, and
quantify the impact of possible extremes
Certain moorland areas may become vulnerable
(as peat dries out and oxidises).
Peatlands which are currently actively capturing
carbon may stop doing this.
Moorland restoration
2a) Flood Risk Management
Question
What we know
23. Does grip blocking
reduce downstream
flood risk at a local
scale?
This has been demonstrated on some sites, and
under some conditions.
24. When we revegetate / stabilise
bare peat, and/or
block gullies, does
this reduce
downstream flood
risk at a local scale?
Flow velocities across the surface of restored /
drain-blocked peatlands are slower than they are
across drained peatlands. Re-vegetation of bare
peat is more important in terms of FRM than gully
or grip blocking: Flow velocity is slower within
vegetated grips (even ones without dams and
pools) compared to bare peat grips by at least 10fold
2/16/2016
.
What we really need to know
Notes
The different ways intact, gripped, eroded and restored
moorland respond to different rain events
We are some way from
having a clear answer
regarding the
relationship between
grip / gully blocking and
flood risk
Why moorlands which appear to be similar have
different hydrological characteristics
Page 8 of 14
Exmoor research will
help with this question
106749014
Moorland restoration
25. Do we have models
which enable us to
identify sites where
grip / gully blocking
will be most
effective in terms of
FRM?
Our understanding of the hydrological impact of
both creating and blocking grips has improved over
the last few years.
Stuart Lane’s models help to indicate which grips
have the highest connectivity with the main water
courses and from that which will have the greatest
impact on run off.
We need to be able to predict the pattern of grip blocking
that will have the greatest impact given the topography
and layout of any given site. This information would – in
theory - enable land managers to maximise flood risk
benefit from any investment in moorland restoration. In
practice gully blocking decisions are made on the basis
of a large number of factors, not just FRM.
This is still a valid
question to work on, but
reservations have been
expressed about
focusing too much on
such models.
How we can scale up from what we know about local
effects? To do this we need to understand the
relationship between different parts of the catchment,
and more about the way peak flows from different subcatchments could be de-synchronised. In the future this
will become more critical given that we are probably
entering a period of increased rainfall intensity.
It seems unlikely we will
achieve a clear answer
to this question in the
foreseeable future. The
variables are manifold
and it is likely that any
downstream effect will
be quite marginal.
Blocking the most intensively gripped areas does
not necessarily have the greatest impact on runoff
Blocking grips lower down the slope may result in
high peak flows if the runoff from the upper and
lower slopes is synchronised
The Flood Risk Management Research
Consortium (www.floodrisk.org.uk) has carried out
work in this area.
26. Do moorland
restoration works
(grip and gully
blocking,
revegetation etc.)
reduce downstream
flood risk at a
catchment scale?
Moorland restoration might have an impact on
flood risk across a larger catchment, but this has
never been demonstrated. Moorland catchments
are inherently flashy, and land management
changes will generally only delay flow by 30
minutes or so.
Burning / grazing
Exmoor research might
inform this question.
27. How does managed
burning and grazing
affect moorlands in
relation to FRM?
2/16/2016
Grazing causes compaction and can reduce the
rate of infiltration into peat. Overland flow in the
uplands however is predominantly caused by
saturation-excess rather than infiltration-excess.
Burning tends to promote a heather dominated
vegetation cover. This in turn helps to dry out and
suppress the water table as a consequence of
evapotranspiration.
Whether there are grazing or burning regimes which
should be avoided to reduce flood risk.
Whether the predominance of different vegetation types
– e.g. heather, Molinia, cotton grass – has an impact on
flood risk
Page 9 of 14
The key thing here is the
impact that different
burning and grazing
regimes have on
vegetation cover, as this
is what actually leads to
a change in high flow
hydrology.
106749014
Forestry
Erosion downstream
Strategy
1
28. What effect can
upland woodland
(on non-peat areas)
have on flood risk
At a local scale woodland can hold back a
substantial quantity of water. Downstream this can
lead to a reduction in flood risk, depending on the
way sub-catchments contribute to any particular
flood event. Sediment loss can also be mitigated.
29. Do we have models
which enable us to
identify sites where
woodland planting
would be most
effective in terms of
FRM?
Yes (Work by Jeff Pacey/Stuart Lane in the Ouse
can help here?).
30. What is the effect of
grip blocking / tree
planting on
downstream bank
erosion?
31. From an FRM
perspective how can
we achieve the best
balance between
work on moorland
and peat bogs as
against work on
improved and semiimproved areas (inbye land).
How we can target planting to maximise the impact this
will have on flood risk
Forest research have
done a lot of work on
this
Any land mgmt work which decrease runoff rate
would be expected to result in less erosion
downstream.
Modelling in the Yorkshire Dales shows that
targeted planting of 5% of a catchment could
reduce erosion and coarse sediment delivery to
rivers by nearly 80%1
What will more intense rainfall events mean for future
levels of bank erosion?
Observed decline in
downstream bank
erosion on Exmoor sites
following ditch blocking
The Belford Project in North Northumberland gives
us some indication of the type of small scale works
that can increase the short term storage capacity
of in bye. Initial indications are that peak flows are
reduced.
We need to get to a position where we can quantify (and
put a financial value on) FRM benefits of different land
management options. We will only be able to justify
expenditure of FRM resources on land management
schemes on the basis of robust evidence.
In general terms peat catchments can be said to
be more flashy than mineral soil catchments.
The full picture will include an understanding not only of
costs but also risk, lifecycle analysis and possible modes
of delivery
The Flood Risk Management Research
Consortium (www.floodrisk.org.uk) has carried out
work in this area.
Vince Carter, Forestry Commission – presentation to UHG, 20th May 2010
2/16/2016
Page 10 of 14
106749014
32. What strategies
should land
managers adopt
given our current
level of
understanding?
Stabilise and re-vegetate bare peat
Manage vegetation cover with a view to
decreasing the risk of wildfire
Retain / increase woodland cover, especially
alongside streams I am nervous of planting
trees next to watercourses. What might help FRM
during a flood may not help a stream in extended
dry periods. I am in favour of guidelines to advise
appropriate siting of woodland.
Land managers require a set of straightforward
guidelines which can be applied in different situations.
A minority view is that
enough is known about
positive FRM benefits to
justify encouraging land
managers to block grips
for this reason.
2b) Water
Question
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
33. Does peat
restoration
increase overall
water yield
Possibly, but the position is complex. In any event it
is not helpful to suggest that peat will act as a
sponge. Base flows from moorland after a period
without rain will always be very low, given the limited
storage available in peat.
The useful yield of water we can obtain from different
types of moorland under different conditions.
The time when this
would be of most value –
i.e. during long dry
periods- is when base
flows from peat will be
very low regardless of
peat condition.
We need to be able to predict whether any immediate
response to peat restoration will decrease over time.
We need to understand the implications of restoration
for the downstream hydrological regime as a whole, and
in particular in relation to reservoir yield, base flow and
water abstraction. This work should feed into the
Environment Agency’s CAMS process.
34. What strategies
should land
managers adopt
given our current
level of
understanding?
2/16/2016
In terms of water yield alone no particular
management strategy is suggested. Overall
land management strategies should be those that
improve the quality of water and provide
environmental benefits whilst still allowing the
reliable refill of reservoirs. Any land use change near
to a watercourse needs careful consideration.
This answer ties in with Q37 (and Q41). The goal
should be to adopt an integrated package that
provides most benefits but does not cause
deterioration.
Page 11 of 14
106749014
Table 3: Other issues
Table 3a: Green House Gases and the uplands
Question
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
35. How much
carbon is stored
in the uplands,
how much could
we sequester by
different land
uses?
Broad brush estimates have been made; uncertainty
results from our lack of detailed knowledge of peat
depth across the UK.
While the answer to this question provides a useful
headline figure, in practice the carbon ‘profit and loss’
account of peatlands is of more interest.
Our primary task must be
to stabilise peatlands and
avoid losses; the second
task – where possible – is
to bring inactive peatlands
back to a condition where
they trap carbon.
Recent NE / IUCN work has provided us with a better
handle on this figure, but we still lack data on both
carbon stocks and carbon fluxes.
The uplands also hold some high organic matter
soils that are not considered as peat
36. Which plant spp.
enable key
habitats to most
effectively
sequester
carbon?
Sphagnum is the key species. Molinia and cotton
grass also good.
37. In terms of
carbon
sequestration, are
we better off
planting
woodlands or
bringing blanket
bog back into an
active condition?
Establishing trees on blanket bog will increases the
loss of carbon in the long term.
38. How do non-peat
upland soils
figure in terms of
carbon
sequestration?
Permanent pasture on mineral soils can be expected
to have a relatively high organic matter content.
However this takes a long time to build up. In
temporary leys and arable situations OM is
depressed.
39. How does
methane fit into
the picture?
Methane production is a function of a healthy peat
bog.
2/16/2016
Very different picture according to the depth of peat –
Wales already has agrienvironment measures to
promote good carbon
management.
Once we have a better
handle on this we can
modify mgmt accordingly
How and where to spend money most wisely as an
integrated package, not thinking about different
areas/land use in isolation from one another.
What are the interactions and balances – taking into
account on the one hand that CH4 is a much more
potent GHG than CO2, while on the other it is
Page 12 of 14
Fred Worrall’s work and
the latest NE paper on
carbon are very relevant
106749014
Question
40. Does heather and
grass burning
increase carbon
loss?
What we know
What we really need to know
Notes
e.g. when comparing 0.5m column of peat with a 4m
column.
comparatively short-lived.
to this. See Defra review:
Methane and peatlands
Key research project is
Baird et al, Defra SP1202
project
Some indications that a cool burn and the promotion
of young heather may in some cases increase
carbon. But cool burn very difficult to attain
consistently.
Difficult to research.
Worrall and Marrs are
both working on this.
41. If we implement
management
which enhances
water quality and
contribute to flood
risk mgmt what
will be the net
impact on GHG
balance?
Table 3b: Economic valuation
42. Can we put a
value on water
supply from the
uplands
Upland water costs roughly 10% of the cost of other
sources of water
Should be possible to
calculate the different
energy costs associated
with different sources.
43. What economic
value could be
put on 1km2 of
restored peatland
moorland and
fell?
Carbon value around £16 per tonne.
Relative value is more
important than absolute –
what was the value before
and after restoration.
44. How can carbon
policy work in the
uplands? How
far are we away
from a verifiable
or voluntary
carbon offsetting
This would require five years’ worth of verifiable data.
2/16/2016
Woodland may have greater value
Drax is co-firing 10-15% of wood, creating a market
for wood
Scottish government has
incorporated this into their
Carbon targets.
Is this the HOLY GRAIL?
Can we ever get the
science together to form
Page 13 of 14
106749014
scheme based on
peatland?
the basis for a verifiable
scheme?
QUEST work suggests
some at risk peatlands
(SW / S Pennines / N
Yorks / Northumberland),
will not be able to
sequester peat.
Table 3c: Miscellaneous
45. Does leaving
unburnt margins
alongside gullies
on blanket bog
increase or
decrease risk of
gully erosion.
Buffer strips act as a physical filter.
46. Does heather
dominance lead
to drying out of
the peat?
On part of Turley Holes (a MoorLIFE / Moors for the
Future site near Hebden Bridge) there are (small)
areas that appear to have been heather dominated,
but this is now dying off and a wet blanket bog
(cotton grass + some sphagnum) is returning.
Once blanket bog
is heather
dominated can it
be reverted back
to functioning
blanket bog?
47. Will peatlands
survive in the
long term in light
of climate
change?
2/16/2016
Timing of burn rotation a
factor say every 7 years
Root systems have a physical role in holding peat
together. Wet soils are also more liable to fail, and
vegetation drying out effect may also contribute to
stability.
Liverpool work (Rob Marrs
on Howden Moor) will
answer, but only for that
place.
Fred Worrall’s work in the
Peak District is relevant
So diversifying the botany of sites with sphagnum
(and to a lesser extent cotton grass) could be a way
to reverse the move to heather.
QUEST work indicates relative vulnerability of
different peatlands across the UK.
Vulnerability relates to (e.g.) location (east and south
more vulnerable) and to depth of peat (shallower
more vulnerable)
Need to come up with our best prediction for what
might be sustainable in the long term, and work
towards those sorts of habitats rather than hoping
necessarily to sustain / create habitats which existed
50 years ago.
Page 14 of 14
Some lowland peats
already function so
warming may not
necessarily be an
insurmountable problem?
However lowland and
upland peats result from a
different peat formation
process
106749014