Insights into allogenic and autogenic controls on the nature and distribution of bog islands in patterned peatlands.

Insights into allogenic and autogenic controls on the nature and distribution of bog islands in patterned peatlands. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Insights into allogenic and autogenic controls on the nature and distribution of bog islands in patterned peatlands. Carter Hildebrand, Scott Ketcheson, Pete Whittington This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6770509/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Wetlands → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Large-scale allogenic and autogenic controls of bog genesis are generally well understood, with bogs forming where there is sufficient precipitation, and limited losses to evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, and lateral runoff (allogenic) to maintain high water tables, which in turn allows for the slow decomposition of organic matter which yields soil hydraulic properties (autogenic) that also help maintain high water tables. Unknown is why small bog islands (1 to < 50,000 m 2 ; <1 to ~ 150m diameter) found within large fen complexes occur where they do. Were there allogenic factors such as a small depression or mounds in the post-glacial (clay surface) landscape that gave an advantage to early successional ecological processes helping keep, or shed, water sooner than the surrounding landscape? Within a large peatland complex in Manitoba, Canada, detailed measurements of 9 northern plateau bog islands of various sizes (606 m 2 to 5609 m 2 ) were made in two orthogonal transects (fen through bog to fen) including: clay elevation, water table, hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, pH and electrical conductivity. Most results followed known differences between fens and bogs (e.g., domed water table and surface in bog, lower pH). Interestingly, and counter to our hypothesis, no difference was observed in the average clay elevation beneath fens vs. bogs; however, the terrain ruggedness index (TRI) was significantly different, with bogs having a TRI nearly, or more than, double the fens, suggesting that microtopography in the post-glacial landscape may have played an important allogenic role in encouraging early successional ecological processes. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Canada has approximately 1.29 million km 2 of wetlands, making up about 13% of Canada’s terrestrial area (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016 ; National Wetlands Working Group, 1997 ), representing ecosystems that play an important role in carbon sequestration, water purification, nutrient cycling, flood mitigation, and provide habitat for biodiversity (Mitsch et al., 2015 ). In the province of Manitoba, Canada, wetlands comprise about 43% of the land area; of which peatlands represent 90% (Gorham, 1991 ; Halsey et al., 1997a ; National Wetlands Working Group, 1997 ). Despite their prevalence in the Canadian landscape, there are still unanswered questions about how some types of peatlands form, and how they may be susceptible to climate and land use changes. Peatlands form and transform through the interactions of autogenic (soil development, water movement, vegetation, water chemistry) and allogenic (flooding, fire, climate, post-glacial topography, climatology) factors (Niering, 1989 ). A typical Canadian continental peatland successional pathway starts as shallow open water wetlands in a post-glacial landscape, which develops into marshes and swamps, and if the right hydrologic and chemical conditions are present, over time, can eventually give rise to fens, poor fens, and then bogs. However, knowing what some of these initial conditions in the post-glacial landscape were that ultimately ended in bogs, is the subject of this paper. Peatland complexes at the landscape or watershed scale (10s to 100s km 2 ) have received a lot of attention in the literature (Damman, 1979 ; Halsey et al., 1997b ; Siegel and Glaser, 1987 ), but peatlands can also be found at a significantly smaller scales, such as northern plateau (400–5000 m 2 ) and mound bogs (< 7 m 2 ), which have received considerably less attention. Both of these smaller-scale bogs appear as bog ‘islands’ within larger fen complexes common throughout south-eastern Manitoba and other peatland dominated areas. Variations in the substratum (often the post-glacial landscape) beneath peatlands has been examined by numerous peatland formation studies across the literature and can be strongly tied to peatland development and distribution (Scarlett and Price, 2013 ). Bog island growth at large scales can also be attributed to the alkalinity of surface waters of rich fens, creating ovoid, and streamlined islands which then can grow into ombrogenous raised bogs by further accumulating peat (Glaser, 1987 ; Vitt et al., 1994 ). Stagnation, water track divergence, and regional water table fluctuations have also been related to this formation (Vitt et al., 1994 ). However, other interactions could prove more important in bog island formation at smaller scales due to higher sensitivities to changes in their environment. This could include hydrology, water chemistry, the interactions of bog specific flora (fewer than 30 species of bryophytes and vascular plants), and the sensitive feedback systems that develop among this vegetation (fluctuations of acidity, alkalinity, ion concentrations) (Glaser, 1987 ). It is possible that at this scale, small changes in any of the above factors, could lead to drastic changes in the ecosystem development trajectory that would not be seen in larger, presumably more stable (resilient) peatlands. This research aims to assess the local hydrogeomorphic conditions within and surrounding bog islands and mounds to evaluate the role of autogenic and allogenic factors on their formation, spatial distribution and size. The objectives of this paper are to 1) quantify and compare a range of potential allogenic and autogenic factors within bog islands to the surrounding fen peatland, including the post-glacial clay surface, water chemistry, hydraulic conductivity, and the shape of the water table and to 2) relate these factors to the size of the bog islands. Study Site The study site (Moss Spur) lies in southeastern Manitoba, Canada (50° 0.151’ N; 96° 9.476’ W) at the northern end of a 2400 km 2 peatland complex. Moss Spur is located approximately 90 km east of Winnipeg near the village of Elma and is surrounded by lands developed for agriculture (Fig. 1 i). Climate data are available from the Pinawa, MB climate station (Climate ID: 5032162; 1991–2020 climate normals) located approximately 25 km north-east of the study site (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024). The mean annual temperature and precipitation are 2.6°C and 571 mm, respectively, with approximately 20% falling as snow. January and July mean monthly temperatures are − 16.2 and 19.0°C, respectively. The soil classification of the area is characterized as deep peatland complexes with peat deposits over 40 cm thick and a drainage classification of poor to very poor (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1967 ). The underlying geology is dominated by granodiorite/gneiss rock with significant underlying deposits of lacustrine clay (Manitoba Mineral Resources, 2013 ). The study area is located within an 11 km 2 peatland complex that contains 4 km 2 of patterned fen surrounded by a raised treed bog (Fig. 1 ). Within the fen, approximately 275 plateau bogs (size ranges from 98 m 2 – 63212 m 2 ) were observed, with an estimated hundreds to thousands of mound bogs (very small, < 10 m 2 ) also distributed between them. For the remainder of this paper, northern plateau bogs/bog islands will herein be referred to simply as bogs, while mound bogs will continue to be referred to as mound bogs. Within the Moss Spur fen, most if not all the bogs and mound bogs were found to be raised above the surrounding fen. The fen was dominated by grass and shrub vegetation, while both the bogs and mound bogs contained distinct vegetation typically found in other bogs across North America. Bogs exhibited a typical hummock and hollow microtopography of various Sphagnum spp. as well as ericaceous shrubs and Picea mariana (black spruce) and Larix laricina (tamarack). Bog mounds were present as thick accumulations of Sphagnum spp. raised anywhere between 25 and 100 cm above the fen while occasionally containing small black spruce and tamarack saplings. Nine bogs of varying sizes (500 m 2 to 3000 m 2 ) were sampled within the large fen area. These bogs were measured (length, width, and area) and the results were used to group the bogs into size categories based on natural breaks that emerged in the data: small (n = 14; 2000 m 2 ). From this, three bogs were chosen from each size category, considering proximity and ease of access. Sizes are relative, and even the ‘large’ bogs named here are dwarfed by the surrounding domed bogs (shaded in orange in Fig. 1 , ii, iii). Methods Hydrology Each bog was instrumented with two perpendicular transects of wells that ran the length (L) and width (W) of each bog (Fig. 2 , ii). The number of wells per transect ranged from 5 to 11, depending on transect length. The first and last well along each transect were located in the fen, which was located approximately 10 m from the transition well (bog/fen interface) on either side; the remaining wells were located within the bog itself. Twelve piezometers were also permanently installed (0.75 to 3.65 cm depth) in various bogs (Table 1 ). Table 1 Breakdown of bog size and piezometer locations across Moss Spur Piezometers Bog Size (m 2 ) Bog Size Fen Bog Piezometer Depth (m) Installation Year A 2013 Large 1 2 0.75, 1.82, 3.65 2021 B 1611 Medium 1 2 0.75, 1.82, 3.65 2021 C 1063 Small 1 2 0.75, 1.82, 3.65 2021 D 1577 Medium - - - - E 2738 Large - - - - F 5609 Large - 1 2.65 2022 G 606 Small - - - - H 603 Small - 1 2.25 2022 I 1696 Medium - 1 2.65 2022 Wells were constructed out of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe slotted along the entire pipe length and screened with nylon stockings. Wells varied from 0.75–1 m in length depending on location in the bog/fen. Piezometers were similarly constructed each with 20 cm slotted intakes covered by 250 µm Nytex screen. Holes were hand augured into the peat prior to installation to allow for clean insertion and then the pipes were promptly developed by pulsating the water back and forth, before evacuating the water three to four times (Butler and Healey, 1998 ). A total of 11 Van Essen Instruments’ pressure transducers (Micro-Diver (DI6xx) & Baro-Diver (DI500)) were installed in various wells, logging water table values at hourly intervals from 2 June 2022 until 12 October 2022. All wells and piezometers were measured manually on an approximately weekly basis from 9 June to August 15, 2022. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) measurements were conducted at each of the installed piezometers using bail tests (Hvorslev, 1951 , as explained in Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Seven additional piezometers were also used and temporarily installed in various locations to facilitate K sat measurements at each of the bogs and adjacent fens that did not contain permanently installed piezometers. These are referred to as “roving nests” that consisted of piezometers installed to depths of 1.0 m, 1.95 m, and 2.65 m. The nests were set up and measured on alternating days to allow for the water pressure to reach equilibrium, following the development (for well-screen cleaning) of each piezometer after installation. Peat Depth Variability To determine the variability in the clay surface underlying the peatland, bespoke grids were set up in fen, bog, and bog mound locations throughout Moss Spur. In both the fen and bog locations, 40 x 40 m grids were established using a measuring tape (Fig. 2 ). In the fen locations, grids were set up in open fen with uniform vegetation. In the bog locations, grids were set up to include one plateau bog and surrounding fen. Across the grid, sampling took place at 5 m intervals moving systematically across the grid. At each point, measurements were taken to identify the vegetation/surface level and the depth to the top of the clay layer from the peat surface. By using the total length of the auger, the amount of auger still protruding above the vegetation surface, and the distance to the clay-peat interface on the auger, the depth to clay beneath the surface was determined. For the fens, the water table was used as a horizontal zero datum, and everything was measured relative to the water table; this was due to the relatively high-water table during the summer of 2022. A tape measure was mounted to the auger handle to easily determine the vegetation height at the surface, limiting error during data collection. Error values of ± 3 cm were likely present in the reading of the length of clay attached to the auger, due to its spiral nature. For vegetation height in the bogs, since the water table was not easily accessible, a True Smart Digital Water Altimeter (error ± 0.16 cm) was used by ‘zeroing’ the device at the water table of the fen and measuring each depth relative to it. This allowed for limited additional errors when determining clay depths in the bogs, given the more rugged terrain. In all locations, a hand auger of lengths between 2.91 and 3.83 m was used to auger until the rigid underlying clay layer was encountered, subsequently determining the peat depth. Given the smaller scale of the mound bogs, an 8 x 7 m grid was established over multiple mound bogs that were approximately 4 m long and 3 m wide. Samples were collected at one metre intervals following the same practices as the previous grids For simplicity in naming each grid experiment, the results for fen variability, bog variability, and mound variability are referred to as Fen, Bog, and Mound, respectively. Different test numbers are indicative of different locations (i.e., replicates) where they were conducted. For the Bog and the Mound grids, where both bog and fen locations exist, “Bogpt” and “Fenpt” are used to refer to bog points within the grid from the fen points, respectively. Coordinate data from the clay elevation measurements was imported into ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1 where the data were transformed into a raster data layer for processing. The coordinate data were transformed into a point feature and then into a raster surface using spline interpolation under tension and a 2.5 m interpolated surface. To estimate surface roughness, the terrain ruggedness index (TRI) tool was used based on methodologies proposed by Riley et al. ( 1999 ). The tool calculates the Terrain index for each central cell based on the elevation of the eight cells surrounding it: TRI = [ ∑ (x ij – x 0,0 ) 2 ] 1/2 where: x ij – elevation of each eight-neighbouring cell to central cell (0,0). The eight elevation differences are squared and averaged, and the square root of this value becomes the TRI index for that particular cell. This calculation is then repeated over every cell in the raster data layer. This method was used to analyze the underlying clay layer for the Fen, Bog, and Mound grids to attempt to understand the small-scale ruggedness of the surface. For the bog and mound grids, analysis was specific to bog vegetation points as well as fen ones. Water Chemistry pH and electrical conductivity (EC) measurements were completed at each bog and the adjacent/surrounding fen throughout Moss Spur. pH and EC measurements were taken in situ with a portable combined pH/EC/TDS/Temperature tester (HANNA HI98129/HI98130, accuracy ± 0.05 pH). Measurements were conducted in the near-surface in each bog and fen using a custom-made ‘pore water sipper’ constructed out of 1.27 cm PVC pipe and clear plastic tubing with 5 cm slotted intakes located 2 cm from the base of the pipe and covered in 250 µm Nytex screen. Plastic tubing was fed throughout the length of the PVC pipe and extended to outside of the pipe where a peristaltic pump could be used to pull water from depth for sampling and measurement. Each test began by predefining a sample area of approximately 30 x 30 cm within a hummock in each bog. For the water samples above the water table, layers of peat were systematically removed from the mound where the water content was then squeezed into a cleaned collection container for measurement. Once the water table was reached, the pore water sipper was used to pump water from depth into the collection container to be measured. Measurements were taken at ~ 10 cm increments above and below the water table to depths of 180 cm below the surface. Bog Distribution Bog classification in Moss Spur was used to assess the quantity of bogs appearing in the large fen complex that makes up Moss Spur. Classification was completed for the site of Moss Spur using ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1. Imagery data was used to assess bogs for size, quantity, and average shape. Length and width data was calculated to assess the elongated shape of bog islands at Moss Spur. Due to the quality of the satellite imagery minimum length values of the bogs quantified was ~ 10 metres. It should be noted that all of the bog mounds found in Moss Spur fall below that threshold, resulting in what is likely a significant underestimate of all bogs (mounds included) located in this fen complex. In order to assess the nature of growth and development of bogs, natural break groups were used to perform an Average Nearest Neighbour (ANN) analysis. The purpose of the analysis was to calculate the ANN index that relates the degree of clustering or dispersion the bogs appear to have in Moss Spur. The tool calculates a z-value and p-value to compare to determine if the null hypothesis can be rejected and to assess the likelihood that the observed spatial pattern is a result of random processes. Results Bog Distribution When examining bog distribution at Moss Spur a total of 272 bogs were found, demonstrating an average length and width of 49.9 and 28.1 m, respectively, with a length to width ratio of 1.81 (Table 2 ). The area of the bogs ranged from 70 to 63,200 m 2 with an average area of 1170 m 2 . Nearest Neighbour analysis showed that the first two natural breaks of bog areas (70–878 and 879–2529 m 2 ) showed a clustered pattern with ANN (ANN < 1) indexes of 0.78 and 0.86 respectively (Table 2 ). Given the z-scores of both breaks, there is less than a 10% likelihood that this clustered pattern could result from random chance. The third natural break, 2530–5006 m 2 , showed a dispersed pattern with an ANN index of 2.82 and a z-score of 2.82 indicating a less than 1% likelihood that this pattern could result be the result of a random chance (Table 2 ). The fourth natural break, 5007-14277m 2 , had an ANN index of 0.80 and a z-score of -1.27 meaning the pattern does not appear to be significantly different than random. Given that only one bog appeared in the last break, no ANN index could be computed. Table 2 Bog area classes broken up into 5 categories based on natural breaks (Jenks). Average Nearest Neighbour Index scores as well as confidence values are also displayed. Result values are as follows: C- Clustered, D- Dispersed, R-Random Bog area (m 2 ) Number of Bogs Studied Bogs L/W Ratio ANN Index z-score p-value Result 70–878 202 2 1.77 0.78 -1.97 0.005 C 879–2529 48 5 1.91 0.86 -1.79 0.073 C 2530–5006 10 1 1.94 1.67 2.82 0.005 D 5007–14277 11 1 2.04 0.80 -1.27 0.205 R 14278–63212 1 0 2.97 - - - - Water Table Water table level at all locations for the entire season averaged 7.6 cm below ground surface (bgs) in the bogs, and 9.7 cm above ground surface (ags; i.e., standing water) in the fens (Fig. 3 , i); bog water tables ranged from 18 cm bgs to 8 cm ags and fens from 5 cm bgs to 24 cm ags. An average difference of 4.3 cm was observed between the water table within the fen and the adjacent bogs, which varied from approximately 0–11 cm throughout the study period (Fig. 3 ; ii ). The water table range in the large bogs was greater than the subsequent medium and small sized bogs. The average range of water table differences between the bog and fens for the large, medium, and small bogs was 7.5, 5.4, and 3.4 cm respectively (Fig. 3 ; ii ). The water table in bog A (large) had the largest range of 10.8 cm over the course of the study period, while bog G (small) had the smallest range of 1.3 cm. Despite this, no consistent trends were found between bog size and average water table throughout the study period. The average vertical hydraulic gradients were positive (i.e., downwards) in both the bogs and fens, both indicating groundwater recharge for the full extent of the study period. Average fen vertical hydraulic gradient was 0.11 compared to 0.05 in the bogs. This, coupled with the higher K sat values found in the fens (Fig. 4 ), showed significantly greater groundwater fluxes (not shown) observed in fens compared to bogs. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (K sat ) The geometric mean K sat of the bogs was 3.3 x 10 -5 m s -1 with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.47. When compared to the bogs, the fens had a higher K sat of 1 x 10 -4 m s -1 and had a CV of 0.72 (Figure 4). Both fen and bog K sat decreased with depth (Figure 4). In the fens, with increasing depth from 100 cm to 265 cm, mean K sat declined by an order of magnitude from 1.6 x 10 -4 to 5.6 x 10 -5 m s -1 . Whereas in the bogs, K sat values over the same depths only declined from 5.7 x 10 -5 m s -1 at 100 cm depth, to 1.67 x 10 -5 m s -1 at 265 cm depth. When comparing bogs by size, consistent trends were found between bog and adjacent fens across all sites with a difference in K sat observed at depth across small, medium, and large bogs. Large bogs showed the largest change with depth (steepest change in slope) while medium and small bogs showed less of a change with depth (Fig. 4 ). The small bogs change in K sat with depth was nearly parallel to that of the fen, however about half an order of magnitude lower overall. Clay Surface Variability When examining all grids together, the median clay layer elevation in the fen and bogs were nearly identical, but the fen showed a much larger range, due to variability in spatial distribution as Fen1 and Fen2 were located approximately 300 m apart (Table 3 ). The surface vegetation elevation tended to vary greatly in the hummocks and hollows of the bogs while staying within in a small range in the fens. The bogs had a higher median peat thickness than the fens, but fens tended to have slightly higher variability (Fig. 5 ). Table 3 Clay surface variability results for each study. Grids are broken down by location (bog or fen) for the bog and mound grids Study Sample Points Median Clay Elevation (masl) SD (cm) Median Peat Surface (masl) SD (cm) Median Peat Thickness (m) Fen1 81 278.38 7.2 280.95 5.2 2.65 Fen2 81 277.65 78 280.75 4.4 3.19 Bog1 - Bogpt 35 277.73 7.9 281.08 12.5 3.31 Bog1 - Fenpt 46 277.74 9.8 280.83 4.5 3.08 Bog2 - Bogpt 55 278.07 12.6 281.15 9.9 3.1 Bog2 - Fenpt 19 278 9.7 280.84 4.9 2.89 Mound1 - Bogpt 13 278.12 5.4 281.14 9.2 3 Mound1 - Fenpt 59 278.11 4.9 280.79 3.6 2.69 Mound2 - Bogpt 23 278.03 5.5 281.23 8.9 3.2 Mound2 - Fenpt 43 278.08 4.8 280.86 3.9 2.78 Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI) is displayed as a raster dataset displaying the average ruggedness for each cell of a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The resulting DEMs can output statistics on the average TRI value (Figure 5) as well as the standard deviation. Fen1 had an average TRI of 7.9 cm (SD: 4.5 cm), while Fen2 had a TRI of 9 cm (SD: 5.9 cm). When examining the bog grids both Bog1 (TRI of 14.7 cm) and Bog2 (TRI of 19.5 cm) demonstrated higher average TRI values than the fen (average TRI = 8.4 cm). However, individual points in the bog and fen revealed differences; in Bog1, the fen measurement points had an average TRI of 7.9 cm (SD: 4.3 cm), while the TRI at the bog measurement points were nearly double (14.1 cm) (Figure 5). Bog2 showed greater differences; the fen locations had an average TRI of 8.9 cm (SD: 5.2 cm) while the bog locations had a TRI that was more than double that (TRI of 20.3 cm). Mound1 showed a similar trend; the fen points in the Mound1 grid had an average TRI of 6.6 cm (SD: 3.2 cm), while the bog locations had a TRI of 10 cm (Figure 5). As for Mound2, this study was omitted from the TRI analysis as it consisted of 4 transects rather than a custom grid. Water Chemistry In bogs, measurements began at the moss surface above the water table and then with increasing depth, were collected from below the water table. Moving below the water table in the bogs, over a vertical range of approximately 7 cm, a sharp increase in pH was observed (Fig. 6 ). This increase in pH for the bogs was almost identical in range and average values found in the fens (Table 4). When examining pH by bog size, small, medium, and large bogs showed average pH values above the water table of 4.1, 4.0, and 3.8 respectively. Below the water table, regardless of the bog size, all bogs showed an average pH of 6.0 with a range of only 5.8 to 6.2. Table 4 pH and EC (µS/cm) measurements across all bogs and fens differentiated by location relative to the water table. Below the water table, increments of 10, 70, and 160 cm depth were chosen to illustrate changes with depth Above Water Table Below Water Table Range Average Range Average 10 cm 70 cm 160 cm pH Bog 3.47–4.65 4.01 4.99–6.40 5.99 5.85 5.99 6.27 Fen - - 4.97–6.59 6 6.34 5.85 6.11 EC (µS/cm) Bog 44–255 116 54–407 163 102 173 257 Fen - - 87–340 138 118 144 216 Electrical conductivity (EC) measurements indicated that bogs and fens shared similar averages and ranges across all measurements (Fig. 6 ). With increasing elevation above the water table, EC generally increased (Fig. 6 ). Average EC values at the water table were 66 µS/cm, increasing with increasing depth below the surface. Small, medium, and large bogs showed average EC values above the water table of 73, 111, and 145 µS/cm, respectively. Below the water table at a depth of 25 cm, all bog sizes showed similar values. Moving through depth, small (302 µS/cm) and medium (300 µS/cm) bogs showed a larger increase than the large bogs (196 µS/cm) at 160 cm depth. Discussion Allogenic Factors Post-glacial landscape Aside from the large scale hydrogeomorphic (including climate) setting (which we assume to be the same across the Moss Spur peatland sites), the nature of post-glacial landscape is likely the largest allogenic factors driving formation of peatlands in southeastern Manitoba. Based on field measurements, an underlying substrate layer of thick clay was found at the base of each peat profile throughout Moss Spur. At larger scales (1s to 10s km), including a site also in Southeastern Manitoba, a correlation was found between substratum depressions and large-scale domed bog development (Falufosi, 2024 ). Our results from Moss Spur showed no significant difference in clay elevation between the fen and bog locations (Table 3 ) suggesting neither a single large depression nor elevated mound was present beneath the plateau or mound bogs. However, Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI) analysis showed that bog values were substantially higher than the values in the fen with close to twice the average ruggedness found across all tests (Table 3 ). Thus, the variability of the clay surface beneath bogs was more variable or rugged in nature than beneath the fens. This could have provided more microhabitats at the sites beneath bogs, allowing succession a slight advantage by encouraging an earlier diversity of vegetation. A lower substrate elevation at the small scale, presumably could have detained water at the surface for longer, and accumulated further vegetation and organic matter, temporally, giving locations at Moss Spur head-start on succession. Microtopographic depressions (< 50 cm) have been known to induce wet conditions to favour the accumulation of hydrophilic bryophytes (Le Stum-Boivin et al., 2019 ). So, it could be that instead of a large single depression in the clay layer beneath the bogs at Moss Spur, it was many small and more numerous depressions/mounds (i.e., a more rugged post-glacial terrain) that gave these areas, and thus the final successional stage of bogs, a head-start. Autogenic Factors Size dependency Bog selection was made based mainly upon accessibility and walking distance from an access road. This resulted in us selecting the nearest 15–20 bogs with reasonable access. From these bogs, we found natural breaks (Jenks) resulting in our nine selected bogs and corresponding small, medium, and large classifications. However, a more detailed GIS-based breakdown (Hildebrand, 2024 ) conducted near the end of the project, showed that our bogs are mostly extra small and small bogs, with one of our bogs being considered medium, and one large, when looking at similar Jenks breaks in an analysis done for the 4 km 2 fen complex with 275 bogs identified. Therefore, discussions of size need to be considered with this in mind moving forward. Average length to width ratio of the bogs at Moss Spur was 1.81 but appeared to increase with bog area, with the largest bog having a ratio of 2.96 (Table 2 ). A similar result was found by Glaser ( 1987 ), who examined 40 large bogs (1–20 km 2 ) across the major peatland regions of North America and found an average length-to-width ratio of 2.5. As a result of the Nearest Neighbor analysis (Table 2 ), a clustering pattern was observed in the two smallest groups of bogs (70–878 m 2 and 879–2529 m 2 ). As bog size increased, bog development appeared in a dispersed pattern, suggesting the possible coalescence of many small bogs. However, it is not fully understood if this is a characteristic of bog development at this scale. Bog size and shape growth at larger scales has been examined more extensively in the literature with interactions of topography, hydrology, and plant growth being limiting factors (Belyea and Baird, 2006 ). These factors autogenically drive rates of bog height and lateral expansion. At some sites bogs begin their development with rapid lateral expansion from a single loci, while others form through the coalescence of multiple loci of initiation (Belyea and Baird, 2006 ; Heinselman, 1970 ). However, in the large fen complex of Moss Spur, there is an abrupt change from fen vegetation to bog islands that occurs over one to two metres. Fen systems have been shown to spread peat laterally due to the accumulation of vertical peat accumulation near the center, allowing water to flow from the center to the margins of the fen (Loisel and Bunsen, 2020 ; Morris et al., 2011 a; Ruppel et al., 2013 ; Baird et al., 2016). Although the findings of the current study show clustered, elongated bogs with increasing size, studies that applied palaeoecological approaches and pollen/plant analysis would contribute further to our understanding of bog microforms and their development to help predict and understand the patterning hydro-physical behaviour of bogs at this scale. The understanding of microform persistence and transition would allow for a comprehensive of the mechanisms at work driving bog lateral expansion at Moss Spur. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Beginning at depths of 100 cm below the surface, the K sat values in both fen and bogs decreased with depth (Fig. 4 ). There was likely a large decrease in hydraulic conductivity that occurred throughout Moss Spur in the initial 100 cm of depth, however, this was not fully characterized. At Moss Spur, K sat values ranged from 2.1 x 10 − 5 to 3.5 x 10 − 4 m s − 1 across the fen and 5.3 x 10 − 6 to 7.3 x 10 − 5 m s − 1 across bog locations (Fig. 4 ). Peat K sat typically decreases rapidly with depth and thus increased humification (Morris et al., 2022 ). Larger pore spaces and a less decomposed acrotelm may have led higher hydraulic conductivity near the surface of raised bogs with lower values in the catotelm (Rydin et al., 2013 ). Differing plant and decomposition classes indicate differences in K sat as well, with the two major peatland vegetation species, Sphagnum and Carex having contrasting hydraulic properties (Glaser, 1987 ; Szajdak L W et al., 2016). Comparatively, Sphagnum peat has low hydraulic conductivity due to tightly packed leaves and stems and reduced pore size, while Carex has horizontally spreading rhizomes forming porous networks of stems. Additionally, a higher degree of anisotropy is often consistent with Sphagnum dominated peatlands, resulting in notable differences in vertical hydraulic conductivity (Beckwith et al., 2003 ; Rydin et al., 2013 ). With respect to bog size, the greatest decline in K sat was found in the large bogs, with reducing decline found in medium, and small bogs (Fig. 4 ). Small bogs showed a similar linear trend to that of the fen with a nearly identical decrease rate, however offset by about a half order of magnitude (Fig. 4 ). These trends are likely the result of larger bog’s increased size and the associated compaction the peat resulting in the decrease in K sat when compared to smaller bogs. They may also be tied to plant composition and decomposition rates as the larger bogs presumably have a greater proportion of Sphagnum dominated plant species compared to the smaller bogs, resulting in the lower K sat . With increased size, bogs can further increase their ability to expand above the water table, resisting the plant litter to further decay (Belyea and Clymo, 2001 ). Hydrology Ombrotrophic conditions within bogs develop from the separation of the water table surface from the regional water table either through peat accumulation or a reduction in the regional water table (Damman, 1979 ). Water table trends showed that all nine bogs had an elevated water table between 3 and 13 cm higher than their adjacent fen during the wettest point in the field season (Fig. 3 ). During the driest period, seven of the nine bogs examined continued to show an elevated water table; only two bogs were found to have bog and fen water tables within one centimeter of each other, which is likely within the measurement precision. In some larger bogs, flow changes have been observed in times of drought when water-table mounds dissipate as there is not enough precipitation to sustain them (Siegel and Glaser, 2006 ). A domed water table was observed throughout our study period allowing for bog plant growth to take place. Hughes and Barber ( 2003 ) argue that only a few centimetres above the mineral water is all that is needed for oligotrophic bog formation to occur in fens, pointing to these being true bogs. The observations of water table mounding in bogs within the current study (Fig. 3 ; ii ) and the distinct, sharp changes in water chemistry (pH and EC; Fig. 7) confirm the presence of oligotrophic conditions atop bogs, but it remains unclear at what stage in bog development these conditions were realized. Additionally, the 2022 field season was very wet (100 mm of extra precipitation) compared to the 30-year normal, which would enhance the effect of a domed water table in the bogs. When comparing bog water table mounding, the larger the bog the more variability in water table position was observed over the study period (Fig. 3 ; ii ); larger bogs tended to have smaller differences during dryer parts of the study period and larger differences during the wetter. Smaller bogs tended to not show the same range in bog water tables with changes in precipitation. Water Chemistry A distinct and abrupt difference in pH values was apparent in the bogs at the elevation of the water table (Fig. 6 ). Above the water table, pH values (3.47–4.65) fell within the range of values typical for a typical bog (National Wetlands Working Group, 1997 ; Vitt et al., 1995 ). However, below the water table, pH values (4.99–6.4) increased to values closer to those more typical for fens(Vitt et al., 1995 ). This could be a result of abrupt ombrotrophication, whereby the water chemistry conditions abruptly change from minerotrophic to ombrotrophic in nature (Rydin et al., 2013 ); this taking place over a few hundred years somewhere in the history of bog development at Moss Spur. Several palaeoecological studies show the rapid phenomenon of ombrotrophication and its relationship with the lowering of pH (Gorham and Janssens, 1992 ; Kuhry et al., 1992 ). This speaks to the role autogenic forcings have on changing these systems, somewhere in recent history. Electrical conductivity has been shown to increase with an increase in decomposition, or with depth (Asadi and Huat, 2009 ). This was observed at both bog and fen locations, with EC values increasing with depth in all cases (Fig. 6 ). Bog pore water typically have low solute concentrations resulting in low pH (3.3–4.5) and EC (10–40 µS/cm) where water from regional groundwater and adjacent fens are limited (Zoltai and Vitt, 1995 ). Bog EC has also been known to increase with an increase in moisture content and with depth (Aminudin et al., 2018 ; Asadi and Huat, 2009 ). This could explain why we see an increase in EC values with an increase in height above the water table. When examining pH and EC by bog size, no differences were observed below the water table (Fig. 6 ). However, above the water table, average pH values decreased with an increase in bog size (Table 3 ). Similarly, average EC increased from small to large sized bogs. It is possible that due to the size of the larger bogs and the degrees of ombrotrophy and humification, these bogs are experiencing an increase in the release of more conductive compounds that are increasing the EC (Aminudin et al., 2018 ; Asadi and Huat, 2009 ). Our data support the conclusion that only the top 30 cm within the peat profile of the bogs are consistent with conditions that would be considered typical for bogs. Thus, the bogs included in this study are indeed bog ecosystems situated within, but sitting atop, of a larger patterned fen. This illustrates a significant change in the vegetative history of these ecosystems and the role of autogenic forcings in small scale bog formation. Field observations did not indicate the presence of an abrupt change in species from a fen dominated species such as Carex peat to a peat more concentrated in Sphagnum with depth; however, the water chemistry measurements indicate the position and abrupt nature of this transition. Ombrotrophy can occur simply from the separation of the vegetative growth surface from the affects of the groundwater that surrounds it which can occur from the vertical accumulation of peat or a decrease in the water table (Hughes and Barber, 2003 ). Conclusion The postglacial landscape appears to have had influence on plateau and mound bog formation at Moss Spur; while no significant difference was observed between adjacent fen and bog points (Fig. 5 ) in terms of our hypothesis that there would be a mound or a depression in the clay surface, the terrain ruggedness index (Fig. 5 ) showed bogs being twice as rugged as adjacent fens. This suggests that microtopography of mounds or depressions could have been a factor in initiation of peatlands at this location. A larger sample size and a full vegetative analysis could assist in providing a more definitive answer on the effect the postglacial landscape has on bog formation at this scale. Hydraulic conductivity was found to always be higher in the fens than the bogs (Fig. 4 ), and both decreased with depth correlating well to larger fens and bogs in the literature. Larger bogs tended to see a sharper decrease in hydraulic conductivity when compared to smaller bogs, which saw decreases similar to that of the fens. A domed water table was found in the bogs (Fig. 3 ) which could demonstrate the ability to grow and foster bog plant growth. This was apparent with our water chemistry findings where a large drop in pH was observed at the water table boundary in all bogs regardless of bog size (Fig. 6 ). This demonstrating that these appear to be chemically true bogs sitting on top of a fen. At this small scale, there is evidence that allogenic factors favoured peatland development at this study site, but it seems that allogenic factors merely set the stage for bog formation, and it was driven by autogenic factors thereafter. Explanations based on biological, geomorphic, and climatic controls are also needed to fully understand and appreciate these ecosystems. Valuable research would involve the collection of pollen, carbon, and vegetative history of the peat at Moss Spur and sites with small bogs like the ones here. Declarations Funding This work was supported by the NSERC (National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Discovery Grant awarded to Pete Whittington. Award number: DGECR-2019-00487 Competing Interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Author Contributions Carter Hildebrand, Scott Ketcheson, and Pete Whittington all contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Carter Hildebrand. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Carter Hildebrand and all authors contributed and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data Availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Agriculture, Agri-Food Canada (1967) Soil Survey Reports - Soils of the Lac Du Bonnet Area [WWW Document]. Soils Report No. 15. URL https://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/mb/mb15/index.html (accessed 2.23.22) Aminudin A, Hasanah T, Iryati M (2018) The Characteristics of Electrical and Physical Properties of Peat Soil in Rasau Village, West Kalimantan. Journal of Physics Asadi A, Huat B (2009) Electrical resistivity of tropical peat. Electr J Geotech Eng 14 Beckwith CW, Baird AJ, Heathwaite AL (2003) Anisotropy and depth-related heterogeneity of hydraulic conductivity in a bog peat. I: Laboratory measurements. Hydrol Process 17:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/HYP.1116 Belyea L, Baird A (2006) Beyond the limits to peat bog growth: Cross-scale feedback in peatland development. Ecol Monogr Belyea LR, Clymo RS (2001) Feedback control of the rate of peat formation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268, 1315–1321. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSPB.2001.1665 Butler JJ, Healey JM (1998) Relationship between pumping-test and slug-test parameters: Scale effect or artifact? Ground Water 36:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-6584.1998.TB01096.X Damman A (1979) Geographic patterns in peatland development in eastern North America. Geographic patterns in peatland dIn Classification of Mires and Peats. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Classification of Peat and Peatlands 42–57 Environment, Canada CC (2021) Climate normals for Pinawa, MB (Climate ID: 5032162) - Environment and Climate Change Canada [WWW Document]. URL https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html (accessed 2.23.22) Environment, Climate Change Canada (2016) Indicators: Extent of Canada’s Wetlands - Google Search [WWW Document]. URL https://www.google.com/search?q=Indicators%3A+Extent+of+Canada%27s+Wetlands&rlz=1C1VDKB_enCA1031CA1031&oq=Indicators%3A+Extent+of+Canada%27s+Wetlands&aqs=chrome.69i57j69i58.864j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed 11.7.22) Falufosi MO (2024) Effects of the post-glacial hydrogeomorphic settings on peatland distribution in south-eastern Manitoba, Canada Glaser PH (1987) The development of streamlined bog islands in the continental interior of North America. Arct Alp Res 19:402–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1551405 Gorham E (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941811 Gorham E, Janssens JA (1992) Concepts of fen and bog re-examined in relation to bryophyte cover and the acidity of surface waters. ACFA SOCIETATIS Bot POLONIAB 61:7–20 Halsey L, Vitt D, Zoltai S (1997a) Climatic and physiographic controls on wetland type and distribution in Manitoba. Can Wetlands 17:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161413 Halsey L, Vitt D, Zoltai S (1997b) Climatic and physiographic controls on wetland type and distribution in Manitoba, Canada. Wetlands 1997 17(2 17):243–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161413 Heinselman ML (1970) Landscape Evolution, Peatland Types, and the Environment in the Lake Agassiz Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota. Ecol Monogr 40:235–261. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942297 Hildebrand C (2024) BOG ISLANDS IN PATTERNED FENS: INSIGHTS INTO ALLOGENIC AND AUTOGENIC FACTORS ON BOG FORMATION IN THE ELMA PEATLAND COMPLEX. SOUTH EASTERN MANITOBA Hughes P, Barber K (2003) Mire development across the fen-bog transition on the Teifi floodplain at Tregaron Bog, Ceredigion, Wales, and a comparison with 13 other raised bogs. J Ecol 91:253–264 Hvorslev M (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations Kuhry P, Halsey LA, Bayley SE, Vitt DH (1992) Peatland development in relation to Holocene climatic change in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (Canada). Can J Earth Sci 29:1070–1090. https://doi.org/10.1139/E92-086 Le Stum-Boivin É, Magnan G, Garneau M, Bergeron Y, Grondin P, Fenton J, N (2019) Spatiotemporal evolution of paludification associated with autogenic and allogenic factors in the black spruce–moss boreal forest of Québec, Canada. Quat Res 650–664 Loisel J, Bunsen M (2020) Abrupt Fen-Bog Transition Across Southern Patagonia: Timing, Causes, and Impacts on Carbon Sequestration. Front Ecol Evol 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEVO.2020.00273/FULL Manitoba Mineral, Resources (2013) Bedrock geology, Manitoba, 2007–2013 [WWW Document]. Map Gallery - Geoscientific Maps, Manitoba Mineral Resources. URL https://www.manitoba.ca/iem/geo/gis/geoscience.html (accessed 2.23.22) Mitsch WJ, Bernal B, Hernandez ME (2015) Ecosystem services of wetlands. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 11:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250 Morris PJ, Davies ML, Baird AJ, Balliston N, Bourgault MA, Clymo RS, Fewster RE, Furukawa AK, Holden J, Kessel E, Ketcheson SJ, Kløve B, Larocque M, Marttila H, Menberu MW, Moore PA, Price JS, Ronkanen AK, Rosa E, Strack M, Surridge BWJ, Waddington JM, Whittington P, Wilkinson SL (2022) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in Northern Peats Inferred From Other Measurements. Water Resour Res 58, e2022WR033181. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033181 Morris PJ, Waddington JM, Benscoter BW, Turetsky MR, Conceptual frameworks in peatland ecohydrology: looking beyond the two-layered (acrotelm–catotelm) model. Wiley Online LibraryPJ Morris, Waddington JM, Benscoter BW, TuretskyEcohydrology MR (2011) 2011•Wiley Online Library 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.191 National Wetlands Working Group (1997) The Canadian Wetland Classification System Second Edition. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario 1–68 Niering W (1989) Vegetation dynamics in relation to wetland. Wetland Creation and Restoration Riley S, DeGloria S, Elliot R (1999) Index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Intermt J Sci 5:23–27 Ruppel M, Väliranta M, Virtanen T, Korhola A (2013) Postglacial spatiotemporal peatland initiation and lateral expansion dynamics in North America and northern Europe. Holocene 23:1596–1606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683613499053 Rydin H, Jeglum J, Bennett K (2013) The biology of peatlands, 2e Scarlett S, Price J (2013) The hydrological and geochemical isolation of a freshwater bog within a saline fen in north-eastern Alberta, vol 12. Mires & Peat Siegel D, Glaser P (2006) The hydrology of peatlands. Boreal Peatland Ecosystems Siegel D, Glaser P (1987) Groundwater flow in a bog-fen complex, Lost River Peatland, northern Minnesota. J Ecol 75:743–754 Szajdak LW, Lapshina ED, Gaca W, Styła K, Meysner T, Szczepański M, Zarov EA (2016) Physical, chemical and biochemical properties of Western Siberia Sphagnum and Carex peat soils. journals.eco-vector.com Vitt DH, Bayley SE, Tai-Long Jin (1995) Seasonal variation in water chemistry over a bog-rich fen gradient in continental western Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:587–606. https://doi.org/10.1139/F95-059 Vitt DH, Halsey LA, Zoltai SC (1994) The bog landforms of continental western Canada in relation to climate and permafrost patterns. Arct Alp Res 26:1–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1551870 Zoltai SC, Vitt DH (1995) Canadian wetlands: Environmental gradients and classification. Vegetatio 118:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045195 Statements & Declarations Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Wetlands → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 10 Jun, 2025 Editor invited by journal 05 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 05 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 04 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6770509","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":469189793,"identity":"59e29493-0719-421a-b5a5-be83c49f3d05","order_by":0,"name":"Carter Hildebrand","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6563-987X","institution":"Brandon University Faculty of Science","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carter","middleName":"","lastName":"Hildebrand","suffix":""},{"id":469189794,"identity":"21dabd6f-6650-4822-acd5-f4d9c14dd3c6","order_by":1,"name":"Scott Ketcheson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Athabasca University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Scott","middleName":"","lastName":"Ketcheson","suffix":""},{"id":469189795,"identity":"b3dad06c-6b65-474f-a627-476c73fa241d","order_by":2,"name":"Pete Whittington","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brandon University Faculty of Science","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pete","middleName":"","lastName":"Whittington","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-28 18:34:51","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6770509/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6770509/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-026-02033-y","type":"published","date":"2026-02-09T15:58:39+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84437375,"identity":"7edcc720-8bfe-473f-9729-8634577dc054","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-12 02:49:19","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1089621,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) A general reference map indicating the location of Moss Spur within Manitoba and Canada (b) A detailed aerial view of the study area as it lies between two large bogs (shaded in orange) in a fen (not shaded). Note the teardrop shaped bogs (studied bogs outlined in green, but not all bogs present are outlined). The point of entry into the fen, in which the study site lies, is indicated with a star. The unlined area in the bottom right corner is part of a previously harvested site called Moss Spur. (c) Approximate locations of piezometers (Red dots) across all nine bogs. Large bogs: A, E, F. Medium bogs: B, D, I. Small bogs: C, G, H. Approximate locations of clay variability grids, outlined as coloured squares. From left to right the squares are as follows: Fen1, Mound1 and Mound2 (both small red box), Bog2, Bog1, Fen2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6770509/v1/d59d9400c6ba1e47e7dfd04a.png"},{"id":84437376,"identity":"812636b1-6781-4d35-8024-e0e020fbba54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-12 02:49:19","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80109,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Example 40 x 40 m grid used in the bogs. Cell scale is 5 x 5 m. Note: for the fen only grids, no bog would be present. For the bog mound grids, grids were 8 x 7 m with each cell being 1 x 1 m. (b) Default well installation scheme for each bog along the two perpendicular transects\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6770509/v1/d9fdfc75cf61f483253a2844.png"},{"id":84438115,"identity":"62535ccb-2aaa-4ad5-94cc-df24d0273fa8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-12 03:05:19","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1031076,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Hourly water table values as recorded by 11 divers spread throughout Moss Spur. Values are relative to ground surface with positive values being standing water and negative values being below ground (b) Average bog water table height with reference above its adjacent fen for all bogs throughout the study period. Different coloured lines indicate different sized bogs\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6770509/v1/e4c719eacc56ef1fa5298271.png"},{"id":84438675,"identity":"fe011113-8008-4a0b-878e-68e3f04061e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-12 03:13:19","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":304803,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSaturated hydraulic conductivity values for all bog and fen piezometers across Moss Spur at depth. Bog values based on different size intervals: large (red; 2013-5609 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e), medium (yellow; 1577-1696 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e) and small (blue; 603-1063 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e). Fen values are all coloured grey as size categories are obsolete\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6770509/v1/db2e8f3ad1bc4539bde037f5.png"},{"id":84437378,"identity":"e3e5f41b-d834-4118-86d7-94db5b7eb863","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-12 02:49:19","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40813,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eViolin plots with embedded boxplots showing the variation in Terrain Ruggedness Index values (cm). Dashed vertical lines are used to separate individual grids. Colours represent where the points were collected being either bog (bog point - blue) or fen (fen point - yellow). Non-overlapping notches in the boxplots shows strong evidence that the medians are statistically significantly different\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6770509/v1/a2683898ce6c21758a78e5d4.png"},{"id":84437392,"identity":"9a0e8126-9aca-44fa-a375-18e8793ae216","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-12 02:49:20","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":637501,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003epH and electrical conductivity (EC) values for each bog and fen location. Bogs A (large), B (medium) and C (small) are bolded/darker in all figures. Red, yellow, and blue lines refer to large, medium, and small bogs, respectively. The 0 on the y-axis (gray line) denotes the water table. Highlighted “bogs” A, B, and C in the lower fen figures refer to the fen directly adjacent to the named bogs (i.e., fen pH, not bog pH data are shown). “Other fens” refer to the other fen points monitored for pH throughout Moss Spur\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6770509/v1/348638e93f6304586b10fba4.png"},{"id":102785479,"identity":"ddcdebdb-8b75-435a-8248-0a76e9b80924","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 16:07:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3924460,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6770509/v1/ae7f481a-ac82-4357-bbad-f680efd38f9a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Insights into allogenic and autogenic controls on the nature and distribution of bog islands in patterned peatlands.","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCanada has approximately 1.29\u0026nbsp;million km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e of wetlands, making up about 13% of Canada\u0026rsquo;s terrestrial area (Environment and Climate Change Canada, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; National Wetlands Working Group, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), representing ecosystems that play an important role in carbon sequestration, water purification, nutrient cycling, flood mitigation, and provide habitat for biodiversity (Mitsch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the province of Manitoba, Canada, wetlands comprise about 43% of the land area; of which peatlands represent 90% (Gorham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Halsey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997a\u003c/span\u003e; National Wetlands Working Group, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Despite their prevalence in the Canadian landscape, there are still unanswered questions about how some types of peatlands form, and how they may be susceptible to climate and land use changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeatlands form and transform through the interactions of autogenic (soil development, water movement, vegetation, water chemistry) and allogenic (flooding, fire, climate, post-glacial topography, climatology) factors (Niering, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). A typical Canadian continental peatland successional pathway starts as shallow open water wetlands in a post-glacial landscape, which develops into marshes and swamps, and if the right hydrologic and chemical conditions are present, over time, can eventually give rise to fens, poor fens, and then bogs. However, knowing what some of these initial conditions in the post-glacial landscape were that ultimately ended in bogs, is the subject of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeatland complexes at the landscape or watershed scale (10s to 100s km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) have received a lot of attention in the literature (Damman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e; Halsey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997b\u003c/span\u003e; Siegel and Glaser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), but peatlands can also be found at a significantly smaller scales, such as northern plateau (400\u0026ndash;5000 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) and mound bogs (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;7 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e), which have received considerably less attention. Both of these smaller-scale bogs appear as bog \u0026lsquo;islands\u0026rsquo; within larger fen complexes common throughout south-eastern Manitoba and other peatland dominated areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariations in the substratum (often the post-glacial landscape) beneath peatlands has been examined by numerous peatland formation studies across the literature and can be strongly tied to peatland development and distribution (Scarlett and Price, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Bog island growth at large scales can also be attributed to the alkalinity of surface waters of rich fens, creating ovoid, and streamlined islands which then can grow into ombrogenous raised bogs by further accumulating peat (Glaser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Vitt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Stagnation, water track divergence, and regional water table fluctuations have also been related to this formation (Vitt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). However, other interactions could prove more important in bog island formation at smaller scales due to higher sensitivities to changes in their environment. This could include hydrology, water chemistry, the interactions of bog specific flora (fewer than 30 species of bryophytes and vascular plants), and the sensitive feedback systems that develop among this vegetation (fluctuations of acidity, alkalinity, ion concentrations) (Glaser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e). It is possible that at this scale, small changes in any of the above factors, could lead to drastic changes in the ecosystem development trajectory that would not be seen in larger, presumably more stable (resilient) peatlands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research aims to assess the local hydrogeomorphic conditions within and surrounding bog islands and mounds to evaluate the role of autogenic and allogenic factors on their formation, spatial distribution and size.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objectives of this paper are to 1) quantify and compare a range of potential allogenic and autogenic factors within bog islands to the surrounding fen peatland, including the post-glacial clay surface, water chemistry, hydraulic conductivity, and the shape of the water table and to 2) relate these factors to the size of the bog islands.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy Site\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study site (Moss Spur) lies in southeastern Manitoba, Canada (50° 0.151’ N; 96° 9.476’ W) at the northern end of a 2400 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e peatland complex. Moss Spur is located approximately 90 km east of Winnipeg near the village of Elma and is surrounded by lands developed for agriculture (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ei). Climate data are available from the Pinawa, MB climate station (Climate ID: 5032162; 1991–2020 climate normals) located approximately 25 km north-east of the study site (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024). The mean annual temperature and precipitation are 2.6°C and 571 mm, respectively, with approximately 20% falling as snow. January and July mean monthly temperatures are − 16.2 and 19.0°C, respectively. The soil classification of the area is characterized as deep peatland complexes with peat deposits over 40 cm thick and a drainage classification of poor to very poor (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1967\u003c/span\u003e). The underlying geology is dominated by granodiorite/gneiss rock with significant underlying deposits of lacustrine clay (Manitoba Mineral Resources, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study area is located within an 11 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e peatland complex that contains 4 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e of patterned fen surrounded by a raised treed bog (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Within the fen, approximately 275 plateau bogs (size ranges from 98 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e – 63212 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) were observed, with an estimated hundreds to thousands of mound bogs (very small, \u0026lt; 10 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) also distributed between them. For the remainder of this paper, northern plateau bogs/bog islands will herein be referred to simply as bogs, while mound bogs will continue to be referred to as mound bogs. Within the Moss Spur fen, most if not all the bogs and mound bogs were found to be raised above the surrounding fen. The fen was dominated by grass and shrub vegetation, while both the bogs and mound bogs contained distinct vegetation typically found in other bogs across North America. Bogs exhibited a typical hummock and hollow microtopography of various \u003cem\u003eSphagnum spp.\u003c/em\u003e as well as ericaceous shrubs and \u003cem\u003ePicea mariana\u003c/em\u003e (black spruce) and \u003cem\u003eLarix laricina\u003c/em\u003e (tamarack). Bog mounds were present as thick accumulations of \u003cem\u003eSphagnum spp.\u003c/em\u003e raised anywhere between 25 and 100 cm above the fen while occasionally containing small black spruce and tamarack saplings. Nine bogs of varying sizes (500 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e to 3000 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) were sampled within the large fen area. These bogs were measured (length, width, and area) and the results were used to group the bogs into size categories based on natural breaks that emerged in the data: small (n = 14; \u0026lt;1000 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e), medium (n = 7; 1000–2000 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e), and large (n = 4; \u0026gt;2000 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e). From this, three bogs were chosen from each size category, considering proximity and ease of access. Sizes are relative, and even the ‘large’ bogs named here are dwarfed by the surrounding domed bogs (shaded in orange in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, ii, iii).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003eHydrology\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach bog was instrumented with two perpendicular transects of wells that ran the length (L) and width (W) of each bog (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, ii). The number of wells per transect ranged from 5 to 11, depending on transect length. The first and last well along each transect were located in the fen, which was located approximately 10 m from the transition well (bog/fen interface) on either side; the remaining wells were located within the bog itself. Twelve piezometers were also permanently installed (0.75 to 3.65 cm depth) in various bogs (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBreakdown of bog size and piezometer locations across Moss Spur\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePiezometers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"1\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSize (m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog Size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFen\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePiezometer Depth (m)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstallation Year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75, 1.82, 3.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1611\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75, 1.82, 3.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75, 1.82, 3.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1577\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2738\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5609\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e606\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e603\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1696\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWells were constructed out of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe slotted along the entire pipe length and screened with nylon stockings. Wells varied from 0.75\u0026ndash;1 m in length depending on location in the bog/fen. Piezometers were similarly constructed each with 20 cm slotted intakes covered by 250 \u0026micro;m Nytex screen. Holes were hand augured into the peat prior to installation to allow for clean insertion and then the pipes were promptly developed by pulsating the water back and forth, before evacuating the water three to four times (Butler and Healey, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). A total of 11 Van Essen Instruments\u0026rsquo; pressure transducers (Micro-Diver (DI6xx) \u0026amp; Baro-Diver (DI500)) were installed in various wells, logging water table values at hourly intervals from 2 June 2022 until 12 October 2022. All wells and piezometers were measured manually on an approximately weekly basis from 9 June to August 15, 2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSaturated hydraulic conductivity (K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e) measurements were conducted at each of the installed piezometers using bail tests (Hvorslev, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e, as explained in Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Seven additional piezometers were also used and temporarily installed in various locations to facilitate K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e measurements at each of the bogs and adjacent fens that did not contain permanently installed piezometers. These are referred to as \u0026ldquo;roving nests\u0026rdquo; that consisted of piezometers installed to depths of 1.0 m, 1.95 m, and 2.65 m. The nests were set up and measured on alternating days to allow for the water pressure to reach equilibrium, following the development (for well-screen cleaning) of each piezometer after installation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePeat Depth Variability\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo determine the variability in the clay surface underlying the peatland, bespoke grids were set up in fen, bog, and bog mound locations throughout Moss Spur. In both the fen and bog locations, 40 x 40 m grids were established using a measuring tape (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In the fen locations, grids were set up in open fen with uniform vegetation. In the bog locations, grids were set up to include one plateau bog and surrounding fen. Across the grid, sampling took place at 5 m intervals moving systematically across the grid. At each point, measurements were taken to identify the vegetation/surface level and the depth to the top of the clay layer from the peat surface. By using the total length of the auger, the amount of auger still protruding above the vegetation surface, and the distance to the clay-peat interface on the auger, the depth to clay beneath the surface was determined. For the fens, the water table was used as a horizontal zero datum, and everything was measured relative to the water table; this was due to the relatively high-water table during the summer of 2022. A tape measure was mounted to the auger handle to easily determine the vegetation height at the surface, limiting error during data collection. Error values of \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 cm were likely present in the reading of the length of clay attached to the auger, due to its spiral nature. For vegetation height in the bogs, since the water table was not easily accessible, a True Smart Digital Water Altimeter (error\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.16 cm) was used by \u0026lsquo;zeroing\u0026rsquo; the device at the water table of the fen and measuring each depth relative to it. This allowed for limited additional errors when determining clay depths in the bogs, given the more rugged terrain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn all locations, a hand auger of lengths between 2.91 and 3.83 m was used to auger until the rigid underlying clay layer was encountered, subsequently determining the peat depth. Given the smaller scale of the mound bogs, an 8 x 7 m grid was established over multiple mound bogs that were approximately 4 m long and 3 m wide. Samples were collected at one metre intervals following the same practices as the previous grids\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor simplicity in naming each grid experiment, the results for fen variability, bog variability, and mound variability are referred to as Fen, Bog, and Mound, respectively. Different test numbers are indicative of different locations (i.e., replicates) where they were conducted. For the Bog and the Mound grids, where both bog and fen locations exist, \u0026ldquo;Bogpt\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Fenpt\u0026rdquo; are used to refer to bog points within the grid from the fen points, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoordinate data from the clay elevation measurements was imported into ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1 where the data were transformed into a raster data layer for processing. The coordinate data were transformed into a point feature and then into a raster surface using spline interpolation under tension and a 2.5 m interpolated surface. To estimate surface roughness, the terrain ruggedness index (TRI) tool was used based on methodologies proposed by Riley et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). The tool calculates the Terrain index for each central cell based on the elevation of the eight cells surrounding it:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTRI = [ \u0026sum; (x\u003csub\u003eij\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; x\u003csub\u003e0,0\u003c/sub\u003e )\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e ]\u003csup\u003e1/2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ewhere: x\u003csub\u003eij\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; elevation of each eight-neighbouring cell to central cell (0,0).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe eight elevation differences are squared and averaged, and the square root of this value becomes the TRI index for that particular cell. This calculation is then repeated over every cell in the raster data layer. This method was used to analyze the underlying clay layer for the Fen, Bog, and Mound grids to attempt to understand the small-scale ruggedness of the surface. For the bog and mound grids, analysis was specific to bog vegetation points as well as fen ones.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWater Chemistry\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epH and electrical conductivity (EC) measurements were completed at each bog and the adjacent/surrounding fen throughout Moss Spur. pH and EC measurements were taken in situ with a portable combined pH/EC/TDS/Temperature tester (HANNA HI98129/HI98130, accuracy\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05 pH). Measurements were conducted in the near-surface in each bog and fen using a custom-made \u0026lsquo;pore water sipper\u0026rsquo; constructed out of 1.27 cm PVC pipe and clear plastic tubing with 5 cm slotted intakes located 2 cm from the base of the pipe and covered in 250 \u0026micro;m Nytex screen. Plastic tubing was fed throughout the length of the PVC pipe and extended to outside of the pipe where a peristaltic pump could be used to pull water from depth for sampling and measurement. Each test began by predefining a sample area of approximately 30 x 30 cm within a hummock in each bog. For the water samples above the water table, layers of peat were systematically removed from the mound where the water content was then squeezed into a cleaned collection container for measurement. Once the water table was reached, the pore water sipper was used to pump water from depth into the collection container to be measured. Measurements were taken at ~\u0026thinsp;10 cm increments above and below the water table to depths of 180 cm below the surface.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBog Distribution\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBog classification in Moss Spur was used to assess the quantity of bogs appearing in the large fen complex that makes up Moss Spur. Classification was completed for the site of Moss Spur using ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1. Imagery data was used to assess bogs for size, quantity, and average shape. Length and width data was calculated to assess the elongated shape of bog islands at Moss Spur. Due to the quality of the satellite imagery minimum length values of the bogs quantified was ~\u0026thinsp;10 metres. It should be noted that all of the bog mounds found in Moss Spur fall below that threshold, resulting in what is likely a significant underestimate of all bogs (mounds included) located in this fen complex. In order to assess the nature of growth and development of bogs, natural break groups were used to perform an Average Nearest Neighbour (ANN) analysis. The purpose of the analysis was to calculate the ANN index that relates the degree of clustering or dispersion the bogs appear to have in Moss Spur. The tool calculates a z-value and p-value to compare to determine if the null hypothesis can be rejected and to assess the likelihood that the observed spatial pattern is a result of random processes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eBog Distribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen examining bog distribution at Moss Spur a total of 272 bogs were found, demonstrating an average length and width of 49.9 and 28.1 m, respectively, with a length to width ratio of 1.81 (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The area of the bogs ranged from 70 to 63,200 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e with an average area of 1170 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Nearest Neighbour analysis showed that the first two natural breaks of bog areas (70\u0026ndash;878 and 879\u0026ndash;2529 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) showed a clustered pattern with ANN (ANN\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1) indexes of 0.78 and 0.86 respectively (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Given the z-scores of both breaks, there is less than a 10% likelihood that this clustered pattern could result from random chance. The third natural break, 2530\u0026ndash;5006 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, showed a dispersed pattern with an ANN index of 2.82 and a z-score of 2.82 indicating a less than 1% likelihood that this pattern could result be the result of a random chance (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The fourth natural break, 5007-14277m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, had an ANN index of 0.80 and a z-score of -1.27 meaning the pattern does not appear to be significantly different than random. Given that only one bog appeared in the last break, no ANN index could be computed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog area classes broken up into 5 categories based on natural breaks (Jenks). Average Nearest Neighbour Index scores as well as confidence values are also displayed. Result values are as follows: C- Clustered, D- Dispersed, R-Random\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog area (m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of Bogs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudied Bogs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eL/W Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eANN Index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez-score\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResult\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u0026ndash;878\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e202\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e879\u0026ndash;2529\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.073\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2530\u0026ndash;5006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5007\u0026ndash;14277\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.205\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14278\u0026ndash;63212\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWater Table\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWater table level at all locations for the entire season averaged 7.6 cm below ground surface (bgs) in the bogs, and 9.7 cm above ground surface (ags; i.e., standing water) in the fens (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, i); bog water tables ranged from 18 cm bgs to 8 cm ags and fens from 5 cm bgs to 24 cm ags. An average difference of 4.3 cm was observed between the water table within the fen and the adjacent bogs, which varied from approximately 0\u0026ndash;11 cm throughout the study period (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eii\u003c/em\u003e). The water table range in the large bogs was greater than the subsequent medium and small sized bogs. The average range of water table differences between the bog and fens for the large, medium, and small bogs was 7.5, 5.4, and 3.4 cm respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eii\u003c/em\u003e). The water table in bog A (large) had the largest range of 10.8 cm over the course of the study period, while bog G (small) had the smallest range of 1.3 cm. Despite this, no consistent trends were found between bog size and average water table throughout the study period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average vertical hydraulic gradients were positive (i.e., downwards) in both the bogs and fens, both indicating groundwater recharge for the full extent of the study period. Average fen vertical hydraulic gradient was 0.11 compared to 0.05 in the bogs. This, coupled with the higher K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e values found in the fens (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), showed significantly greater groundwater fluxes (not shown) observed in fens compared to bogs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSaturated Hydraulic Conductivity (K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe geometric mean K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e of the bogs was 3.3 x 10\u003csup\u003e-5\u003c/sup\u003e m s\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.47. When compared to the bogs, the fens had a higher K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e of 1 x 10\u003csup\u003e-4\u003c/sup\u003e m s\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and had a CV of 0.72 (Figure 4). Both fen and bog K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e decreased with depth (Figure 4). In the fens, with increasing depth from 100 cm to 265 cm, mean K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e declined by an order of magnitude from 1.6 x 10\u003csup\u003e-4\u003c/sup\u003e to 5.6 x 10\u003csup\u003e-5\u003c/sup\u003e m s\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. Whereas in the bogs, K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e values over the same depths only declined from 5.7 x 10\u003csup\u003e-5\u003c/sup\u003e m s\u003csup\u003e-1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eat 100 cm depth, to 1.67 x 10\u003csup\u003e-5\u003c/sup\u003e m s\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e at 265 cm depth.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen comparing bogs by size, consistent trends were found between bog and adjacent fens across all sites with a difference in K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e observed at depth across small, medium, and large bogs. Large bogs showed the largest change with depth (steepest change in slope) while medium and small bogs showed less of a change with depth (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The small bogs change in K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e with depth was nearly parallel to that of the fen, however about half an order of magnitude lower overall.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eClay Surface Variability\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen examining all grids together, the median clay layer elevation in the fen and bogs were nearly identical, but the fen showed a much larger range, due to variability in spatial distribution as Fen1 and Fen2 were located approximately 300 m apart (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The surface vegetation elevation tended to vary greatly in the hummocks and hollows of the bogs while staying within in a small range in the fens. The bogs had a higher median peat thickness than the fens, but fens tended to have slightly higher variability (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClay surface variability results for each study. Grids are broken down by location (bog or fen) for the bog and mound grids\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample Points\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian Clay Elevation (masl)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD (cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian Peat Surface (masl)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD (cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian Peat Thickness (m)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFen1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e278.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFen2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e277.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog1 - Bogpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e277.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e281.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog1 - Fenpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e277.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog2 - Bogpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e278.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e281.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog2 - Fenpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e278\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMound1 - Bogpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e278.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e281.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMound1 - Fenpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e278.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMound2 - Bogpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e278.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e281.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMound2 - Fenpt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e278.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTerrain Ruggedness Index (TRI) is displayed as a raster dataset displaying the average ruggedness for each cell of a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The resulting DEMs can output statistics on the average TRI value (Figure 5) as well as the standard deviation. Fen1 had an average TRI of 7.9 cm (SD: 4.5 cm), while Fen2 had a TRI of 9 cm (SD: 5.9 cm). When examining the bog grids both Bog1 (TRI of 14.7 cm) and Bog2 (TRI of 19.5 cm) demonstrated higher average TRI values than the fen (average TRI = 8.4 cm). However, individual points in the bog and fen revealed differences; in Bog1, the fen measurement points had an average TRI of 7.9 cm (SD: 4.3 cm), while the TRI at the bog measurement points were nearly double (14.1 cm) (Figure 5). Bog2 showed greater differences; the fen locations had an average TRI of 8.9 cm (SD: 5.2 cm) while the bog locations had a TRI that was more than double that (TRI of 20.3 cm). Mound1 showed a similar trend; the fen points in the Mound1 grid had an average TRI of 6.6 cm (SD: 3.2 cm), while the bog locations had a TRI of 10 cm (Figure 5).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;As for Mound2, this study was omitted from the TRI analysis as it consisted of 4 transects rather than a custom grid.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWater Chemistry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn bogs, measurements began at the moss surface above the water table and then with increasing depth, were collected from below the water table. Moving below the water table in the bogs, over a vertical range of approximately 7 cm, a sharp increase in pH was observed (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). This increase in pH for the bogs was almost identical in range and average values found in the fens (Table\u0026nbsp;4). When examining pH by bog size, small, medium, and large bogs showed average pH values above the water table of 4.1, 4.0, and 3.8 respectively. Below the water table, regardless of the bog size, all bogs showed an average pH of 6.0 with a range of only 5.8 to 6.2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e pH and EC (\u0026micro;S/cm) measurements across all bogs and fens differentiated by location relative to the water table. Below the water table, increments of 10, 70, and 160 cm depth were chosen to illustrate changes with depth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbove Water Table\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBelow Water Table\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e160 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epH\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.47\u0026ndash;4.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.99\u0026ndash;6.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFen\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.97\u0026ndash;6.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEC (\u0026micro;S/cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBog\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44\u0026ndash;255\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u0026ndash;407\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e173\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e257\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFen\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87\u0026ndash;340\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e144\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e216\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElectrical conductivity (EC) measurements indicated that bogs and fens shared similar averages and ranges across all measurements (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). With increasing elevation above the water table, EC generally increased (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Average EC values at the water table were 66 \u0026micro;S/cm, increasing with increasing depth below the surface. Small, medium, and large bogs showed average EC values above the water table of 73, 111, and 145 \u0026micro;S/cm, respectively. Below the water table at a depth of 25 cm, all bog sizes showed similar values. Moving through depth, small (302 \u0026micro;S/cm) and medium (300 \u0026micro;S/cm) bogs showed a larger increase than the large bogs (196 \u0026micro;S/cm) at 160 cm depth.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAllogenic Factors\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePost-glacial landscape\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAside from the large scale hydrogeomorphic (including climate) setting (which we assume to be the same across the Moss Spur peatland sites), the nature of post-glacial landscape is likely the largest allogenic factors driving formation of peatlands in southeastern Manitoba. Based on field measurements, an underlying substrate layer of thick clay was found at the base of each peat profile throughout Moss Spur. At larger scales (1s to 10s km), including a site also in Southeastern Manitoba, a correlation was found between substratum depressions and large-scale domed bog development (Falufosi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Our results from Moss Spur showed no significant difference in clay elevation between the fen and bog locations (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) suggesting neither a single large depression nor elevated mound was present beneath the plateau or mound bogs. However, Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI) analysis showed that bog values were substantially higher than the values in the fen with close to twice the average ruggedness found across all tests (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the variability of the clay surface beneath bogs was more variable or rugged in nature than beneath the fens. This could have provided more microhabitats at the sites beneath bogs, allowing succession a slight advantage by encouraging an earlier diversity of vegetation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA lower substrate elevation at the small scale, presumably could have detained water at the surface for longer, and accumulated further vegetation and organic matter, temporally, giving locations at Moss Spur head-start on succession. Microtopographic depressions (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;50 cm) have been known to induce wet conditions to favour the accumulation of hydrophilic bryophytes (Le Stum-Boivin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). So, it could be that instead of a large single depression in the clay layer beneath the bogs at Moss Spur, it was many small and more numerous depressions/mounds (i.e., a more rugged post-glacial terrain) that gave these areas, and thus the final successional stage of bogs, a head-start.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAutogenic Factors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSize dependency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBog selection was made based mainly upon accessibility and walking distance from an access road. This resulted in us selecting the nearest 15\u0026ndash;20 bogs with reasonable access. From these bogs, we found natural breaks (Jenks) resulting in our nine selected bogs and corresponding small, medium, and large classifications. However, a more detailed GIS-based breakdown (Hildebrand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) conducted near the end of the project, showed that our bogs are mostly extra small and small bogs, with one of our bogs being considered medium, and one large, when looking at similar Jenks breaks in an analysis done for the 4 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e fen complex with 275 bogs identified. Therefore, discussions of size need to be considered with this in mind moving forward.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage length to width ratio of the bogs at Moss Spur was 1.81 but appeared to increase with bog area, with the largest bog having a ratio of 2.96 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). A similar result was found by Glaser (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), who examined 40 large bogs (1\u0026ndash;20 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) across the major peatland regions of North America and found an average length-to-width ratio of 2.5. As a result of the Nearest Neighbor analysis (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), a clustering pattern was observed in the two smallest groups of bogs (70\u0026ndash;878 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e and 879\u0026ndash;2529 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e). As bog size increased, bog development appeared in a dispersed pattern, suggesting the possible coalescence of many small bogs. However, it is not fully understood if this is a characteristic of bog development at this scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBog size and shape growth at larger scales has been examined more extensively in the literature with interactions of topography, hydrology, and plant growth being limiting factors (Belyea and Baird, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). These factors autogenically drive rates of bog height and lateral expansion. At some sites bogs begin their development with rapid lateral expansion from a single loci, while others form through the coalescence of multiple loci of initiation (Belyea and Baird, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Heinselman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e). However, in the large fen complex of Moss Spur, there is an abrupt change from fen vegetation to bog islands that occurs over one to two metres. Fen systems have been shown to spread peat laterally due to the accumulation of vertical peat accumulation near the center, allowing water to flow from the center to the margins of the fen (Loisel and Bunsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Morris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003ea; Ruppel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Baird et al., 2016). Although the findings of the current study show clustered, elongated bogs with increasing size, studies that applied palaeoecological approaches and pollen/plant analysis would contribute further to our understanding of bog microforms and their development to help predict and understand the patterning hydro-physical behaviour of bogs at this scale. The understanding of microform persistence and transition would allow for a comprehensive of the mechanisms at work driving bog lateral expansion at Moss Spur.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSaturated Hydraulic Conductivity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeginning at depths of 100 cm below the surface, the K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e values in both fen and bogs decreased with depth (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). There was likely a large decrease in hydraulic conductivity that occurred throughout Moss Spur in the initial 100 cm of depth, however, this was not fully characterized. At Moss Spur, K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e values ranged from 2.1 x 10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5\u003c/sup\u003e to 3.5 x 10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;4\u003c/sup\u003e m s\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e across the fen and 5.3 x 10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;6\u003c/sup\u003e to 7.3 x 10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5\u003c/sup\u003e m s\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e across bog locations (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Peat K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e typically decreases rapidly with depth and thus increased humification (Morris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Larger pore spaces and a less decomposed acrotelm may have led higher hydraulic conductivity near the surface of raised bogs with lower values in the catotelm (Rydin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Differing plant and decomposition classes indicate differences in K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e as well, with the two major peatland vegetation species, \u003cem\u003eSphagnum\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eCarex\u003c/em\u003e having contrasting hydraulic properties (Glaser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Szajdak L W et al., 2016). Comparatively, \u003cem\u003eSphagnum\u003c/em\u003e peat has low hydraulic conductivity due to tightly packed leaves and stems and reduced pore size, while \u003cem\u003eCarex\u003c/em\u003e has horizontally spreading rhizomes forming porous networks of stems. Additionally, a higher degree of anisotropy is often consistent with \u003cem\u003eSphagnum\u003c/em\u003e dominated peatlands, resulting in notable differences in vertical hydraulic conductivity (Beckwith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Rydin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith respect to bog size, the greatest decline in K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e was found in the large bogs, with reducing decline found in medium, and small bogs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Small bogs showed a similar linear trend to that of the fen with a nearly identical decrease rate, however offset by about a half order of magnitude (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). These trends are likely the result of larger bog\u0026rsquo;s increased size and the associated compaction the peat resulting in the decrease in K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e when compared to smaller bogs. They may also be tied to plant composition and decomposition rates as the larger bogs presumably have a greater proportion of \u003cem\u003eSphagnum\u003c/em\u003e dominated plant species compared to the smaller bogs, resulting in the lower K\u003csub\u003esat\u003c/sub\u003e. With increased size, bogs can further increase their ability to expand above the water table, resisting the plant litter to further decay (Belyea and Clymo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHydrology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOmbrotrophic conditions within bogs develop from the separation of the water table surface from the regional water table either through peat accumulation or a reduction in the regional water table (Damman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Water table trends showed that all nine bogs had an elevated water table between 3 and 13 cm higher than their adjacent fen during the wettest point in the field season (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). During the driest period, seven of the nine bogs examined continued to show an elevated water table; only two bogs were found to have bog and fen water tables within one centimeter of each other, which is likely within the measurement precision. In some larger bogs, flow changes have been observed in times of drought when water-table mounds dissipate as there is not enough precipitation to sustain them (Siegel and Glaser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA domed water table was observed throughout our study period allowing for bog plant growth to take place. Hughes and Barber (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) argue that only a few centimetres above the mineral water is all that is needed for oligotrophic bog formation to occur in fens, pointing to these being true bogs. The observations of water table mounding in bogs within the current study (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eii\u003c/em\u003e) and the distinct, sharp changes in water chemistry (pH and EC; Fig.\u0026nbsp;7) confirm the presence of oligotrophic conditions atop bogs, but it remains unclear at what stage in bog development these conditions were realized. Additionally, the 2022 field season was very wet (100 mm of extra precipitation) compared to the 30-year normal, which would enhance the effect of a domed water table in the bogs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen comparing bog water table mounding, the larger the bog the more variability in water table position was observed over the study period (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eii\u003c/em\u003e); larger bogs tended to have smaller differences during dryer parts of the study period and larger differences during the wetter. Smaller bogs tended to not show the same range in bog water tables with changes in precipitation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWater Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA distinct and abrupt difference in pH values was apparent in the bogs at the elevation of the water table (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Above the water table, pH values (3.47\u0026ndash;4.65) fell within the range of values typical for a typical bog (National Wetlands Working Group, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Vitt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). However, below the water table, pH values (4.99\u0026ndash;6.4) increased to values closer to those more typical for fens(Vitt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). This could be a result of abrupt ombrotrophication, whereby the water chemistry conditions abruptly change from minerotrophic to ombrotrophic in nature (Rydin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e); this taking place over a few hundred years somewhere in the history of bog development at Moss Spur. Several palaeoecological studies show the rapid phenomenon of ombrotrophication and its relationship with the lowering of pH (Gorham and Janssens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Kuhry et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). This speaks to the role autogenic forcings have on changing these systems, somewhere in recent history.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElectrical conductivity has been shown to increase with an increase in decomposition, or with depth (Asadi and Huat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). This was observed at both bog and fen locations, with EC values increasing with depth in all cases (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Bog pore water typically have low solute concentrations resulting in low pH (3.3\u0026ndash;4.5) and EC (10\u0026ndash;40 \u0026micro;S/cm) where water from regional groundwater and adjacent fens are limited (Zoltai and Vitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Bog EC has also been known to increase with an increase in moisture content and with depth (Aminudin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Asadi and Huat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). This could explain why we see an increase in EC values with an increase in height above the water table.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen examining pH and EC by bog size, no differences were observed below the water table (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). However, above the water table, average pH values decreased with an increase in bog size (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, average EC increased from small to large sized bogs. It is possible that due to the size of the larger bogs and the degrees of ombrotrophy and humification, these bogs are experiencing an increase in the release of more conductive compounds that are increasing the EC (Aminudin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Asadi and Huat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur data support the conclusion that only the top 30 cm within the peat profile of the bogs are consistent with conditions that would be considered typical for bogs. Thus, the bogs included in this study are indeed bog ecosystems situated within, but sitting atop, of a larger patterned fen. This illustrates a significant change in the vegetative history of these ecosystems and the role of autogenic forcings in small scale bog formation. Field observations did not indicate the presence of an abrupt change in species from a fen dominated species such as \u003cem\u003eCarex\u003c/em\u003e peat to a peat more concentrated in \u003cem\u003eSphagnum\u003c/em\u003e with depth; however, the water chemistry measurements indicate the position and abrupt nature of this transition. Ombrotrophy can occur simply from the separation of the vegetative growth surface from the affects of the groundwater that surrounds it which can occur from the vertical accumulation of peat or a decrease in the water table (Hughes and Barber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe postglacial landscape appears to have had influence on plateau and mound bog formation at Moss Spur; while no significant difference was observed between adjacent fen and bog points (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) in terms of our hypothesis that there would be a mound or a depression in the clay surface, the terrain ruggedness index (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) showed bogs being twice as rugged as adjacent fens. This suggests that microtopography of mounds or depressions could have been a factor in initiation of peatlands at this location. A larger sample size and a full vegetative analysis could assist in providing a more definitive answer on the effect the postglacial landscape has on bog formation at this scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHydraulic conductivity was found to always be higher in the fens than the bogs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), and both decreased with depth correlating well to larger fens and bogs in the literature. Larger bogs tended to see a sharper decrease in hydraulic conductivity when compared to smaller bogs, which saw decreases similar to that of the fens. A domed water table was found in the bogs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) which could demonstrate the ability to grow and foster bog plant growth. This was apparent with our water chemistry findings where a large drop in pH was observed at the water table boundary in all bogs regardless of bog size (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). This demonstrating that these appear to be chemically true bogs sitting on top of a fen.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt this small scale, there is evidence that allogenic factors favoured peatland development at this study site, but it seems that allogenic factors merely set the stage for bog formation, and it was driven by autogenic factors thereafter. Explanations based on biological, geomorphic, and climatic controls are also needed to fully understand and appreciate these ecosystems. Valuable research would involve the collection of pollen, carbon, and vegetative history of the peat at Moss Spur and sites with small bogs like the ones here.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the NSERC (National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Discovery Grant awarded to Pete Whittington. Award number: DGECR-2019-00487\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarter Hildebrand, Scott Ketcheson, and Pete Whittington all contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Carter Hildebrand. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Carter Hildebrand and all authors contributed and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgriculture, Agri-Food Canada (1967) Soil Survey Reports - Soils of the Lac Du Bonnet Area [WWW Document]. Soils Report No. 15. URL \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/mb/mb15/index.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/mb/mb15/index.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 2.23.22)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAminudin A, Hasanah T, Iryati M (2018) The Characteristics of Electrical and Physical Properties of Peat Soil in Rasau Village, West Kalimantan. Journal of Physics\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsadi A, Huat B (2009) Electrical resistivity of tropical peat. Electr J Geotech Eng 14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeckwith CW, Baird AJ, Heathwaite AL (2003) Anisotropy and depth-related heterogeneity of hydraulic conductivity in a bog peat. I: Laboratory measurements. Hydrol Process 17:89\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/HYP.1116\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/HYP.1116\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBelyea L, Baird A (2006) Beyond the limits to peat bog growth: Cross-scale feedback in peatland development. Ecol Monogr\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBelyea LR, Clymo RS (2001) Feedback control of the rate of peat formation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268, 1315\u0026ndash;1321. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/RSPB.2001.1665\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/RSPB.2001.1665\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler JJ, Healey JM (1998) Relationship between pumping-test and slug-test parameters: Scale effect or artifact? Ground Water 36:305\u0026ndash;312. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-6584.1998.TB01096.X\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/J.1745-6584.1998.TB01096.X\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDamman A (1979) Geographic patterns in peatland development in eastern North America. Geographic patterns in peatland dIn Classification of Mires and Peats. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Classification of Peat and Peatlands 42\u0026ndash;57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnvironment, Canada CC (2021) Climate normals for Pinawa, MB (Climate ID: 5032162) - Environment and Climate Change Canada [WWW Document]. URL \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 2.23.22)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnvironment, Climate Change Canada (2016) Indicators: Extent of Canada\u0026rsquo;s Wetlands - Google Search [WWW Document]. URL \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.google.com/search?q=Indicators%3A+Extent+of+Canada%27s+Wetlands\u0026amp;rlz=1C1VDKB_enCA1031CA1031\u0026amp;oq=Indicators%3A+Extent+of+Canada%27s+Wetlands\u0026amp;aqs=chrome.69i57j69i58.864j0j4\u0026amp;sourceid=chrome\u0026amp;ie=UTF-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.google.com/search?q=Indicators%3A+Extent+of+Canada%27s+Wetlands\u0026amp;rlz=1C1VDKB_enCA1031CA1031\u0026amp;oq=Indicators%3A+Extent+of+Canada%27s+Wetlands\u0026amp;aqs=chrome.69i57j69i58.864j0j4\u0026amp;sourceid=chrome\u0026amp;ie=UTF-8\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11.7.22)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFalufosi MO (2024) Effects of the post-glacial hydrogeomorphic settings on peatland distribution in south-eastern Manitoba, Canada\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlaser PH (1987) The development of streamlined bog islands in the continental interior of North America. Arct Alp Res 19:402\u0026ndash;413. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1551405\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1551405\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGorham E (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182\u0026ndash;195. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1941811\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1941811\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGorham E, Janssens JA (1992) Concepts of fen and bog re-examined in relation to bryophyte cover and the acidity of surface waters. ACFA SOCIETATIS Bot POLONIAB 61:7\u0026ndash;20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalsey L, Vitt D, Zoltai S (1997a) Climatic and physiographic controls on wetland type and distribution in Manitoba. Can Wetlands 17:243\u0026ndash;262. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161413\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF03161413\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalsey L, Vitt D, Zoltai S (1997b) Climatic and physiographic controls on wetland type and distribution in Manitoba, Canada. Wetlands 1997 17(2 17):243\u0026ndash;262. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161413\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF03161413\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeinselman ML (1970) Landscape Evolution, Peatland Types, and the Environment in the Lake Agassiz Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota. Ecol Monogr 40:235\u0026ndash;261. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1942297\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1942297\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHildebrand C (2024) BOG ISLANDS IN PATTERNED FENS: INSIGHTS INTO ALLOGENIC AND AUTOGENIC FACTORS ON BOG FORMATION IN THE ELMA PEATLAND COMPLEX. SOUTH EASTERN MANITOBA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHughes P, Barber K (2003) Mire development across the fen-bog transition on the Teifi floodplain at Tregaron Bog, Ceredigion, Wales, and a comparison with 13 other raised bogs. J Ecol 91:253\u0026ndash;264\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHvorslev M (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuhry P, Halsey LA, Bayley SE, Vitt DH (1992) Peatland development in relation to Holocene climatic change in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (Canada). Can J Earth Sci 29:1070\u0026ndash;1090. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1139/E92-086\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1139/E92-086\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLe Stum-Boivin \u0026Eacute;, Magnan G, Garneau M, Bergeron Y, Grondin P, Fenton J, N (2019) Spatiotemporal evolution of paludification associated with autogenic and allogenic factors in the black spruce\u0026ndash;moss boreal forest of Qu\u0026eacute;bec, Canada. Quat Res 650\u0026ndash;664\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoisel J, Bunsen M (2020) Abrupt Fen-Bog Transition Across Southern Patagonia: Timing, Causes, and Impacts on Carbon Sequestration. Front Ecol Evol 8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/FEVO.2020.00273/FULL\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/FEVO.2020.00273/FULL\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManitoba Mineral, Resources (2013) Bedrock geology, Manitoba, 2007\u0026ndash;2013 [WWW Document]. Map Gallery - Geoscientific Maps, Manitoba Mineral Resources. URL \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.manitoba.ca/iem/geo/gis/geoscience.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.manitoba.ca/iem/geo/gis/geoscience.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 2.23.22)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMitsch WJ, Bernal B, Hernandez ME (2015) Ecosystem services of wetlands. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 11:1\u0026ndash;4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorris PJ, Davies ML, Baird AJ, Balliston N, Bourgault MA, Clymo RS, Fewster RE, Furukawa AK, Holden J, Kessel E, Ketcheson SJ, Kl\u0026oslash;ve B, Larocque M, Marttila H, Menberu MW, Moore PA, Price JS, Ronkanen AK, Rosa E, Strack M, Surridge BWJ, Waddington JM, Whittington P, Wilkinson SL (2022) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in Northern Peats Inferred From Other Measurements. Water Resour Res 58, e2022WR033181. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033181\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1029/2022WR033181\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorris PJ, Waddington JM, Benscoter BW, Turetsky MR, Conceptual frameworks in peatland ecohydrology: looking beyond the two-layered (acrotelm\u0026ndash;catotelm) model. Wiley Online LibraryPJ Morris, Waddington JM, Benscoter BW, TuretskyEcohydrology MR (2011) 2011\u0026bull;Wiley Online Library 4, 1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/eco.191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/eco.191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Wetlands Working Group (1997) The Canadian Wetland Classification System Second Edition. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario 1\u0026ndash;68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiering W (1989) Vegetation dynamics in relation to wetland. Wetland Creation and Restoration\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiley S, DeGloria S, Elliot R (1999) Index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Intermt J Sci 5:23\u0026ndash;27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuppel M, V\u0026auml;liranta M, Virtanen T, Korhola A (2013) Postglacial spatiotemporal peatland initiation and lateral expansion dynamics in North America and northern Europe. Holocene 23:1596\u0026ndash;1606. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0959683613499053\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0959683613499053\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRydin H, Jeglum J, Bennett K (2013) The biology of peatlands, 2e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScarlett S, Price J (2013) The hydrological and geochemical isolation of a freshwater bog within a saline fen in north-eastern Alberta, vol 12. Mires \u0026amp; Peat\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiegel D, Glaser P (2006) The hydrology of peatlands. Boreal Peatland Ecosystems\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiegel D, Glaser P (1987) Groundwater flow in a bog-fen complex, Lost River Peatland, northern Minnesota. J Ecol 75:743\u0026ndash;754\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSzajdak LW, Lapshina ED, Gaca W, Styła K, Meysner T, Szczepański M, Zarov EA (2016) Physical, chemical and biochemical properties of Western Siberia Sphagnum and Carex peat soils. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ejournals.eco-vector.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://journals.eco-vector.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVitt DH, Bayley SE, Tai-Long Jin (1995) Seasonal variation in water chemistry over a bog-rich fen gradient in continental western Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:587\u0026ndash;606. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1139/F95-059\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1139/F95-059\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVitt DH, Halsey LA, Zoltai SC (1994) The bog landforms of continental western Canada in relation to climate and permafrost patterns. Arct Alp Res 26:1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1551870\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1551870\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZoltai SC, Vitt DH (1995) Canadian wetlands: Environmental gradients and classification. Vegetatio 118:131\u0026ndash;137. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045195\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF00045195\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStatements \u0026amp; Declarations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"wetlands","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"wela","sideBox":"Learn more about [Wetlands](https://www.springer.com/journal/13157)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/wela/default.aspx","title":"Wetlands","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6770509/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6770509/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eLarge-scale allogenic and autogenic controls of bog genesis are generally well understood, with bogs forming where there is sufficient precipitation, and limited losses to evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, and lateral runoff (allogenic) to maintain high water tables, which in turn allows for the slow decomposition of organic matter which yields soil hydraulic properties (autogenic) that also help maintain high water tables. Unknown is why small bog islands (1 to \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;50,000 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e; \u0026lt;1 to ~\u0026thinsp;150m diameter) found within large fen complexes occur where they do. Were there allogenic factors such as a small depression or mounds in the post-glacial (clay surface) landscape that gave an advantage to early successional ecological processes helping keep, or shed, water sooner than the surrounding landscape? Within a large peatland complex in Manitoba, Canada, detailed measurements of 9 northern plateau bog islands of various sizes (606 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e to 5609 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) were made in two orthogonal transects (fen through bog to fen) including: clay elevation, water table, hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, pH and electrical conductivity. Most results followed known differences between fens and bogs (e.g., domed water table and surface in bog, lower pH). Interestingly, and counter to our hypothesis, no difference was observed in the average clay elevation beneath fens vs. bogs; however, the terrain ruggedness index (TRI) was significantly different, with bogs having a TRI nearly, or more than, double the fens, suggesting that microtopography in the post-glacial landscape may have played an important allogenic role in encouraging early successional ecological processes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Insights into allogenic and autogenic controls on the nature and distribution of bog islands in patterned peatlands.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-12 02:49:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6770509/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2025-06-12T12:15:11+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-10T11:33:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"Wetlands","date":"2025-06-06T00:36:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-05T10:07:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Wetlands","date":"2025-06-04T12:56:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"wetlands","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"wela","sideBox":"Learn more about [Wetlands](https://www.springer.com/journal/13157)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/wela/default.aspx","title":"Wetlands","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"41fc8c30-403c-453c-a1ca-fafd5166acaf","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-16T16:04:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6770509","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-026-02033-y","journal":{"identity":"wetlands","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Wetlands"},"publishedOn":"2026-02-09 15:58:39","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 9th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-12 02:49:15","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s13157-026-02033-y","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-026-02033-y","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6770509","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6770509","identity":"rs-6770509","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}