Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that natural topography created on intertidal artificial structures was colonized by macroalgae and limpets, and that limpets used shaded grooves and water-retaining depressions created by the topography. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3435https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3435Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create crevice habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating crevice habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3437https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3437Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:42:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (>100 mm) on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3438https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3438Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:06:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3439https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3439Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or alter maintenance activities on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or altering maintenance activities on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3440https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3440Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:24:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on open coastlines in Italy, and one was in ports and on open coastlines in Gibraltar and southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain reported that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the limpet abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain found that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures resulted in larger limpets with more balanced sex ratios than unrestricted structures. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3458https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3458Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, and had mixed effects on the combined mobile invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during low tide, depending on the site. Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures decreased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide, depending on the site. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the abundance of non-mobile invertebrates on structure surfaces, and of mobile invertebrates during high tide, depending on the species group and site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during high tide. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of structure surfaces.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3459https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3459Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:23:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create long flexible habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating long flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that creating long flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. The flexible habitats themselves supported macroalgae, mobile and non-mobile invertebrates that were absent from structure surfaces without flexible habitats. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3460https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3460Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:51:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the slope of intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of reducing the slope of intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia reported that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure, along with creating rock pools, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the oyster or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3461https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3461Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, small ridges and pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the shore level. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3462https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3462Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large protrusions (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating large protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and one was in a marina in northeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia reported that large protrusions created on an intertidal artificial structure supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without protrusions. The study also found that protrosions tilted at an angle supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to horizontal ones.  Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the UK and Australia found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges in one study, did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies also reported that tilting protrusions at an angle did not increase the species richness compared to those that were horizontal. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges, increased limpet but not barnacle abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3463https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3463Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and two were in estuaries in Hong Kong and southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, did increase the species richness, and that varying the habitat size and arrangement had mixed effects, depending on the shore level. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that small ridges or ledges supported lower species richness than grooves created in between them, but one of them found that species diversity on ridges compared with grooves varied depending on the ridge height. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate species richness than grooves created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish species richness to grooves created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges supported similar abundance to grooves created in between them. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than grooves created in between them. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish abundance to grooves created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3464https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3464Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:00:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large ridges or ledges (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating large ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in an estuarine sound in northwest USA and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK reported that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the combined macroalgae, microalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. One study found that creating large ridges, along with large protrusions, did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the combined macroalgae, microalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the rockweed abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK found that creating large ledges or ridges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, or large protrusions, increased the abundance of mussels or limpets, but not barnacles, on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small protrusions, did not increase juvenile salmon abundance around the structure. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased juvenile salmon feeding activity around the wall. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3465https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3465Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:25:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, one was in a port in the Netherlands, and one was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the type of texture created and the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the UK and the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site. One found increased barnacle abundance, regardless of the type of texture created, but that different textures supported different abundances. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3466https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3466Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:05:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Five studies examined the effects of creating hole habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Three studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was on an open coastline in the Netherlands, and one was in a marina in northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in Israel found that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, small ridges and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. The study, along with two other replicated, controlled studies in Australia and the UK, also reported that hole habitats, along with rock pools, or grooves, small protrusions and environmentally-sensitive material, supported macroalgae and/or non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Australia, the UK and Israel found that creating hole habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with rock pools, or grooves, small protrusions and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and/or richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired sites study) in Australia and the Netherlands reported that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating holes, along with rock pools, had mixed effects on the limpet abundance, depending on the shore level and site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Australia reported that hole habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with rock pools, were used by sea slugs, urchins and octopuses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3467https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3467Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:18:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and in an estuary in the Netherlands and one was on an open coastline in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness in and on the structures. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile invertebrate species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats altered the invertebrate abundance in and on structures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3468https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3468Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:03:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use environmentally-sensitive material on intertidal artificial structures Eight studies examined the effects of using environmentally-sensitive material on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Three studies were on open coastlines in the UK and Ireland, and one was in each of an estuary in southeast Australia, a marina in northern Israel, and a port in southeast Spain. One was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Overall community composition (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Australia, the UK, Israel, and Singapore and the UK, found that using hemp-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures, or using ECOncreteTM, along with creating grooves, small ledges and holes, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One of the studies, along with one other, found that using shell-concrete or reduced-pH-concrete did not. One study found that using sandstone in place of basalt had mixed effects, depending on the site. Two of the studies reported that ECOncreteTM surfaces with added habitats or reduced-pH-concrete surfaces supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate and/or non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from standard-concrete structure surfaces. Algal community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in Spain found that using different materials (sandstone, limestone, slate, gabbro, concrete) on an intertidal artificial structure altered the diatom community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and one paired sites, before-and-after study) in the UK, Israel, and Singapore and the UK found that using hemp-concrete, shell-concrete or reduced-pH-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that using ECOncreteTM, along with creating grooves, small ledges and holes, did increase the species richness and diversity. One found that using limestone-cement, along with creating pits, grooves, small ridges and texture, had mixed effects depending on the site. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in Spain found that using quarried rock in place of concrete on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the diatom species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using hemp-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, but using shell-concrete did not. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using hemp-concrete or shell-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures increased the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Algal abundance (5 studies): Four of five replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and one paired sites study) in Australia, Spain, Singapore, the UK and Ireland found that using sandstone in place of basalt, quarried rock in place of concrete, or altering the composition of concrete on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal or microalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group, site, wave-exposure and/or the type of material tested. One study found no effect of reducing the pH of concrete on macroalgal abundance. Invertebrate abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized studies) in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the UK and Ireland found that using sandstone in place of basalt or reducing the pH of concrete on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the abundance of tubeworms, oysters, limpets, barnacles and/or combined invertebrates on structure surfaces. Two studies found that using limestone-cement, along with creating pits, grooves, small ridges and texture, or altering the composition of concrete had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate and/or barnacle abundance, depending on the site, wave-exposure and/or the type of material tested. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3469https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3469Thu, 16 Sep 2021 15:46:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or seed organisms onto intertidal artificial structures Ten studies examined the effects of transplanting or seeding species onto intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Seven studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia and Hong Kong, two were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and one was in a port and on an open coastline in southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Hong Kong and Australia reported that oysters transplanted onto intertidal artificial structures supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from on and around structure surfaces without transplanted oysters. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Hong Kong and Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces, depending on the site and/or the presence and size of grooves and small ridges or ledges on surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. Fish richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized studies (including two controlled studies) in Australia found that transplanting oysters and/or coralline algae onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One found mixed effects of transplanting oysters, depending on the presence and size of grooves and small ridges on surfaces and the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found mixed effects depending on the presence and size of grooves and small ridges/ledges on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Hong Kong and Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the presence of grooves and small ridges or ledges on surfaces and/or the site. One of the studies also found that transplanting oysters increased the non-mobile invertebrate and oyster recruit abundance and decreased barnacle abundance. One found increased oyster and mobile invertebrate abundance. Fish abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized studies (including two controlled studies) in Australia found that transplanting oysters and/or coralline algae onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. One found that fish abundance around transplanted oysters was similar regardless of the presence and size of grooves and small ridges on structure surfaces. Algal survival (1 study): One replicated study in Singapore found that macroalgae transplanted onto an intertidal artificial structure were more likely to survive at mid- and highshore than at lowshore. Invertebrate survival (8 studies): Six of eight studies (including six replicated, three randomized and two controlled studies) in Australia, Spain, Singapore and Hong Kong reported that the survival of mobile invertebrates (seasnails, starfish and/or urchins and anemones) or non-mobile invertebrates (limpets, corals and sponges or oysters) transplanted onto intertidal artificial structures varied depending on the species, site, and/or the presence and size of grooves and small ridges or ledges on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that oyster survival was higher when transplanted into grooves compared with on ridges, while one found that survival in grooves and on ledges varied depending on the site. Two studies simply reported that a proportion of transplanted oysters survived. Algal condition (1 study): One replicated study in Singapore found that the growth of macroalgae transplanted onto an intertidal artificial structure was similar at lowshore, midshore and highshore. Invertebrate condition (2 studies): One study in Singapore reported that the growth of corals and sponges transplanted onto an intertidal artificial structure varied depending on the species. One replicated study in Spain simply reported that transplanted limpets grew. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that transplanting oysters and/or coralline algae onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the time fishes spent interacting with structure surfaces or the number of bites they took, but that benthic fishes took more bites from surfaces with transplanted oysters than from those with transplanted algae and oysters together. These results were true regardless of whether there were grooves and small ridges on structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3472https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3472Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:55:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Fourteen studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Seven studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia, the UK and Hong Kong, four were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, two were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, and one was in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. However, one of these studies reported that grooves supported macroalgae, mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without grooves. One study found that creating grooves did alter the community composition. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without grooves and pits. Overall richness/diversity (8 studies): Three of six replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves did not increase their species richness. One found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness depending on the site. One of the studies found that increasing the density and fragmentation of grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that grooves supported higher species richness than small ridges or ledges created in between them, but one found that species diversity in grooves vs ridges varied depending on the groove depth. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and one paired sites study) in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the species richness of mobile or non-mobile invertebrates or limpets on structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate species richness than small ledges created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish species richness to small ledges created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One found that creating grooves did not increase their abundance. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar abundances to small ledges created in between them. Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (6 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in Australia, the Netherlands and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate, limpet or chiton abundances on structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on mobile invertebrate and barnacle abundances, depending on the site. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia reported that grooves supported non-mobile invertebrates more frequently than structure surfaces without grooves, but not mobile invertebrates. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than small ledges created in between them. Fish abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish abundance to small ledges created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure were used by mussels and periwinkles. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3473https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3473Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Sixteen studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats and small protrusions, ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Five studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, seven were in estuaries in northwest USA, southeast Australia and Hong Kong, and one was in each of a marina in northern Israel and a port in southeast Spain. One was on an open coastline and in an estuary in the UK, and one was in 14 estuaries and bays worldwide. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Three of five replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Singapore and Israel found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material in one, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves and small ridges, along with pits in one, had mixed effects on the community composition depending on the site, the presence of water-retaining and light-shading covers, and the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges. In contrast, one of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement had no significant effect. One of the studies, along with four other replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia, reported that groove habitats and small ridges/ledges, along with pits or holes and environmentally-sensitive material in two studies, supported species that were absent from structure surfaces without grooves and ridges/ledges. Overall richness/diversity (11 studies): Six of 11 replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Singapore, the USA, Israel, the UK, Hong Kong, Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits or holes and environmentally-sensitive material in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and/or richness on structure surfaces. Five studies found that creating grooves and small protrusions/ridges/ledges, along with large ledges or using environmentally-sensitive material in two, had mixed effects on species diversity and/or richness, depending on the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the presence of large ledges on structure surfaces, the shore level, species group and site. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges increased the species richness, while one found that effects depended on the shore level. One of the studies found that partially-covering grooves and ridges with water-retaining and light-shading covers increased the species richness. Algal richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the size of grooves and ridges and the location. One study found that creating grooves and ridges, along with pits, increased the species richness, regardless of their size and arrangement. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the size of grooves and ridges and the location. One study found that creating grooves and small ledges increased the mobile invertebrate species richness. Fish richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves and ridges had mixed effects on fish species richness depending on the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Overall abundance (6 studies): Two of six replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, the USA and Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves and small protrusions/ridges, along with large ledges in one, and when partially-covered with water-retaining and light-shading covers in the other, did increase abundance. Two found that creating grooves and small ridges/ledges, along with pits in one, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges/ledges, the shore level and/or the site. Algal abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, the USA and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions/ridges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges in one, had mixed effects on rockweed or combined macroalgal abundance, depending on the presence of large ledges on structure surfaces, the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the shore level and/or the site. One study found that creating grooves and small ridges, along with pits, did not increase the macroalgal abundance, regardless of the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges. Invertebrate abundance (7 studies): Five of seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA, Singapore, the UK, Hong Kong, Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions/ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges or using environmentally-sensitive material in two, had mixed effects on mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate, limpet, mussel, juvenile oyster and/or barnacle abundances, depending on the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the presence of large ledges or water-retaining and light-shading covers, the shore level, and/or the site. Two studies found that creating grooves and small ridges/ledges increased oyster but not mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (4 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies and one before-and-after study in Australia and the USA found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges in one study, did not increase combined fish or juvenile salmon abundances on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Spain reported that grooves and small protrusions created on an intertidal artificial structure were colonized by a number of microalgal species. Fish behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ledges on intertidal artificial structures increased the time benthic fishes spent interacting with structure surfaces but decreased the number of bites they took and did not change pelagic fish behaviour. One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating grooves and small protrusions, along with large ledges, increased juvenile salmon feeding activity around the structure.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3474https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3474Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:40:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Twenty-two studies examined the effects of creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were on open coastlines in the UK, the Netherlands and the Azores, six were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, three were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was in a port in the Netherlands, one was in an estuary and on an open coastline in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia, Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits did not alter the community composition. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects depending on the size and arrangement of pits and other habitats and the site, while one found that varying the pit size and arrangement had no significant effect. Three of these studies, along with three other replicated, controlled studies (including one that was randomized) in the UK and Singapore, reported that pit habitats, along with grooves and ridges in one, supported macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitats. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that pit habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without pits and grooves. Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Eight of 12 replicated controlled studies (including six randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, or grooves, small protrusions and ridges in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating pits did not increase the species richness, while two found that creating pits, along with grooves or using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects depending on the site. One of the studies found that varying the pit size and arrangement resulted in higher species richness, while one found that this had mixed effects depending on the shore level. Two of the studies found that varying the pit size did not affect species richness. One of them found that increasing the density and fragmentation of pits, along with grooves, had mixed effects on species richness. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small ridges, increased the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and the Azores reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure increased the limpet and periwinkle species richness on structure surfaces, and that their richness and diversity varied depending on the pit arrangement. One found that creating pits did not affect the limpet species richness, regardless of the pit size. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Two of five replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits decreased their abundance and one found no effect. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement, shore level and site. Algal abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Netherlands, Singapore and the Azores found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small ridges in one study, did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement and the site. Invertebrate abundance (9 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (including six randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Azores, the Netherlands, Australia and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Three studies found that creating pits, along with grooves in one study, had mixed effects on barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site, the species, the size of animals, and/or the pit size and arrangement. Two studies found that creating pits, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, increased barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances. Two of the studies found that the pit size or arrangement did not affect abundances, while two found that the effects of pit size and arrangement varied depending on the site and species. One replicated randomized study in the UK found that increasing pit density increased periwinkle abundance, but pit arrangement did not. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the Azores reported that occupancy of pit habitats created on intertidal artificial structures by limpets and/or periwinkles varied depending on the pit size and arrangement, the size of animals, the species and/or site. Three replicated studies (including two paired sites, controlled studies) in the Netherlands and in Singapore and the UK reported that pit habitats were used by periwinkles, macroalgae and invertebrates. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3475https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3475Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:58:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create 'rock pools' on intertidal artificial structures Eighteen studies examined the effects of creating ‘rock pools’ on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were in estuaries in Australia, the UK and eastern USA, five were on open coastlines in the UK, Ireland and southeast Spain, two were in straits in the UK and Malaysia, and one was in a marina in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (17 STUDIES) Overall community composition (16 studies): Thirteen replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and three site comparison studies) in Australia the UK, the USA, Spain and Malaysia, reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without pools or holes. One of the studies also found that pools supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to surfaces without pools. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found mixed effects on the community composition depending on the pool depth, shore level and site. One of the studies found that created pools supported different combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate communities but similar combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities to natural rock pools, while one found that combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities differed to natural pools. Two of the studies found that the pool depth did not affect the community composition, while one found that the pool angle did. One replicated study in Ireland found that the shore level and wave-exposure affected the community composition, and that wave-sheltered pools filled with sediment within two years. One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects on community composition depending on the species group and site. Overall richness/diversity (15 studies): Nine of 12 replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and two site comparison studies) in Australia, the UK, Spain and Malaysia found that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported higher combined macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species diversity and/or richness than structure surfaces without pools or holes. Three studies reported similar combined macroalgae and invertebrate or combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in pools and on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools was similar to natural rock pools, while one reported lower combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools. Two of the studies, along with one replicated study in Ireland, found that the shore level of pools, along with holes in one, did not affect the species richness, but in one, the functional richness (species grouped according to their role in the community) was lower in highshore pools than midshore. Three of the studies found that the pool depth had no effect on species richness, one found higher richness in tilted pools than horizontal ones, and one replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects depending on the species group and site. One before-and-after study in Australia reported that creating pools, along with reducing the slope of a structure, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia reported that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the fish species richness on and around the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundance in pools, depending on the species group and site. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances depending on the pool depth, shore level, species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one with paired sites) in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one, had mixed effects on limpet or combined invertebrate abundances, depending on the shore level, pool depth, species group and/or site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia found that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the fish abundance on and around the structure, depending on the species group and site. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study) in Australia reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one study, were used by sea slugs, urchins, octopuses, macroalgae, invertebrates and fishes. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of pool surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3476https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3476Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:49:20 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue