Collected 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: Use environmentally-sensitive material on subtidal artificial structures Fourteen studies examined the effects of using environmentally-sensitive material on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Seven studies were on open coastlines in the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Israel, southeast Spain, and in France, the UK, Portugal and Spain. Three were in marinas in northern Israel and the UK, two were in estuaries in southeast Australia and eastern USA, one was in a lagoon in Mayotte, and one was in a port in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall community composition (11 studies): Six of 11 replicated, controlled studies (including eight randomized, three paired sites and one before-and-after study) in Australia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Israel, the USA, the UK, Spain and Germany found that using shell-concrete or quarried rock in place of standard-concrete on subtidal artificial structures, or using ECOncreteTM in place of standard-concrete or fibreglass, along with creating texture, grooves, holes, pits and/or small ledges, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Three studies found that using quarried rock or blast-furnace-cement-concrete in place of standard-concrete did not alter the community composition, while one found mixed effects depending on the type of rock tested and the site. One found that using different cement mixes in concrete (including some with recycled cements) altered the community composition of native species, but not non-natives. Three of the studies also reported that ECOncreteTM surfaces with added habitats supported mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from standard-concrete or fibreglass structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (7 studies): Three of seven replicated, controlled studies (including five randomized, two paired sites and one before-and-after study) in Italy, Israel, the USA, the UK and Spain found that using quarried rock, shell-concrete or recycled-cement-concrete in place of standard-concrete on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the site, surface orientation or type of cement tested. One of the studies, along with one other, found that using shell-concrete or quarried rock did not increase the species diversity and/or richness, while one found that using recycled cement did not increase the non-native species richness. Three studies found that using ECOncreteTM, along with creating texture, grooves, holes, pits and/or small ledges, did increase the species diversity and/or richness on and around structures. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using recycled-cement-concrete in place of standard-concrete on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the diatom species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated studies (including six controlled, four randomized and one paired sites study) in the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Israel, the USA, the UK, Spain, and in France, the UK, Portugal and Spain found that using quarried rock or shell-concrete in place of standard-concrete on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Two studies found mixed effects, depending on the type of quarried rock or concrete tested and/or the location. One found that using ECOncreteTM in place of fibreglass, along with creating textured surfaces, increased the live cover and biomass, while one found that different ECOncreteTM and standard-concrete mixes supported different cover and inorganic biomass but similar organic biomass. Algal abundance (6 studies): Four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and one paired sites study) in Australia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Israel and the UK found that using quarried rock or recycled-cement-concrete in place of standard-concrete on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the abundance of brown, turf or coralline macroalgae, canopy macroalgae recruits or diatoms on structure surfaces. Two studies found that using quarried rock or using ECOncreteTM, along with creating grooves, holes and pits, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundance, depending on the species group and/or site. One of the studies found that using quarried rock increased red and green macroalgal abundance. Invertebrate abundance (6 studies): Three of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and one paired sites study) in Austalia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Israel and the UK found that using quarried rock in place of concrete on subtidal artificial structures, or using ECOncreteTM, along with creating grooves, holes and pits, had mixed effects on the abundance of non-mobile invertebrates, mobile invertebrates or coral recruits on structure surfaces, depending on the type of rock tested, the species group and/or the site. One of the studies, along with one other, found that using quarried rock did not increase the abundance of sponges, bryozoans, ascidians, mussels, barnacles, or Serpulid tubeworms, but in one it decreased Spirorbid tubeworm abundance. One study found that using shell-concrete increased bivalve abundance. One found that different ECOncreteTM and standard-concrete mixes supported different coral abundance. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that using ECOncreteTM in place of standard-concrete on subtidal artificial structures, along with creating grooves, holes and pits, had mixed effects on fish abundances, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Mayotte reported that basalt rock surfaces created on a concrete subtidal artificial structure, along with small and large swimthroughs, were used by juvenile spiny lobsters and groupers, sea firs, and adult fishes from five families. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3470https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3470Thu, 16 Sep 2021 19:51:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or seed organisms onto subtidal artificial structures Eleven studies examined the effects of transplanting or seeding species onto subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Eight studies were on open coastlines in Japan, Italy and Croatia, and one of each was in an inland bay in eastern USA, an estuary in southeast Australia, and on an island coastline in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that transplanting oysters onto subtidal artificial structures altered the combined invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that transplanting oysters onto subtidal artificial structures increased the combined invertebrate and fish species richness and diversity on and around structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore reported that transplanting corals onto a subtidal artificial structure increased the coral species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that transplanting oysters onto subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces, but that the effects varied for different species. Algal abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Italy and Croatia found that the cover of canopy algae transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures increased and/or was higher when transplanted under cages but decreased and/or was lower when left uncaged. One study in Japan reported that the abundance of kelp recruits on a subtidal artificial structure varied depending on the distance from transplanted kelp individuals and the surface orientation. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled and site comparison study in Australia found that transplanting sea urchins onto a subtidal artificial structure reduced the cover of non-native sea mat on kelps growing on the structure. One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore reported that transplanting corals increased the coral cover on structure surfaces. Algal reproductive success (1 study): One study in Japan reported that kelp transplanted onto a subtidal artificial structure appeared to reproduce. Invertebrate reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA reported that oysters transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures appeared to reproduce. Algal survival (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies) in Italy found that the survival of canopy algae transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures varied depending on the wave-exposure and surrounding habitat or the presence and/or mesh size of cages around transplants, while in one the surface orientation had no effect. Two studies reported that no canopy algae transplants survived, and in one this was regardless of the presence of cages. Invertebrate survival (3 studies): One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore found that the survival of corals transplanted onto a subtidal artificial structure varied depending on the species. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that cleaning activities did not affect survival of transplanted oysters. One replicated, randomized, controlled and site comparison study in Australia simply reported that transplanted sea urchins survived. Algal condition (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Italy found that the growth of canopy algae transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures varied depending on the wave-exposure and surface orientation or the presence of cages around transplants, while in one the mesh size of cages had no effect. One study in Japan simply reported that transplanted kelp grew. Invertebrate condition (2 studies): One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore reported that the growth of corals transplanted onto a subtidal artificial structure varied depending on the species. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA reported that cleaning activities did not affect the growth of transplanted oysters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3471https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3471Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:57:05 +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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use natural materials to restore/repair/create habitat for corals to encourage natural coral settlement Four studies evaluated the effects of restoring / repairing / creating habitat for corals using natural material to encourage coral settlement. Two were in Indonesia and one study was in each of Israel and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Israel found that large rocks placed in an orderly pattern had a lower diversity of coral species than natural reef patches. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance/Cover (4 studies): Three of four studies (two replicated including one controlled, and one site comparison) in Israel, Indonesia, and Australia found that using piles of rocks to create reefs led to higher numbers of corals colonizing when rocks were randomly aggregated compared to orderly, in different patterns or compared to bare rubble. The fourth study found that repositioned coral columns (‘bommies’) retained live coral tissue and were colonized by other coral species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3987https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3987Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:38:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stabilize damaged or broken coral reef substrate or remove unconsolidated rubble Six studies examined the effects of stabilizing damaged or broken coral reef substrate or removing unconsolidated rubble on coral colonies. Three studies were in Indonesia, and one was in each of the Maldives, the Phillipines and Puerto Rico5. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance/Cover (5 studies): Five studies (three replicated, including two controlled) in the Maldives, Indonesia, and the Philippines reported that in areas where degraded coral reefs were stabilized, coral numbers and coverage increased compared to those with unstablized coral rubble. One of the studies found that coral numbers and coverage varied between reefs stabilized with rock piles compared to other materials, another study found density varied with different configurations of rock piles and one study found more corals on structures designed to provide a high level of stability. Survival (1 studies): One controlled study in the Philippines found that on areas where coral reef was stabilized stony coral survived and survival was higher than in unstabilized areas. Condition (1 study): A study in Puerto Rico reported that stabilizing a patch of damaged coral reef, as well as transplanting wild-grown and nursery-grown fragments of staghorn coral, led to the patch of restored reef more than doubling in size, whereas no growth was reported on an unstabilized patch. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3988https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3988Wed, 28 Aug 2024 10:40:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use structures made from unnatural materials to restore / repair / create habitat for corals to encourage natural coral settlement Ten studies examined the effects of using unnatural materials to create habitat to encourage coral settlement. Five studies were in the USA, two in Singapore and one in each of Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found that diversity of corals settled on concrete or limerock was similar to a natural reef. Another site comparison study in Japan found that diversity of corals settled on ropes was higher than on some natural reefs. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance/Cover (10 studies): Ten studies (five replicated, including one controlled, and one randomized, controlled) in the USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, and Japan found that coral settled on unnatural materials. Two of the studies found that the number of corals settling depended on settlement substrate material. Two studies found that coral settlement was higher on fibreglass/sand/calcium carbonate, and concrete substrate than on the surrounding natural reef. Three studies found that coral cover and density on concrete and/or limerock and concrete/limestone substrate became similar to the natural reef. One study found that the number of coral recruits was similar whether concrete structures were next to or away from transplanted adult colonies..  Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that soft coral settled on concrete slabs had lower survival than on a natural reef. Condition (3 studies): Two of three studies (one replicated, one site comparison) in the USA and Singapore found that coral that settled on concrete or limerock, or fibreglass/sand/calcium carbonate structures were smaller than coral on the surrounding natural reef. The third, replicated, study found that corals settled on ropes experienced less bleaching but higher levels of disease than on a natural reef. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3989https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3989Wed, 28 Aug 2024 14:13:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use settlement tiles made from unnatural materials to encourage natural coral settlement Sixteen studies examined the use of settlement tiles to encourage natural coral settlement. Three studies were in Australia, two in each of the Philippines, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates, and one in each of Japan, Italy, Italy and Spain, the US Virgin Islands, Taiwan, Belize, and Palau.   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance/Cover (16 studies): Sixteen replicated studies (including two randomized, one controlled, one site comparison and one paired) in Australia, the Phillipines, Japan, Italy, Italy and Spain, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, the US Virgin Islands, Taiwan, Belize, and Palau, found that coral naturally settled on settlement tiles. Four of the studies found that the number of corals settling depended on settlement tile material. Two studies found that coral settlement numbers were higher on tiles within a coral reef or near existing adult colonies. Two studies found that coral settlement tended to be higher on the underside of settlement tiles, whereas three studies found that more corals settled on the upper tile surface with refuge holes than without.  Survival (2 studies): One replicated study found that average survival was similar on tiles at different depths. One replicated, site-comparison study found that survival one year after settlement varied on the site. Condition (1 study): A replicated study in Italy found settled coral growth and the number of new polyps increased with age. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3990https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3990Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:43:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Repurpose obsolete offshore structures to act as structures for restoring coral reefs Two studies evaluated the effects of repurposing obsolete offshore structures to restore coral reefs. One study was in Japan and one in the Gulf of Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance/Cover (2 studies): One study in Japan found that concrete aquaculture boxes had higher coral cover than the surrounding reef. One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that toppled oil rig platforms had similar overall stony coral density to rigs left standing, but density of species varied between rigs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3991https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3991Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify existing man-made structures to encourage natural coral settlement We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying existing man-made structures to encourage natural coral settlement on corals. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the action has any desirable or harmful effects.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3992https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3992Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:34:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cultivate coral fragments in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat Twenty-seven studies evaluated the effects of cultivating coral fragments in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat. Eight studies were in Taiwan, six in Puerto Rico, five in the each of the USA, and the Philippines, and one in each of Israel, the Dominican Republic, and the British Virgin Islands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (27 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One study in the Dominican Republic found that most colonies in an artificial nursery in a natural habitat spawned. Survival (14 studies): Fourteen studies (eleven replicated including one randomized), in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, Israel, the USA and the British Virgin Islands, found that some of every coral species cultivated in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat survived. Two of the studies, found medium and large fragments had lower mortality than small, and younger fragments had lower mortality than older. One study found that cultivated small fragments were more likely to survive if algae were cleared from their racks and another study found higher survival and lower partial mortality for fragments cultivated horizontally rather than vertically. One study found higher survival for fragments cultivated at 10 m, than 1 m depth. One study found that survival of fragments attached to giant clam shells varied by species and fragment size. One study found that survival was higher on wire frames or coral rubble than sand, whereas another found no difference in survival of fragments cultivated on frames painted with anti-fouling paint or unpainted. One study found no difference in survival for suspended or fixed fragments, but another found lower survival for suspended fragments than attached to concrete blocks. Condition (22 studies) Twenty of twenty-two studies (twenty replicated including, one randomized, controlled, one randomized, one paired, and one controlled) in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, the USA, the USA and Puerto Rico, and the British Virgin Islands found that on average all coral fragments cultivated in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat grew. Three of the studies found larger cultivated fragments had greater overall growth than smaller fragments, but one study found that fragments cut in half had greater growth than intact. Fragments had greater growth and grew new branches, when cultivated on wire frames, above the substrate, at 5 m rather than 10 m deep, when pointing upwards rather than downwards, on arrays rather than concrete blocks, and horizontally rather than vertically. Two studies found that suspended fragments had greater growth than on blocks, had later onset of bleaching and fewer breakages, but no difference in weight, whereas one study, found that suspended and fixed fragments both grew. One study found that clearing algae from nursery racks made no difference to fragment growth. Two replicated studies in the Philippines found that attachment time for fragments cultivated on giant clam shells varied by species and fragment size. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3993https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3993Mon, 02 Sep 2024 12:52:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cultivate coral larvae in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of cultivating coral larvae in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat. Six studies were in Japan, two in the Phillipines, and one in each of Australia, Belize, Israel, French Polynesia, Curaçao, the Dominican Republic, and Palau.  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Fifteen studies (twelve replicated including three controlled, one randomized, one randomized, before-and-after study) in Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Belize, Israel, French Polynesia, Curaçao, the Dominican Republic, and Palau found that some larvae or spat (settled larvae) cultivated in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat survived. Coral spat survived on settlement tiles, at different depths; when settled on coralline algae; when settled on plastic trays; or cement/plastic plugs. Survival was higher for spat in crevices on tiles, on vertical tiles, initally at 3.5 m than 2 m deep, over time in narrower grids on fibreglass plates, in smaller refuges on cement plants, and on clay tripods in the wild compared to a land-based nursery. Two studies found that survival was higher for coral spat on tiles under cages or in cages with topshell snails, whereas two studies found no difference in survival between caged and uncaged spat. One study found low survival for spat on tiles hung 1 m above the sea floor.  Condition (4 studies) Three out of four studies (two replicated), in Japan, the Phillipines, and Curacao found that coral spat (settled larvae) cultivated in an artificial nursery located in a natural habitat grew. The three studies found growth was higher for one species of coral spat on vertical tiles than horizontal, and coral spat on cement/plastic plugs and on plastic trays grew. One study found no difference in growth between spat cultivated on clay tripods in the wild compared to in a land-based nursery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3994https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3994Tue, 03 Sep 2024 11:06:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change transplant attachment method Three studies evaluated the effects of using different material to attach transplanted coral fragments to the substrate. One study was in the Phillipines, one in the British Virgin Islands, and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One replicated study in the Philippines found that using marine epoxy or epoxy resin to attach transplanted coral fragments to the substrate resulted in a lower detachment rate and a shorter time to self-attachment compared to using cyanoacrylate glue (superglue). One replicated controlled study in the British Virgin Islands found that attaching transplanted fragments to the substrate using adhesive cable-ties or cement led to a higher survival rate compared to fragments left unattached although there was no difference between attachment methods. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no difference in survival between coral fragments attached using cement, epoxy, or cable ties and nails.  Condition (1 studies): One replicated controlled study in the British Virgin Islands found that using adhesive cable-ties or cement to attach transplanted fragments to the substrate led to a higher increase in live tissue growth compared to unattached fragments although there was no difference between attachment methods. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3995https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3995Tue, 03 Sep 2024 14:32:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove problematic species Seven studies evaluated the effects of removing problematic species. Two studies were in the USA and one study was in each of Indonesia, the Philippines, the British Virgin Islands, Belize, Menorca (Spain). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance/Cover (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled, one controlled, and one before-and-after) in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Menorca, found that repeated removal of problematic soft coral led to an increased number of stony coral colonies, and removing nuisance algae led to a higher number of juvenile corals. One study, found that using topshell snails to control nuisance algae around transplanted coral did not lead to an increase in coral recruitment. Survival (4 studies): One of four replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled) in the Philippines, the British Virgin Islands, Belize, and the USA found that removing nuisance algae and zoanthids from stony coral fragments immediately after transplanting led to greater survival than fragments on sites cleared monthly or not at all. Two studies  found that clearing nuisance algae from around transplanted fragments did not lead to higher survival for elkhorn coral and led to a lower survival rate for mustard hill coral compared to areas without clearance. One study found that using topshell snails to control nuisance algae around the transplant site did not result in higher survival of transplanted coral compared to areas without topshell snails. Condition (4 studies): One of four replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled) in the British Virgin Islands, Belize, and the USA, found that clearing macroalgae from around transplanted fragments of elkhorn coral led to higher live tissue growth compared to fragments transplanted without algae clearance, and one study found removing nuisance algae from the transplant site led to a lower bleaching rate for one of two transplanted species, but no effect on growth of either. One study found that % tissue loss after 12 months was lower on corals where excavating sponges were removed, and the resultant cavity filled. One study found mixed effects on growth of transplanted stony coral fragments when algae and zoanthids were removed from around the transplant site immediately, monthly, or not removed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3996https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3996Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:24:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce larvae directly onto natural or artificial reefs to encourage settlement Three studies evaluated the effects of releasing larvae directly onto natural or artificial reefs to encourage settlement. One study was in each of Australia, the USA, and Palau. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including one controlled) in Australia, the USA, and Palau, found that settlement density was higher when larvae were released directly onto tiles on the reef compared to naturally settling on tiles or the reef nearby, whereas another study found no difference between settlement rate of larvae released directly onto the different natural substrates. One of the studies found that settlement rate was higher when larvae were released onto the reef at a slower rate. Survival (1 studies): One replicated study in the USA found no difference in survival for larvae released directly onto different natural substrates. found that 44% of stony coral spat (settled larvae) that were released directly onto the reef survived. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3997https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3997Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:42:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use electrical current to stimulate coral growth Four studies evaluated the effects of using electrical current to stimulate coral growth. Two studies were in the Philippines, and one study was in each of Jordan, and Indonesia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Survival (4 studies): Four replicated studies (including one controlled and one randomized, controlled) in Jordan, the Philippines, and Indonesia, found that applying an electrical current had mixed effects on coral survival. Two of the studies found that using an electrical current to stimulate coral growth led to higher survival for fragments of some species, compared to those without electrical stimulation. One study found that survival was higher for corals six months after the electrical current was turned off compared to fragments that did not receive electrical current. Condition (4 studies): Four replicated studies (including one controlled one randomized, controlled) in Jordan, the Philippines, and Indonesia, found that applying an electrical current had mixed effects on coral growth and attachment success. One of the studies found that electrical current led to greater girth growth but not linear growth of fragments compared to fragments without electrical current, whereas another study found that growth of fragments was lower in an electrical field with a cathode than without. One of the studies found that electrical current led to all coral nubbins (small fragments) attaching to the substrate. One study found no difference in growth for corals six months after the electrical current was turned off compared to fragments that did not receive electrical current. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3998https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3998Thu, 12 Sep 2024 14:17:08 +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 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