Add chemicals or minerals to sediments to remove or neutralise pollutants

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies examined the effects of adding chemicals or minerals to sediments to remove or neutralise pollutants on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both studies evaluated the use of coal ash in Hiroshima Bay (Japan).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Hiroshima Bay found that adding coal ash increased invertebrate species richness in winter but not summer compared to untreated sites.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Overall abundance (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in Hiroshima Bay found that adding coal ash increased invertebrate abundance in winter but not summer compared to untreated sites. One controlled study in Hiroshima Bay found that one of two types of coal ash increased combined invertebrate and fish abundance, but not biomass.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A controlled, before-and-after study in 2008–2010 in one area of soft seabed in Hiroshima Bay, Japan (Kim et al. 2014) found that adding coal ash to sediments to remove phosphate and hydrogen sulphide appeared to result in more species and individual invertebrates compared to before treatment and to adjacent untreated sites, during winter but not summer. However, results were not statistically tested. In winter, species richness increased (post-treatment: 17–22; pre-treatment: 8; untreated: 0–11/sample), and invertebrate abundance increased (post-treatment: 3,345–3,859; pre-treatment: 42; untreated: 0–507/m2). In summer, species richness and invertebrate abundance were similar in post-treatment sites (species: 3–7/sample; abundance: 49–944/m2), pre-treatment sites (species: 2 /sample; abundance: 204/m2), and untreated sites (species: 0–6/sample; abundance: 0–261/m2). Annually between August 2008 and August 2012 (except 2009), two sites were sampled once in winter and once in summer (one sample/site/time point). In May 2010, coal ash was scattered onto the sediment at one site to a depth of 10 cm; the other site was untreated. At the treated site, sediment samples were collected using a 25 x 25 cm quadrat to a depth of 10 cm. At the untreated site, sediment samples were collected using a sediment grab (dimensions unspecified). Invertebrates (> 1 mm) were identified and counted.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled study in 2008–2011 in one area of soft seabed in Hiroshima Bay, Japan (Yamamoto et al. 2015) found that adding coal ash to sediments to remove hydrogen sulphide increased combined invertebrate and fish abundance compared to untreated sediments in one of two comparisons, but did not change overall biomass over three years. Abundance at the site treated with Osaki coal ash was greater (41–496 individual/quadrat) than at the untreated site (14–281). The site treated with Onoda coal ash had similar abundance (29–262) to the untreated site. Combined invertebrate and fish biomass at the treated sites were similar (Osaki: 0.3–8.5 unit unspecified; Onoda: 0.3–9) to that of the untreated site (untreated: 0.6–13). In October 2008, two sites (75 x 50 m; 80 m apart) were treated with one of two types of coal ash (Onoda or Osaki; see study for details) to a depth of 20 cm and a third site (50 m away) was not treated. Every three months between February 2009 and November 2011, three sediment samples were collected at each site using a 25 x 25 cm quadrat to a depth of 20 cm. Both invertebrates and fish (>1 mm) were identified, counted, and weighed.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation - Published 2020

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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust