Remove and relocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species before onset of impactful activities

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    55%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study examined the effects of removing and relocating habitat-forming species before onset of impactful activities on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Fal Estuary (UK).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate community composition was different in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks.
  • Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate species richness was lower in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate abundance was different in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks.

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 replicated, paired, controlled study in 2012–2013 of 24 plots in six sites of maërl bed in the Fal Estuary, southwest England, UK (Sheehan et al. 2015) found that plots where maërl bed habitat had been temporarily removed then relayed had fewer invertebrate species, reduced abundance, and a different community composition, compared to plots of undisturbed maërl, after five weeks but not after 44 weeks. After five weeks, the removed-relayed plots had fewer species (54 species/core) and lower abundance (155 individuals/core) compared to undisturbed maërl plots (species: 94; abundance: 282), and a different community composition (community data presented at statistical model results and graphical analyses). After 44 weeks, species richness and abundance were similar in the removed-relayed plots (species: 93; abundance: 263) and the undisturbed maërl plots (species: 91; abundance: 178), and community compositions were similar. Dredging of shipping lanes was planned in Falmouth Harbour. This trial study aimed to assess the feasibility of removing and relaying maërl as a mitigation action prior to dredging. Four 5 m2 plots were selected at each of six sites.  One of two treatments was attributed to each plot: maërl removed then relayed, undisturbed maërl (representing natural maërl where no dredging for shipping lane occurred). In September 2012, the top 0.3 m of maërl was dredged from the removed-relayed plots and relayed to its original position 12 h later (to mimic the duration of shipping lane dredging). Five maërl samples were collected using a hand corer (25 cm length, 10 cm diameter) from one plot/treatment/site after five and 44 weeks. Invertebrates associated with maërl habitat (>0.5 mm) were counted.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation. Pages 635-732 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, 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 the latest volume: Volume 18

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 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