Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in northern Israel, one was in a marina in northern Israel, and one was off the west coast of Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with grooves, environmentally-sensitive material and pits or small ledges in two studies, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate or mobile invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structures. They also supported mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with grooves, environmentally-sensitive material and pits or small ledges, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on and around structures. One found that creating holes did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness or diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study off Sweden reported that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structures. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating hole habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with pits, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures increased the abundance of brown crabs on and around structures, but not other mobile invertebrates. One reported that creating holes, along with pits grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase fish species abundances on and around structures. One reported that creating holes, along with pits grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3434Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:45:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in marinas in France and Morocco, while one was in each of a lagoon in Mayotte and a port in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the juvenile fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, depending on the site and survey month. Swimthrough habitats supported six species that were absent from structure surfaces without swimthroughs. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile fish species richness on and around structure surfaces, depending on the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Fish abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species, site, survey month and/or juvenile development stage. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile seabream habitat use on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species and juvenile development stage. Two studies (including one replicated study) in Mayotte and Morocco reported that small swimthrough habitats, along with large swimthroughs and environmentally-sensitive material in one, were used by juvenile spiny lobsters, sea firs, adult fish and/or juvenile fish. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3436https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3436Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:15:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3441Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:02:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the slope of subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the slope of subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3442https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3442Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:09:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large protrusions (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating large protrusions on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3443https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3443Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:51:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3444Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:00:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large ridges or ledges (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating large ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3445https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3445Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:10:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the abundance of juvenile canopy macroalgae that settled onto structure surfaces, regardless of the topography depth. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or alter maintenance activities on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or altering maintenance activities on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was in an estuary in southeast Australia and one was in an inland bay in eastern USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not alter 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 reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish species richness or diversity on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures increased the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the area cleaned on a subtidal artificial structure increased the seahorse abundance on structure surfaces. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the survival of transplanted oysters. Condition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the growth of transplanted oysters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3447https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3447Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:57:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on open coastlines in Japan and northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that groove habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported macroalgae, non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from a similar structure without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in Japan and Israel reported that creating groove habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material in one, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3448Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:38:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in Italy and Israel, and one was in an estuary in eastern USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, while one found no effect. One of the studies also reported that textured surfaces with environementally-sensitive material supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from fibreglass surfaces without texture. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Italy and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate live cover on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did increase the cover and biomass. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the non-mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:40:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia and one was in marinas in northwest France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate community composition, depending on the density or length of flexible habitats and/or the site. One of the studies found it altered the non-mobile invertebrate community composition. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile or non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Three randomized, controlled studies (including two replicated and one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate abundance on and around structure surfaces, depending on the survey week, species group, flexible habitat length, or site. One of the studies found no effect on mobile invertebrate abundance. Fish abundance (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the seahorse abundance on and around structures, depending on the survey week. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:19:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create long flexible habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Five studies examined the effects of creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Three studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia and two were in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Australia and the Netherlands reported that long flexible habitats created on subtidal artificial structures supported macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate or fish species that were absent from on and around structure surfaces without flexible habitats. Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures altered the non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the fish species richness around structures, depending on fish presence when flexible habitats were created. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that long flexible habitats created on subtidal artificial structures supported higher combined macroalgae and invertebrate (mostly mussels) biomass than structure surfaces without flexible habitats, and found that deeper flexible habitats supported higher biomass than shallower ones. Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, two controlled and one randomized study) in Australia and the Netherlands found that creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate abundance on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group and survey week, or the flexible habitat length and density. One study reported that creating flexible habitats decreased the mussel abundance on structure surfaces but that the flexible habitats themselves supported higher biomass (mostly mussels) than the structure surfaces. Fish abundance (2 studies): Two randomized, controlled studies (including one replicated study) in Australia found that creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the abundance of fishes or seahorses on and around structures, depending on the species and fish presence when flexible habitats were created, or the survey week. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia reported that long flexible habitats created on subtidal artificial structures were used by seahorses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3451https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3451Thu, 09 Sep 2021 12:22:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats and small protrusions, ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in marinas in northern Israel and the UK and one was on an open coastline in southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and the UK found that groove habitats and small ledges created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. One study found that creating grooves and small protrusions had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the orientation of structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and the UK found that creating groove habitats and small ledges on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and diversity on structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves and small protrusions did not increase the species diversity but had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the orientation of structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate abundance, depending on the orientation of structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Spain reported that groove habitats and small protrusions created on subtidal artificial structures were colonized by macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3452https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3452Thu, 09 Sep 2021 14:53:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating small protrusions on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One controlled study in Japan reported that creating small protrusions on a subtidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:06:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create crevice habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating crevice habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3454Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:22:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating pit habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that pit habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from a similar structure without the added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:31:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (>100 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was in a lagoon in Mayotte and one was in a marina in southeast USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA reported that large swimthrough habitats created in front of a subtidal artificial structure supported fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without swimthroughs. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that creating large swimthrough habitats in front of a subtidal artificial structure increased the overall fish species richness on and around structure surfaces, but that effects varied depending on the fish size class. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that creating large swimthrough habitats in front of a subtidal artificial structure increased the overall fish abundance on and around structure surfaces, but that individual species abundances varied depending on the species, size class and survey month. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Mayotte reported that large swimthrough habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with small swimthroughs and environmentally-sensitive material, were used by juvenile spiny lobsters and groupers, sea firs, and adult fishes from five families. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3456Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:12:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were on open coastlines in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found different fish community composition around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions. The structure with harvesting restrictions supported species that were absent from unrestricted structures. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found higher fish species richness around a subtidal artificial structure with harvesting restrictions compared with unrestricted structures. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found similar sea urchin abundances around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions. Fish abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in Italy found similar total fish abundance around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions, but that abundances varied depending on the species and the survey date. One study found higher seabream abundances around the structure with harvesting restrictions. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on subidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3457Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:55:24 +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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3470https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3471https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3471Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:57:05 +0100