Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate solitary beesOne replicated trial in India showed that translocating carpenter bees Xylocopa fenestrata in immature stages can establish a population at a new site, but if adult bees are translocated a very small proportion remain at the new site.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F55https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F55Thu, 20 May 2010 11:18:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate wildfowl Three studies of two duck translocation programmes in New Zealand and Hawaii found high post-release survival, breeding and the successful establishment of new populations. A replicated study in USA found that none of 391 blue-winged teal Querquedula discors stayed in the release site and that there was high mortality after release. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that wing-clipping female wood ducks Aix sponsa during translocation prevented them from abandoning their ducklings.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F571Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:18:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate woodpeckers All five translocation programmes studied were for red-cockaded woodpeckers Picoides borealis in the southern USA. Six studies of four programmes found that >50% of translocated birds remained in their new sites, with two studies of the same programme reporting a large population increase. Birds from four programmes were reported as forming pairs or breeding, although some translocated pairs split up and some translocated nestlings were abandoned. One study found that translocated nestlings fledged at similar rates to native chicks.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F577https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F577Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:34:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate songbirds Nine studies from across the world, including a review of 31 translocation attempts in New Zealand found that translocations led to the establishment of songbird populations. The review found that 79% and 100% of translocation programmes for saddlebacks Philesturnus carunculatus and New Zealand robins Petroica australis, respectively, were successful in establishing populations. Eight of the studies were from islands, mostly following predator removal. Three studies from Zimbabwe, New Zealand and the USA report on three translocation programmes that failed to establish populations. A methodological paper found that the nesting success of saddlebacks decreased as the latitudinal difference between source area and release site increased.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F580Sat, 06 Oct 2012 12:49:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate toads Two of four studies (including two replicated studies) in Denmark, Germany, the UK and USA found that translocating eggs and/or adults established common toad breeding populations. One found populations of garlic toads established at two of four sites. One found that breeding populations of boreal toads were not established. One before-and-after study in Denmark found that translocating green toad eggs to existing populations, along with aquatic and terrestrial habitat management, increased population numbers. Three studies (including one before-and-after study) in Germany, Italy and the USA found that 33–100% of translocated adult toads reproduced, 19% survived up to six years or some metamorphs survived over winter. One replicated study in South Africa found that translocated Cape platanna metamorphs survived up to 23 years at one of four sites.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F855https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F855Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:17:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate wood frogs Two studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that translocated wood frog eggs established breeding populations in 25–50% of created ponds. One replicated study in the USA found that translocated wood frog eggs hatched and up to 57% survived as tadpoles in enclosures in restored ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F856https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F856Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:19:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant trees We found no evidence for the effect of transplanting trees on planted trees. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1162Wed, 18 May 2016 15:42:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-forming (biogenic) species that are resistant to climate change     We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-forming/biogenic species that are resistant to climate change on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report 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%2F2219https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2219Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:36:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming (biogenic) species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report 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%2F2244https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2244Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate species - Translocate crustaceans One study examined the effects of translocating crustacean species on their wild populations. The study took place in the Tasman Sea (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Crustacean survival (1 study): One study in the Tasman Sea found that following translocation survival of southern rock lobsters was similar to that of resident lobsters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2269https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2269Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate species - Translocate molluscs Nine studies examined the effects of translocating mollusc species on their wild populations. Two examined scallops in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA) and one examined scallops in the Tasman Sea and South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). One study examined conch in the Florida Keys (USA). One examined clams in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). One examined abalone in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). One examined mussels in Strangford Lough (UK). Two examined mussels in the Gulf of Corinth (Greece).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Mollusc abundance (3 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that translocating bay scallops increased larval recruitment into the adult population compared to before translocation. One before-and-after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that following translocation of adult pink abalone to existing patchy populations, total abalone abundance (translocated and resident) decreased to similar levels as before translocation. One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough found that after translocating horse mussels, the abundance of young mussels was higher in site with translocated mussels compared to both sites without translocated mussels and natural mussel reefs. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that translocating bay scallops did not increase larval production compared to before translocation. Mollusc survival (5 studies): Three replicated studies (one before-and-after and two site comparisons) in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Tasman Sea and South Pacific Ocean, found that following translocation, scallops and clams survived. Survival of translocated New Zealand scallops was higher in areas closed to commercial fishing compared to fished areas. Two studies in the Gulf of Corinth found that Mediterranean fan mussels survived when translocated to a deep site, and had similar survival compared to naturally-occurring mussels, but did not survive when translocated to a shallow site. Mollusc condition (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that following translocation, clams had similar condition indices to clams in the source site. One study in the Gulf of Corinth found that translocated Mediterranean fan mussels had similar size-specific growth-rates compared to naturally-occurring mussels. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Mollusc behaviour (1 study): One replicated study in the Florida Keys found that translocating non-reproductive adult queen conch to aggregations of reproductive conch did not have adverse effects on the movement patterns of non-translocated resident conch, and all conch displayed similar total distance travelled, movement rates, migration patterns, home-range sizes, and sociability. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2270Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:38:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate species - Translocate worms One study examined the effects of translocating worm species on their wild populations. The study was in Scottish Lochs (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Worm survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Scottish Lochs found that no reef-forming red tube worm survived when translocated to a new Loch, but survival was high when worms were translocated back to its source Loch. Worm condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Scottish Lochs found that no reef-forming red tube worm survived and so no growth was recorded when translocated to a new loch, worms translocated back to its source Loch grew. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2271https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2271Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:47:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range Sixty-four studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals to re-establish or boost populations in their native range. Twenty studies were in the USA, eight in Italy, four in Canada and South Africa, three in the Netherlands and Spain, two in each of the USA and Canada, Zimbabwe, Sweden, Australia and the USA and Mexico and one in each of Uganda, the UK, Brazil, France, Portugal, Africa, Europe, North America, Botswana, Nepal, Chile, Slovakia, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland and one global study. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (62 STUDIES) Abundance (22 studies): Two studies (incuding one controlled and one before-and-after, site comparison study) in Spain and Canada found that translocating animals increased European rabbit abundance or American badger population growth rate at release sites. Fourteen studies (one replicated) in South Africa, the USA, the Netherlands, Italy, France and Spain found that following translocation, populations of warthogs, Eurasian beavers, red squirrels, roe deer, Alpine ibex, Iberian ibex, Cape mountain zebra, 22 species of grazing mammals, black bears, brown bear, bobcats and most populations of river otters increased. Two reviews in South Africa and Australia found that reintroductions (mainly through translocations) led to increasing populations for four of six species of large carnivores and that over half of translocations were classified as successful. One replicated study in the USA and Mexico found that translocating desert bighorn sheep did not increase the population size. Two studies (one replicated) and a review in USA and Canada, the USA and Australia found that translocated American martens, and sea otters at four of seven sites, established populations and that translocated and released captive-bred macropod species established populations in 44 of 72 cases. A study in Italy found that following the translocation of red deer, the density of Apennine chamois in the area almost halved. A worldwide review found that translocating ungulates was more successful when larger numbers were released, and small populations grew faster if they contained more mature individuals and had an equal ratio of males and females. Reproductive success (16 studies): A controlled study in Italy found that wild-caught translocated Apennine chamois reproduced in similar numbers to released captive-bred chamois. Fourteen studies (four replicated) in Canada, the USA, Zimbabwe, South Africa, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia found that translocated black and white rhinoceroses, warthogs, common dormice, European ground squirrels, cougars, bobcats, brown bears, sea otters, river otters and some Eurasian otters reproduced. A study in the Netherlands found that translocated beavers were slow to breed. Survival (39 studies): Four of five studies (including three controlled, two replicated and one before-and-after, site comparison study) in the USA, Canada and Chile found that wild-born translocated long-haired field mice, female elk, cougars and American badgers had lower survival rates than non-translocated resident animals. One found that translocated Lower Keys marsh rabbits had similar survival rates to non-translocated resident animals. Five of four studies (two replicated, four controlled) and two reviews in Canada, Canada and the USA, the USA, Italy, Sweden and Africa, Europe, and North America found that wild-born translocated swift foxes, European otters, black-footed ferret kits and a mix of carnivores had higher survival rates than released captive-bred animals. One study found that wild-born translocated Apennine chamois had a similar survival rate to released captive-bred animals. Twenty of twenty-one studies (including two replicated and one before-and-after study) and a review in Nepal, France, Italy, Portugal, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland, Canada, USA, Brazil, Uganda, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana found that following translocation, populations of or individual mammals survived between two months and at least 25 years. The other two studies found that two of 10 translocated white rhinoceroses died within three days of release and an American marten population did not persist. A review in Australia found that over half of translocations, for which the outcome could be determined, were classified as successful. Two of three studies (one replicated) and one review in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and the USA and Mexico found that following release of wild-caught translocated and captive-bred animals, European otters and common dormice survived three months to seven years. The review found that most black-footed ferret releases were unsuccessful at maintaining a population. A replicated study in the USA found that following translocation of bighorn sheep, 48–98% of their offspring survived into their first winter. Condition (3 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the USA and Italy found that following translocation, populations of elk had similar levels of genetic diversity to non-translocated populations, descendants of translocated swift fox had genetic diversity at least as high as that of the translocated animals and brown bear genetic diversity declined over time. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (7 studies): A study in Italy found that following translocation, Alpine ibex used similar habitats to resident animals. Two of four studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the USA, Netherlands and Botswana found that following translocation (and in one case release of some captive-bred animals), most Eurasian otters settled and all three female grizzly bears established ranges at their release site. The other two studies found that most nine-banded armadillos and some white rhinoceroses (when released into areas already occupied by released animals) dispersed from their release site. Two studies (one replicated) in Spain found that following translocation, Iberian ibex expanded their range and roe deer increased their distribution six-fold. Behaviour change (2 studies): A replicated controlled study in Chile found that following translocation, long-haired field mice travelled two- to four-times further than non-translocated mice. A controlled study in Italy found that wild-caught translocated Apennine chamois moved further from the release site than released captive-bred animals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2397Thu, 28 May 2020 10:46:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace blocks of vegetation: freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting or replacing blocks of freshwater marsh vegetation. Three studies were in the USA. One study was in the UK. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that plots of transplanted marsh vegetation contained a plant community characteristic of wetter conditions than plots without transplants after one growing season – but not after two. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK reported that plant species richness within transplanted freshwater marsh vegetation was similar before transplanting and six years later. There was a temporary increase in richness after one year. One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted freshwater marshes in the USA found that plots of transplanted marsh vegetation contained more wetland plant species than plots without transplants after one growing season – but that there was no significant difference after two. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted freshwater marshes in the USA found that plots of transplanted marsh vegetation had greater cover of wetland plants than plots without transplants, after 1–2 growing seasons. Individual species abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in a wet prairie in the USA found that after three growing seasons, the density of prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata stems was lower in transplanted sods than in pristine or source prairies. One before-and-after study of transplanted freshwater marsh vegetation in the UK reported changes in the frequency of individual plant species from before to six years after transplanting. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in a wet prairie in the USA found that after three growing seasons, prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata was shorter in transplanted sods than in pristine or source prairies. Diameter/perimeter/area (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated) in wet prairies in the USA found that the average area of small transplanted sods (≤0.28 m2 initial size) increased over 3–4 growing seasons. One of the studies transplanted larger sods (0.65 m2 initial size) and reported that their average area decreased over 3–4 growing seasons. OTHER Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated) in wet prairies in the USA reported ≥90% survival of transplanted sods of wet prairie vegetation after 3–4 growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3268https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3268Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:36:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace blocks of vegetation: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting or replacing blocks of brackish/salt marsh vegetation. The study was in Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in an estuarine salt marsh in Australia found that areas where sods of saltwater couch Sporobolus virginicus were transplanted had a similar overall plant community composition to areas without transplants, after 3–4 years. The plant community in the transplanted areas was >70% similar to natural areas in only 4 of 12 comparisons. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3269https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3269Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:36:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater marshes Ten studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create freshwater marshes. Nine studies were in the USA. One study was in Guam. Two studies were in the same region but used different sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in rewetted marshes in the USA found that areas amended with wetland soil contained a plant community characteristic of wetter conditions than unamended plots after one growing season – but not after two. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a recently excavated marsh in the USA found that amended and unamended plots contained a plant community of similar overall wetness after both one and two growing seasons. Overall richness/diversity (10 studies): Eight studies (including four at least replicated and controlled) in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that areas amended with wetland soil had greater plant richness and/or diversity than unamended areas and/or nearby natural marshes. One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted freshwater marshes in the USA found that plots amended with sieved marsh soil contained a similar number of wetland plant species to unamended plots, after 1–2 growing seasons. One before-and-after study of freshwater pool in Guam simply quantified plant species richness one year after adding wetland soil (along with other interventions). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in the USA reported that plots amended with wetland soil developed a greater richness of wetland-characteristic plant species than unamended plots, at the end of the growing season. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (6 studies): Six controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that plots amended with wetland soil typically contained more vegetation overall than unamended plots, after 1–2 growing seasons. This was true for cover and biomass, but not stem density. Individual species abundance (7 studies): Seven studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, site comparison) in freshwater marshes, meadows and pools in the USA and Guam quantified the effect of this action (sometimes along with others) on the abundance of individual plant species. Results were mixed and likely depended on the composition of the donor wetland. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3270Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create brackish/salt marshes.   ‘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 been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3271https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3271Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create freshwater swamps.   ‘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 been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3272Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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 been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3273https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3273Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to freshwater wetlands planted with emergent, non-woody plants. One study was in the USA and one was in Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of created freshwater marshes in the USA found that those amended with marsh soil developed plant communities characteristic of wetter conditions than unamended marshes. Most marshes had also been planted. All were ≥5 years old. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that marshes amended with marsh soil had similar (dry season) or lower (wet season) plant species richness and diversity to unamended marshes. Most marshes had also been planted. All were ≥5 years old. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                 Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of created freshwater marshes in the USA reported that amongst planted marshes, adding marsh soil had no significant effect on overall vegetation cover or biomass, after ≥5 years. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of created freshwater marshes in the USA reported that amongst planted marshes, those also amended with marsh soil had greater cover of wetland-characteristic plants than unamended marshes, after ≥5 years. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in freshwater trenches in Canada found that adding peat-rich soil to pots of mine tailings before planting water sedge Carex aquatilis typically increased its above-ground biomass two growing seasons later. VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in freshwater trenches in Canada found that adding peat-rich soil to pots of mine tailings either increased or had no significant effect on survival of planted water sedge Carex aquatilis over two growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3320https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3320Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:33:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to brackish/saline wetlands planted with emergent, non-woody plants.   ‘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 been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3321https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3321Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:33:42 +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 +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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3472https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3472Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:55:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate to re-establish populations in known or believed former range Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of translocating butterflies and moths to re-establish populations within their former range. Seven studies were in the UK, two were reviews across the UK and Ireland, two studies were in Finland and one study was in each of the USA, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Netherlands and the UK and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Eight studies in the UK, Finland, the USA, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium and the Netherlands reported that translocated populations of adult butterflies and Fisher’s estuarine moth eggs persisted for 2–12 years and increased in abundance (sometimes in areas where coppicing, selective felling, planting, fencing, host plant translocation, invasive plant removal, sheep grazing, scrub clearance or unspecified habitat restoration were conducted before or after release). Three studies (including two replicated studies) in the UK and Finland reported that some translocated populations of silver-studded blue and clouded Apollo adults, and belted beauty moth eggs and caterpillars, persisted for 1–49 years (in one case where vegetation had been removed before release), increased in abundance and colonized new sites, but other populations died out within 0–7 years. One of two reviews across the UK and Ireland found that 25% of translocated and released captive-bred butterfly populations survived for at least three years, but 38% died out in that time, and only 8% were known to have survived for more than 10 years. The other review reported that translocated populations of large copper adults and/or caterpillars (sometimes to areas planted with great water dock or where bushes had been cleared, or alongside the release of captive-bred individuals) survived for up to 38 years, but ultimately died out or had to be supplemented by further releases. Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated, paired study) in the UK found that the survival of large blue caterpillars was higher when translocated into Myrmica sabuleti nests without queen ants present than with queens present, and the survival of translocated large copper caterpillars was higher than the survival of released, captive-bred caterpillars. Condition (1 study): One site comparison in the UK and Sweden found that 19 years after translocation, large blue butterflies in the UK had similar genetic diversity to their Swedish source population. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3909https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3909Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:30:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate to establish populations outside of known range Four studies evaluated the effects of translocating butterflies and moths to establish populations outside of their known range. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of the Czech Republic and the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three studies in the USA and the UK reported that populations of Gillette’s checkerspot, small skipper and marbled white translocated outside of their native range as eggs or adults (in one case including captive-bred individuals) persisted and increased in abundance over eight and 28 years. The third study reported that a population of Gillette’s checkerspot adults, eggs and caterpillars translocated outside their native range died out within one year. Condition (1 study): One study in the Czech Republic found that 69 years after translocation, an introduced population of the small mountain ringlet butterfly had similar genetic diversity to its source population, and higher genetic diversity than a small native population. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3911https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3911Wed, 10 Aug 2022 14:38:15 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

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

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

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

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

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

This website uses Cookies

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

Accept & continue