Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set and enforce vessel speed limits Two studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of setting and enforcing vessel speed limits. One study was in the Indian River estuarine system (USA) and the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the Indian River estuarine system found similar numbers of manatee deaths before and after vessel speed limits were set in ‘zones’, but fewer deaths were recorded after speed limits were set and enforced in all areas. One before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that setting vessel speed limits during specific periods in key habitats resulted in fewer North Atlantic right whale deaths caused by collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2777https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2777Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:48:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase visual detectability of fishing gear for mammals Two studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of increasing the visual detectability of fishing gear for mammals. One study was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Canada) and one was in Cape Cod Bay (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the Gulf of St. Lawrence found that minke whales approached white ropes more slowly and changed their bearing more when approaching black ropes compared to ropes of other colours. One study in Cape Cod Bay found that simulated ropes painted red or orange were detected by North Atlantic right whales at greater distances than green but not black ropes, and more whales collided with green ropes than the other three rope colours. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2805https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2805Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:16:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Attach acoustically reflective objects to fishing gear Two studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of attaching acoustically reflective objects to fishing gear. One study was in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea (Australia) and one was in the Gulf of Alaska (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea found that attaching metallic bead chains to fishing nets did not reduce the number of dolphin entanglements. Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One controlled study in the Gulf of Alaska found that attaching acrylic beads next to fishing hooks did not reduce predation on fish catches by sperm whales. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2806https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2806Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:20:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use baited lines instead of nets for shark control Two studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using baited lines instead of nets for shark control. One study was in the Indian Ocean (South Africa) and one in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the South Pacific Ocean found that using baited lines instead of nets increased the survival of entangled common and bottlenose dolphins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific Ocean found that baited lines used for shark control had fewer entanglements of dolphins, whales and dugongs than nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2856https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2856Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:13:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use drugs to treat parasites Two studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using drugs to treat parasites. Both studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one before-and-after study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that treating northern fur seal pups with an anti-parasitic drug (ivermectin) reduced mortality rates. The other study found that Hawaiian monk seal pups treated with an anti-parasitic drug (praziquantel) had similar survival rates to untreated pups. Condition (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one before-and-after study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that northern fur seal pups treated with an anti-parasitic drug (ivermectin) had reduced hookworm infections and greater growth rates than untreated pups. The other study found that Hawaiian monk seal pups treated with an anti-parasitic drug (praziquantel) had similar parasite loads to untreated pups. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2861https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2861Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:21:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove derelict fishing gear from mammals found entangled Two studies evaluated the effects of removing derelict fishing gear from mammals found entangled. One study was in the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and one in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that after removing derelict fishing gear from Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, more than a quarter of the seals reproduced. Survival (2 studies): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that removing derelict fishing gear from Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, resulted in more than a quarter of the seals surviving. One review in the North Atlantic Ocean found that three common bottlenose dolphins survived for at least 1–4 years after they were disentangled from derelict fishing gear and released. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2892https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2892Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:56:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit activities that cause disturbance in sensitive areas for marine and freshwater mammals Two studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting activities that cause disturbance in sensitive areas for marine mammals. One study was in the Kattegat Sea (Denmark) and one in the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Kattegat sea found that harbour porpoise activity increased at a stony reef after fishing was prohibited and the reef was restored with boulders. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a beach where human access was fully prohibited had fewer Australian sea lions showing aggression or retreating compared to a beach where access was partly prohibited. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2917https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2917Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:33:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred marine and freshwater mammals to re-establish or boost native populations Two studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred marine and freshwater mammals to re-establish or boost native populations. One study was in the Porto de Pedras estuary (Brazil) and one in water bodies in Florida (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies in the Porto de Pedras estuary and water bodies in Florida found that two of three Antillean manatees and two of 14 Florida manatees born in captivity and released into the wild survived for at least one year without further intervention. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2933https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2933Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:36:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use slot/strip seeding Two studies examined the effects of using slot/strip seeding on grassland vegetation. Both studies were in the UK. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that strip seeding increased grass species richness. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that strip seeding increased forb species richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (1 STUDY) Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One review in the UK found that in the majority of cases strip seeding resulted in failed introductions of sown species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3411https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3411Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:29:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation before seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of removing vegetation before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. One study was in each of the UK and Belgium. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK and Belgium found that removing vegetation before sowing seeds increased the germination rate of sown species. The other study found that removing vegetation, along with removing leaf litter, before sowing seeds increased the number of seedlings for one of three species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3416Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:14:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add sulphur to soil before seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of adding sulphur to soil before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. One study was in the UK and one was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in the UK and USA found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds reduced plant species richness. The other study found no change in overall plant species richness. Native/non-target species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds did not alter the number of native plant species. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds reduced overall vegetation cover. Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that adding low amounts of sulphur to soil before sowing seeds increased the cover of three of six sown species. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds did not alter the cover of native plant species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3428Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:48:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Irrigate before or after seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of irrigating before or after seeding/planting on grasslands. One study was in Spain and one in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in Spain and the USA found that irrigating after sowing non-native seeds increased plant diversity in four of 10 cases. The other study found that irrigating after sowing native seeds did not alter plant species richness. Native/non-target species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that irrigating after sowing seeds did not alter the species richness of native plants. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Spain found that irrigating after sowing non-native seeds increased vegetation cover in six of 10 cases. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that irrigating after sowing seeds did not alter the cover of native plant species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3430https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3430Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:31:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add carbon to soil before or after seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of adding carbon to soil before or after seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding carbon to soil after sowing seeds either reduced or did not alter the density of sown forb species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3433https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3433Thu, 08 Jul 2021 17:12:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that natural topography created on intertidal artificial structures was colonized by macroalgae and limpets, and that limpets used shaded grooves and water-retaining depressions created by the topography. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05:11 +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 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 intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on open coastlines in Italy, and one was in ports and on open coastlines in Gibraltar and southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain reported that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the limpet abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain found that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures resulted in larger limpets with more balanced sex ratios than unrestricted structures. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the slope of intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of reducing the slope of intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia reported that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure, along with creating rock pools, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the oyster or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, small ridges and pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the shore level. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large protrusions (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating large protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and one was in a marina in northeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia reported that large protrusions created on an intertidal artificial structure supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without protrusions. The study also found that protrosions tilted at an angle supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to horizontal ones. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the UK and Australia found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges in one study, did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies also reported that tilting protrusions at an angle did not increase the species richness compared to those that were horizontal. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges, increased limpet but not barnacle abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3463https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3463Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and in an estuary in the Netherlands and one was on an open coastline in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness in and on the structures. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile invertebrate species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats altered the invertebrate abundance in and on structures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:03:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas Two studies evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas on butterflies and moths. One study was in Singapore and the other was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Singapore and Mexico found that protected native forest and grassland in urban areas had a higher species richness of butterflies than urban parks or non-native Eucalyptus plantations. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3836https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3836Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:25:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply ecological compensation for developments Two studies evaluated the effects of on butterflies and moths of applying ecological compensation for developments. One was in the USA and the other was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in Australia reported that a population of purple copper butterfly caterpillars translocated from a development site to an area of compensatory and retained habitat increased in number over three years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that an area of lupines transplanted from a development site was used by a similar number of Karner blue butterflies to an area with no transplanted lupines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3839Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:40:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of prescribed burning Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of changing the season or timing of prescribed burning. One study was in each of Australia and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that management of a tropical savanna and floodplain with early season burning or no burning for 2–5 years increased the abundance of caterpillars, but management with late season burning did not. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that Karner blue butterfly abundance was similar on grasslands managed by burning in summer or autumn, and on unmanaged grasslands. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3878https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3878Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:32:42 +0100