Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and two were in estuaries in Hong Kong and southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, did increase the species richness, and that varying the habitat size and arrangement had mixed effects, depending on the shore level. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that small ridges or ledges supported lower species richness than grooves created in between them, but one of them found that species diversity on ridges compared with grooves varied depending on the ridge height. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate species richness than grooves created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish species richness to grooves created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges supported similar abundance to grooves created in between them. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than grooves created in between them. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish abundance to grooves created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:00:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large ridges or ledges (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating large ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in an estuarine sound in northwest USA and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK reported that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the combined macroalgae, microalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. One study found that creating large ridges, along with large protrusions, did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the combined macroalgae, microalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the rockweed abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK found that creating large ledges or ridges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, or large protrusions, increased the abundance of mussels or limpets, but not barnacles, on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small protrusions, did not increase juvenile salmon abundance around the structure. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased juvenile salmon feeding activity around the wall. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3465https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3465Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:25:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, one was in a port in the Netherlands, and one was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the type of texture created and the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the UK and the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site. One found increased barnacle abundance, regardless of the type of texture created, but that different textures supported different abundances. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:05:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Five studies examined the effects of creating hole habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Three studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was on an open coastline in the Netherlands, and one was in a marina in northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in Israel found that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, small ridges and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. The study, along with two other replicated, controlled studies in Australia and the UK, also reported that hole habitats, along with rock pools, or grooves, small protrusions and environmentally-sensitive material, supported macroalgae and/or non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Australia, the UK and Israel found that creating hole habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with rock pools, or grooves, small protrusions and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and/or richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired sites study) in Australia and the Netherlands reported that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating holes, along with rock pools, had mixed effects on the limpet abundance, depending on the shore level and site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Australia reported that hole habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with rock pools, were used by sea slugs, urchins and octopuses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3467https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3467Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:18:24 +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: Use environmentally-sensitive material on intertidal artificial structures Eight studies examined the effects of using environmentally-sensitive material on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Three studies were on open coastlines in the UK and Ireland, and one was in each of an estuary in southeast Australia, a marina in northern Israel, and a port in southeast Spain. One was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Overall community composition (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Australia, the UK, Israel, and Singapore and the UK, found that using hemp-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures, or using ECOncreteTM, along with creating grooves, small ledges and holes, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One of the studies, along with one other, found that using shell-concrete or reduced-pH-concrete did not. One study found that using sandstone in place of basalt had mixed effects, depending on the site. Two of the studies reported that ECOncreteTM surfaces with added habitats or reduced-pH-concrete surfaces supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate and/or non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from standard-concrete structure surfaces. Algal community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in Spain found that using different materials (sandstone, limestone, slate, gabbro, concrete) on an intertidal artificial structure altered the diatom community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and one paired sites, before-and-after study) in the UK, Israel, and Singapore and the UK found that using hemp-concrete, shell-concrete or reduced-pH-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that using ECOncreteTM, along with creating grooves, small ledges and holes, did increase the species richness and diversity. One found that using limestone-cement, along with creating pits, grooves, small ridges and texture, had mixed effects depending on the site. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in Spain found that using quarried rock in place of concrete on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the diatom species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using hemp-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, but using shell-concrete did not. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using hemp-concrete or shell-concrete in place of standard-concrete on intertidal artificial structures increased the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Algal abundance (5 studies): Four of five replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and one paired sites study) in Australia, Spain, Singapore, the UK and Ireland found that using sandstone in place of basalt, quarried rock in place of concrete, or altering the composition of concrete on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal or microalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group, site, wave-exposure and/or the type of material tested. One study found no effect of reducing the pH of concrete on macroalgal abundance. Invertebrate abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized studies) in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the UK and Ireland found that using sandstone in place of basalt or reducing the pH of concrete on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the abundance of tubeworms, oysters, limpets, barnacles and/or combined invertebrates on structure surfaces. Two studies found that using limestone-cement, along with creating pits, grooves, small ridges and texture, or altering the composition of concrete had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate and/or barnacle abundance, depending on the site, wave-exposure and/or the type of material tested. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3469https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3469Thu, 16 Sep 2021 15:46:12 +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 +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: Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Fourteen studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Seven studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia, the UK and Hong Kong, four were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, two were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, and one was in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. However, one of these studies reported that grooves supported macroalgae, mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without grooves. One study found that creating grooves did alter the community composition. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without grooves and pits. Overall richness/diversity (8 studies): Three of six replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves did not increase their species richness. One found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness depending on the site. One of the studies found that increasing the density and fragmentation of grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that grooves supported higher species richness than small ridges or ledges created in between them, but one found that species diversity in grooves vs ridges varied depending on the groove depth. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and one paired sites study) in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the species richness of mobile or non-mobile invertebrates or limpets on structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate species richness than small ledges created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish species richness to small ledges created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One found that creating grooves did not increase their abundance. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar abundances to small ledges created in between them. Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (6 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in Australia, the Netherlands and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate, limpet or chiton abundances on structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on mobile invertebrate and barnacle abundances, depending on the site. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia reported that grooves supported non-mobile invertebrates more frequently than structure surfaces without grooves, but not mobile invertebrates. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than small ledges created in between them. Fish abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish abundance to small ledges created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure were used by mussels and periwinkles. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3473https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3473Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Sixteen studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats and small protrusions, ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Five studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, seven were in estuaries in northwest USA, southeast Australia and Hong Kong, and one was in each of a marina in northern Israel and a port in southeast Spain. One was on an open coastline and in an estuary in the UK, and one was in 14 estuaries and bays worldwide. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Three of five replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Singapore and Israel found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material in one, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves and small ridges, along with pits in one, had mixed effects on the community composition depending on the site, the presence of water-retaining and light-shading covers, and the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges. In contrast, one of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement had no significant effect. One of the studies, along with four other replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia, reported that groove habitats and small ridges/ledges, along with pits or holes and environmentally-sensitive material in two studies, supported species that were absent from structure surfaces without grooves and ridges/ledges. Overall richness/diversity (11 studies): Six of 11 replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Singapore, the USA, Israel, the UK, Hong Kong, Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits or holes and environmentally-sensitive material in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and/or richness on structure surfaces. Five studies found that creating grooves and small protrusions/ridges/ledges, along with large ledges or using environmentally-sensitive material in two, had mixed effects on species diversity and/or richness, depending on the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the presence of large ledges on structure surfaces, the shore level, species group and site. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges increased the species richness, while one found that effects depended on the shore level. One of the studies found that partially-covering grooves and ridges with water-retaining and light-shading covers increased the species richness. Algal richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the size of grooves and ridges and the location. One study found that creating grooves and ridges, along with pits, increased the species richness, regardless of their size and arrangement. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the size of grooves and ridges and the location. One study found that creating grooves and small ledges increased the mobile invertebrate species richness. Fish richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves and ridges had mixed effects on fish species richness depending on the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Overall abundance (6 studies): Two of six replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, the USA and Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves and small protrusions/ridges, along with large ledges in one, and when partially-covered with water-retaining and light-shading covers in the other, did increase abundance. Two found that creating grooves and small ridges/ledges, along with pits in one, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges/ledges, the shore level and/or the site. Algal abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, the USA and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions/ridges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges in one, had mixed effects on rockweed or combined macroalgal abundance, depending on the presence of large ledges on structure surfaces, the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the shore level and/or the site. One study found that creating grooves and small ridges, along with pits, did not increase the macroalgal abundance, regardless of the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges. Invertebrate abundance (7 studies): Five of seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA, Singapore, the UK, Hong Kong, Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions/ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges or using environmentally-sensitive material in two, had mixed effects on mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate, limpet, mussel, juvenile oyster and/or barnacle abundances, depending on the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the presence of large ledges or water-retaining and light-shading covers, the shore level, and/or the site. Two studies found that creating grooves and small ridges/ledges increased oyster but not mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (4 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies and one before-and-after study in Australia and the USA found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges in one study, did not increase combined fish or juvenile salmon abundances on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Spain reported that grooves and small protrusions created on an intertidal artificial structure were colonized by a number of microalgal species. Fish behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ledges on intertidal artificial structures increased the time benthic fishes spent interacting with structure surfaces but decreased the number of bites they took and did not change pelagic fish behaviour. One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating grooves and small protrusions, along with large ledges, increased juvenile salmon feeding activity around the structure.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3474https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3474Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:40:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Twenty-two studies examined the effects of creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were on open coastlines in the UK, the Netherlands and the Azores, six were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, three were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was in a port in the Netherlands, one was in an estuary and on an open coastline in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia, Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits did not alter the community composition. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects depending on the size and arrangement of pits and other habitats and the site, while one found that varying the pit size and arrangement had no significant effect. Three of these studies, along with three other replicated, controlled studies (including one that was randomized) in the UK and Singapore, reported that pit habitats, along with grooves and ridges in one, supported macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitats. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that pit habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without pits and grooves. Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Eight of 12 replicated controlled studies (including six randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, or grooves, small protrusions and ridges in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating pits did not increase the species richness, while two found that creating pits, along with grooves or using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects depending on the site. One of the studies found that varying the pit size and arrangement resulted in higher species richness, while one found that this had mixed effects depending on the shore level. Two of the studies found that varying the pit size did not affect species richness. One of them found that increasing the density and fragmentation of pits, along with grooves, had mixed effects on species richness. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small ridges, increased the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and the Azores reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure increased the limpet and periwinkle species richness on structure surfaces, and that their richness and diversity varied depending on the pit arrangement. One found that creating pits did not affect the limpet species richness, regardless of the pit size. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Two of five replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits decreased their abundance and one found no effect. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement, shore level and site. Algal abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Netherlands, Singapore and the Azores found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small ridges in one study, did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement and the site. Invertebrate abundance (9 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (including six randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Azores, the Netherlands, Australia and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Three studies found that creating pits, along with grooves in one study, had mixed effects on barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site, the species, the size of animals, and/or the pit size and arrangement. Two studies found that creating pits, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, increased barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances. Two of the studies found that the pit size or arrangement did not affect abundances, while two found that the effects of pit size and arrangement varied depending on the site and species. One replicated randomized study in the UK found that increasing pit density increased periwinkle abundance, but pit arrangement did not. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the Azores reported that occupancy of pit habitats created on intertidal artificial structures by limpets and/or periwinkles varied depending on the pit size and arrangement, the size of animals, the species and/or site. Three replicated studies (including two paired sites, controlled studies) in the Netherlands and in Singapore and the UK reported that pit habitats were used by periwinkles, macroalgae and invertebrates. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:58:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create 'rock pools' on intertidal artificial structures Eighteen studies examined the effects of creating ‘rock pools’ on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were in estuaries in Australia, the UK and eastern USA, five were on open coastlines in the UK, Ireland and southeast Spain, two were in straits in the UK and Malaysia, and one was in a marina in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (17 STUDIES) Overall community composition (16 studies): Thirteen replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and three site comparison studies) in Australia the UK, the USA, Spain and Malaysia, reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without pools or holes. One of the studies also found that pools supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to surfaces without pools. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found mixed effects on the community composition depending on the pool depth, shore level and site. One of the studies found that created pools supported different combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate communities but similar combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities to natural rock pools, while one found that combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities differed to natural pools. Two of the studies found that the pool depth did not affect the community composition, while one found that the pool angle did. One replicated study in Ireland found that the shore level and wave-exposure affected the community composition, and that wave-sheltered pools filled with sediment within two years. One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects on community composition depending on the species group and site. Overall richness/diversity (15 studies): Nine of 12 replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and two site comparison studies) in Australia, the UK, Spain and Malaysia found that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported higher combined macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species diversity and/or richness than structure surfaces without pools or holes. Three studies reported similar combined macroalgae and invertebrate or combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in pools and on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools was similar to natural rock pools, while one reported lower combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools. Two of the studies, along with one replicated study in Ireland, found that the shore level of pools, along with holes in one, did not affect the species richness, but in one, the functional richness (species grouped according to their role in the community) was lower in highshore pools than midshore. Three of the studies found that the pool depth had no effect on species richness, one found higher richness in tilted pools than horizontal ones, and one replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects depending on the species group and site. One before-and-after study in Australia reported that creating pools, along with reducing the slope of a structure, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia reported that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the fish species richness on and around the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundance in pools, depending on the species group and site. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances depending on the pool depth, shore level, species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one with paired sites) in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one, had mixed effects on limpet or combined invertebrate abundances, depending on the shore level, pool depth, species group and/or site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia found that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the fish abundance on and around the structure, depending on the species group and site. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study) in Australia reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one study, were used by sea slugs, urchins, octopuses, macroalgae, invertebrates and fishes. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of pool surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3476https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3476Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:49:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of legally protecting habitat. Six studies were in the UK and one was in each of Australia, Singapore and Ireland and the USA. Three of the studies used data from the same national monitoring scheme across different years. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Singapore found that protected primary or secondary forest reserves had a higher species richness of butterflies than unprotected forest fragments. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Ireland reported that raised bogs protected as Special Areas of Conservation (where restoration had sometimes taken place) had a similar species richness of moths to unprotected bogs. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that, in the first three years after protection as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), woodland, grassland and heathland sites lost a similar proportion of 29 threatened butterfly species to unprotected sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three of five site comparison studies (including four replicated studies and one before-and-after study) in the UK and Ireland found that sites protected as National Nature Reserves or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (in one case also managed by coppicing), or surrounded by SSSIs, had a higher abundance of heath fritillary, all butterflies and 30/57 species of butterfly than unprotected sites. However, one of these studies only found the result using one of two sets of sites. The other two studies found that grasslands protected as National Nature Reserves or SSSIs and raised bogs protected as Special Areas of Conservation had a similar total abundance of moths, and change in abundance of chalkhill blue butterflies, to unprotected sites. However, one of these studies found mixed results for individual moth species. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that, at sites with the highest levels of protection, abundances of Karner blue, frosted elfin and Persius duskywing did not change over time, whereas they decreased at sites with lower levels of protection. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that protected grasslands assessed as being in “Favourable” habitat condition had worse population trends for 4/8 butterfly species but better for 1/8 species than grasslands in “Unfavourable” condition. One study in Australia reported that after a grassland was designated as a local reserve, populations of golden sun-moth and pale sun-moth persisted for at least four years. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3831https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3831Mon, 04 Jul 2022 13:36:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain connectivity between habitat patches Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining connectivity between habitat patches. One study was in each of the USA, the Netherlands and Estonia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Estonia found that well connected cleared patches within a woodland had a similar species richness of butterflies to isolated cleared patches. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that low quality habitat patches which were well connected were more likely to retain Alcon large blue populations than less well connected patches, but connectivity did not affect occupancy of high quality patches. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that common buckeye were more likely to colonize farther away habitat patches if they were released on corridors of suitable habitat than if released in unsuitable habitat, but there was no difference when released close to habitat patches. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3832https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3832Mon, 04 Jul 2022 14:39:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining buffer zones around core habitat. ‘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%2F3833https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3833Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:06:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practise ‘wildlife gardening’ Four studies evaluated the effects of practising wildlife gardening on butterflies and moths. Two were in the UK and one was in each of France and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that areas with reduced frequency weeding had a similar species richness of adult butterflies compared to areas with conventional weeding. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one paired, controlled study) in the UK and the USA found that increasing the number and age of potted nettle plants in gardens and weeding less frequently did not increase abundance of butterflies, all caterpillars and caterpillars and eggs of four target species. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gardens where insecticides and herbicides were not used and where there were natural features had a higher abundance of butterflies, but gardens where fungicides and snail pellets were not used had a lower abundance of butterflies. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated study in the UK reported that caterpillars only occasionally used potted nettle plants in gardens. One site comparison study in the UK found that planted buddleia and marjoram were visited by adult butterflies and moths more frequently than other plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3834https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3834Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:12:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect or restore brownfield or ex-industrial sites We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting or restoring brownfield or ex-industrial sites on butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3835Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:24:10 +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: Establish “green infrastructure” in urban areas One study evaluated the effects of establishing “green infrastructure in urban areas on butterflies and moths. This study was in Taiwan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Taiwan found that green roofs had a lower species richness of butterflies than urban parks. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Taiwan found that green roofs had a lower abundance of butterflies than urban parks, but the abundance was higher on older green roofs with more nectar plant species in a larger area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3837https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3837Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:32:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees to reduce temperatures in cities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting trees to reduce temperatures in cities on butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3838https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3838Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:35:33 +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: Require developers to complete Environmental Impact Assessments when submitting planning applications We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of requiring developers to complete Environmental Impact Assessment when submitting planning applications. ‘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%2F3840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3840Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:41:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Alter mowing regimes on greenspaces and road verges Seven studies evaluated the effects of altering mowing regimes on greenspaces and road verges on butterflies and moths. One study was in each of Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, the UK, Canada and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in Germany and the UK found that less frequently mown or unmown urban greenspaces had a higher species richness and diversity of butterflies and moths than more frequently mown areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the management of road verges (and land under power lines) did not affect the species richness of butterflies. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one paired, controlled study) in the UK and Canada found that unmown public parks and road verges (and land under power lines) had a higher abundance of all adult butterflies and pearl crescent and northern pearl crescent butterflies than regularly mown areas, but the abundance of other butterflies on the road verges (and under power lines) was similar between mown and unmown areas in the second study. One study in Finland found that roadsides mown in late summer had more ringlet butterflies than those mown in mid-summer. Survival (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Poland found that road verges mown less frequently, or later in summer, had fewer dead butterflies killed by traffic than more frequently or earlier mown verges. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden reported that less frequently mown urban grasslands were more frequently occupied by scarce copper butterflies than more frequently mown grasslands. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the Netherlands found that butterflies were recorded on verges which were mowed once or twice a year and those which were not mowed, but on mowed verges butterflies were only recorded on those where hay was removed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3841https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3841Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:45:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant parks, gardens and road verges with appropriate native species Eight studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of planting parks and gardens with appropriate native species. Seven were in the USA and one was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (including three paired, three controlled and two site comparison studies) in Germany and the USA found that gardens and road verges planted with native species had a greater species richness of butterfly and moth adults and caterpillars than gardens or verges with mixed or exclusively non-native plant species. The other two studies found that the species richness of adult butterflies was similar in areas planted with native or non-native flowers. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including two paired and two controlled studies) in the USA found that gardens planted with native species had a higher abundance of butterfly and moth caterpillars than gardens with mixed or exclusively non-native plant species. The third study found that the abundance of adult butterflies was similar in areas planted with native or non-native flowers. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that when taller native milkweed species were planted, they had a higher abundance of monarch butterfly eggs and caterpillars than shorter milkweed species. Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that the survival of pipevine swallowtail eggs and caterpillars was lower on California pipevine planted in gardens than in natural sites. The other study found that the survival of monarch butterfly caterpillars was similar on common milkweed planted in gardens and meadows. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that the growth of monarch butterfly caterpillars was similar on eight different native milkweed species. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that monarch butterfly adults used common milkweed planted in gardens more than milkweed planted in meadows. The other study found that pipevine swallowtail adults used California pipevine planted in gardens less than in natural sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3842https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3842Tue, 05 Jul 2022 09:53:23 +0100