Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting bottom trawling in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and one in the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to trawled seamounts and to never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). Overall diversity/species richness (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had similar invertebrate species richness and diversity to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had more invertebrate species compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar combined invertebrate and fish species richness in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had lower invertebrate biomass compared to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had higher invertebrate biomass compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar invertebrate and fish biomass in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:03:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore seagrass beds/meadows Three studies examined the effects of restoring seagrass beds (not by transplanting or translocating seagrass) on seagrass bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. One was in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Indian Ocean (Kenya), and one in the Florida Keys (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed had no effect on overall invertebrate community composition, but adding sand led to communities different from both unrestored and natural sites. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed and adding sand, overall invertebrate species richness was similar at restored, unrestored, and natural sites. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar invertebrate diversity on mimic leaves and in the surrounding sediment, and similar species richness on mimic leaves at all restored sites as on natural seagrass leaves. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after restoring seagrass beds, the abundance of mobile invertebrates had increased and was higher in restored than unrestored plots, but the abundance of sessile invertebrates had not increased. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar abundance of invertebrate in the surrounding sediment across sites, and resulted in different abundance of invertebrates on mimic leaves between sites although all had lower abundances than on natural seagrass leaves. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed or adding sand, overall invertebrate abundance was not different at restored sites compared to both unrestored and natural sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:45:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore coastal lagoons Three studies examined the effects restoring coastal lagoons on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Chilika lagoon (India), and two in East Harbor lagoon (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration total crustacean species richness decreased, but changes varied with species groups (decreases in prawn and crab species; increases in lobster species). The lagoon also hosted new species not found before. Mollusc richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their species richness increased in the first three years but later decreased over the following six. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration abundances of prawns and crabs increased. Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their total abundance increased in the first three years, but later decreased over the following six. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:48:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Landscape or artificially enhance the seabed (natural habitats) Three studies examined the effects of landscaping or artificially enhancing the seabed on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study was in the North Sea (UK), one in the Westerschelde estuary (Netherlands), and one in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One controlled, before-and after study in the North Sea found that following addition of gravels, invertebrate community composition became more similar to natural seabed communities. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Westerschelde estuary found no change in invertebrate community composition following addition of sedimentary dredge material. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and after study in the North Sea and one site comparison study in the Persian Gulf found that invertebrate species richness increased following addition of gravels or coral and limestone rubbles, and one also found that richness became similar to natural seabed. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Westerschelde estuary found no change in species richness following addition of sedimentary dredged material. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One controlled, before-and after study in the North Sea and one site comparison study in the Persian Gulf found that invertebrate abundance and biomass increased following addition of gravels or coral and limestone rubbles, and one also found that abundance became similar to natural seabed. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Westerschelde estuary found no change in invertebrate abundance and biomass following addition of sedimentary dredge material. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2253https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2253Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:56:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvesting of scallops on their populations. One study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one in the English Channel (UK) and one in the Irish Sea (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Scallop abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in the South Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea found that in areas where scallop harvesting had stopped scallop abundance was similar, and one found that scallop biomass was higher, compared to harvested areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:53:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure Three studies evaluated the effects of using ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure. One study was in each of the South Atlantic Ocean (Gabon), the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and various water bodies (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): One study in various water bodies around the UK found that a greater proportion of cetaceans (including whales, dolphins and porpoise) avoided or moved away from vessels during ‘soft start’ procedures with seismic airguns compared to when airguns were not firing. One study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that during ‘soft start’ procedures using seismic airguns, a pod of short-finned whales initially moved away but remained within 900 m of the vessel as it passed by. One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that during ‘soft-start’ procedures with a small experimental airgun array, migrating humpback whales slowed their speed towards the vessel but did not significantly alter their course. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2897https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2897Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:12:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate the public to improve behaviour towards marine and freshwater mammals Three studies evaluated the effects of educating the public to improve behaviour towards marine and freshwater mammals. One study was in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), the Sundarbans mangroves (Bangladesh) and the South Pacific Ocean (Peru). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Change in human behaviour (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Sundarbans mangroves and the South Pacific Ocean found that after educational whale-watching tours or an educational exhibition, participants were more willing to change their behaviour to support marine conservation, to donate money to marine conservation, or to cut their fishing nets to save entangled dolphins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2935Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:41:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow seeds at start of growing season Three studies examined the effects of sowing seeds at the start of the growing season on grassland vegetation. Two studies were in the USA and one was in the UK. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds in spring increased plant diversity compared to sowing in autumn. Sown/planted richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing seeds in spring increased the number of sown species compared to sowing in autumn. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (1 STUDY) Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing seeds in spring increased the cover of sown grass and forb species compared to sowing in autumn. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Germination/Emergence (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds in spring led to similar emergence of forb seedlings compared to sowing in winter. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3407Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:03:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow seeds in part of site Three studies examined the effects of sowing seeds in part of a site on grassland vegetation. Two studies were in the USA and one was in the Czech Republic. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that sowing seeds in part of a site resulted in an increase in plant species richness over time. Sown/planted species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the Czech Republic found that sowing seeds in part of a site did not alter species richness for sown grass and herb species. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDY) Sown/planted species abundance (2 studies): One study in the USA found that after sowing seeds in part of a site, new patches of two of three sown plant species were recorded in unsown areas. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the Czech Republic found that sowing seeds in part of a site did not alter the cover of sown grass and herb species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3408https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3408Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:14:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove leaf litter before seeding/planting Three studies examined the effects of removing leaf litter before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. One study was in each of Germany, Belgium and Hungary. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Hungary found that removing leaf litter before sowing seeds did not increase the cover of either of two sown grass species. Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that removing leaf litter before planting did not alter the biomass of ragged robin and marsh birdsfoot trefoil transplants in most cases. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (one of which was also randomized and paired) in Germany, Belgium and Hungary found that removing leaf litter, and in one study also removing vegetation, before sowing seeds had mixed effects on the number of seedlings of sown plant species. The other study found no change in the number of seedlings of either of two grass species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3414Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use erosion blanket after seeding/planting Three studies examined the effects of using erosion blankets after seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Two studies were in the USA and one study was in Spain. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Spain found that using an organic blanket after sowing seeds increased plant species richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (two of which were paired and two randomized) in the USA and Spain found that using an erosion blanket after seeding and planting did not alter vegetation cover. The other study found that using an organic blanket after sowing seeds increased plant density. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3431https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3431Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:37:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in northern Israel, one was in a marina in northern Israel, and one was off the west coast of Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with grooves, environmentally-sensitive material and pits or small ledges in two studies, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate or mobile invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structures. They also supported mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with grooves, environmentally-sensitive material and pits or small ledges, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on and around structures. One found that creating holes did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness or diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study off Sweden reported that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structures. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating hole habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with pits, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures increased the abundance of brown crabs on and around structures, but not other mobile invertebrates. One reported that creating holes, along with pits grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase fish species abundances on and around structures. One reported that creating holes, along with pits grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3434Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:45:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in Italy and Israel, and one was in an estuary in eastern USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, while one found no effect. One of the studies also reported that textured surfaces with environementally-sensitive material supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from fibreglass surfaces without texture. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Italy and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate live cover on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did increase the cover and biomass. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the non-mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:40:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia and one was in marinas in northwest France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate community composition, depending on the density or length of flexible habitats and/or the site. One of the studies found it altered the non-mobile invertebrate community composition. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile or non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Three randomized, controlled studies (including two replicated and one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate abundance on and around structure surfaces, depending on the survey week, species group, flexible habitat length, or site. One of the studies found no effect on mobile invertebrate abundance. Fish abundance (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the seahorse abundance on and around structures, depending on the survey week. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:19:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats and small protrusions, ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in marinas in northern Israel and the UK and one was on an open coastline in southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and the UK found that groove habitats and small ledges created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. One study found that creating grooves and small protrusions had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the orientation of structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and the UK found that creating groove habitats and small ledges on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and diversity on structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves and small protrusions did not increase the species diversity but had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the orientation of structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate abundance, depending on the orientation of structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Spain reported that groove habitats and small protrusions created on subtidal artificial structures were colonized by macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3452https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3452Thu, 09 Sep 2021 14:53:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were on open coastlines in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found different fish community composition around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions. The structure with harvesting restrictions supported species that were absent from unrestricted structures. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found higher fish species richness around a subtidal artificial structure with harvesting restrictions compared with unrestricted structures. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found similar sea urchin abundances around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions. Fish abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in Italy found similar total fish abundance around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions, but that abundances varied depending on the species and the survey date. One study found higher seabream abundances around the structure with harvesting restrictions. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on subidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3457Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:55:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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: 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: Harvest groups of trees or use thinning instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of harvesting groups of trees or using thinning instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was harvested by thinning, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the thinned forest was similar to an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by group selection harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered at a similar rate after management by group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but recovery in both was slower than after shelterwood harvesting. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3868https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3868Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:45:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was managed by shelterwood harvesting, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the shelterwood harvested forest was similar to a thinned forest and an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by shelterwood harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting, group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered faster after shelterwood harvesting than after group selection harvesting or clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3871https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3871Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:48:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Produce coffee in shaded plantations Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of producing coffee in shaded plantations. Two studies were in Mexico and one was in Puerto Rico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One paired sites, site comparison study in Mexico found that a plantation with its original canopy but understory replaced with coffee had higher species richness of fruit-eating butterflies than one with its original canopy and understory replaced with coffee and other vegetation or those with canopies replaced with other shading trees and understories replaced with coffee with or without other vegetation. One site comparison study in Mexico found that shaded coffee plantations had a higher species richness of caterpillars than a sun-grown monoculture. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Puerto Rico and Mexico found that shade-grown coffee plantations had a greater abundance of caterpillars than sun-grown coffee plantations. One of these studies also found that the abundance of coffee leaf miner was similar in shade-grown and sun-grown plantations. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3931https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3931Thu, 11 Aug 2022 19:51:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change mowing regime on grassland Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of changing mowing regimes on grassland. Two studies were in the USA and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that mowing coastal grassland in August reduced the abundance of Fisher’s estuarine moth caterpillars, whereas mowing in November or leaving sites unmown did not reduce abundance. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that prairies managed by haying had a higher abundance of prairie specialist butterflies, but a lower abundance of generalist and migrant butterflies, than prairies managed by burning, and the abundance of prairie specialists was higher in the first year after haying than in the second year. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that the abundance of Karner blue butterflies on oak savannas managed by mowing was similar to unmanaged savannas or savannas managed by burning. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3945Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:58:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create heathland/shrubland Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating heathland or shrubland. Two studies were in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that the moth community on restored moorland was more similar to that on established heather moorland than on degraded moorland. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that in heathlands restored by topsoil removal butterfly species richness was lower than in the surrounding landscape. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that in heathlands restored by topsoil removal butterfly species richness was lower than in the surrounding landscape but at restored sites abundance was higher in areas where heather litter had also been spread than where it had not. One study in the UK reported that a population of silver-studded blue butterflies released into a site which was managed for heathland restoration increased in abundance over 11 years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that a population of silver-studded blue butterflies released into a site where heathland was being restored expanded its range beyond its initial release area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3946https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3946Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:59:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heathland by cutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing heathland by cutting. Two studies were in the USA1,2 and one was in the UK3. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA2 found that a pine barren managed for 13 years by mechanical cutting had a higher abundance of Karner blue butterflies than barrens managed by rotational burning or unburned refuges. One before-and-after study in the USA1 found that the abundance of five butterfly species did not change after the management of a pine barren was changed from rotational burning to unintensive cutting. One before-and-after study in the UK3 reported that the abundance of high brown fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary increased after scrub cutting, along with tree felling, coppicing and grazing. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3947Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:59:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wetlands and floodplains Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating wetlands and floodplains. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that wetland creation increased macroinvertebrate diversity (including butterflies and moths), and that species richness increased with wetland age and was similar to mature ponds. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that wetland prairie restored by seeding willow dock and seasonal flooding had a higher abundance of great copper eggs than degraded, unflooded prairie. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that the survival of great copper eggs and caterpillars was lower in wetland prairie restored by planting native seed mixes and flooding annually than in degraded, unflooded prairie. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that wetland prairie restored by planting native seed mixes and flooding annually was used more by adult great copper than degraded, unflooded prairie. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3949https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3949Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:21:54 +0100