Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging One study examined the effects of prohibiting dredging in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Firth of Lorn (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years had different combined invertebrate and fish community composition compared to unprotected dredged sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years typically had greater combined cover of bryozoans and hydroids (combined) compared to unprotected dredged sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2228Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:06:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting all towed gear in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), the other in the English Channel (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the community composition of reef-indicative invertebrate species became different to that of unprotected fished sites. Overall diversity/species richness (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the number of reef-indicative invertebrate species remained similar to unprotected fished sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the abundance of reef-indicative invertebrate species became greater than at unprotected fished sites. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects on the abundances of lobsters and crabs depending on species. Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects on the sizes of lobsters and crabs depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2229Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:09:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation system of activity restrictions Thirteen studies examined the effects of designating a marine protected area with a zonation system of activity restrictions on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Mexico), three in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy), one in the Central Pacific Ocean (Ecuador), three in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), one in the Indian Ocean (Australia), and one in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the combined invertebrate and algae species community composition was different at a site prohibiting all fishing compared to sites where some fishing occurs, after six years. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting nearly all fishing had similar invertebrate species richness to sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundances of specific invertebrate groups varied between sites prohibiting nearly all fishing and sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years. Crustacean abundance (7 studies): Three of seven site comparison studies (two replicated) in the Caribbean Sea, the Central Pacific Ocean, and in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundance and/or biomass of spiny lobsters increased in a zone closed to all/commercial fishing and were greater than in a zone where fewer fishing restrictions occurred, after four to 20 years depending on the study. One found that sites closed to all fishing had higher abundances of spiny lobsters and slipper lobsters after eight to ten years compared to fished sites. Two found that sites closed to all fishing for six to seven years had more European lobsters than sites where potting was allowed. And one found that abundances of European lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and spider crabs, after one to four years, varied with the levels of protection. Crustacean condition (4 studies): Three of five site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, and in the Caribbean Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting all fishing for seven years or commercial fishing (duration unspecified) had bigger lobsters compared to fished areas. One found that the sizes of lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and spider crabs varied with the levels of protection, and one study found that the size of spiny lobsters decreased similarly in an area prohibiting all fishing and in an area with fewer restrictions 14 to 20 years after designation of the protected area. Two studies undertaken in the same area found conflicting effects of prohibiting all fishing for six to seven years on disease and injury of lobsters. Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, at a site prohibiting all fishing for 17 to 18 years, abundances of two species of sea urchins were higher than at sites allowing the recreational fishing of purple sea urchins. The other one found similar abundance of purple sea urchins inside fully protected sites, sites where some restricted urchin harvest occurs, and unprotected fished sites outside the protected area after five years. Echinoderm condition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting all fishing had bigger sea urchins compared to sites where some restricted urchin harvest occurs and compared to unprotected fished sites outside the protected area, after either four years or 17 to 18 years. Mollusc abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundance of blacklip abalone was higher in sites that had been prohibiting all fishing for five years compared to those prohibiting commercial fishing only. Two site comparison studies in the Caribbean Sea found that inside marine protected areas with a zonation system, abundances of adult queen conch increased over time in a zone closed to all fishing and were greater than in zones with fewer restrictions, but abundances of juvenile conch did not differ or vary differently between zones, after either five to eight years or 14 to 20 years. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the size of queen conch decreased similarly in the area prohibiting all fishing and in the area with fewer restrictions, after 14 to 20 years. Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the cover of sponges Cliona was higher at a site prohibiting all fishing for six years compared to sites where some fishing occurred. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system (year of designation unspecified), 80% of the lobster population occurring in the unfished area remained in the protected unfished area, and thus remained protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2230https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2230Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:21:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit static fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and prohibiting static fishing gear on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2231https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2231Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:39:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the density of traps We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and limiting the density of traps on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2232https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2232Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook and line fishing One study examined the effects of allowing only hook and line fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Skagerrak (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster abundance over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites. Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster size over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2233https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2233Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:41:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the number of fishing vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and limiting the number of fishing vessels on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2234https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2234Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:41:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and set a no-anchoring zone We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and setting a no-anchoring zone on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2235https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2235Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:42:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of scallops We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and prohibiting the harvest of scallops on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2236https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2236Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:42:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of conch One study examined the effects of prohibiting the harvesting of conch in marine protected areas on their populations and/or other subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (British Overseas Territories). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that a marine protected area prohibiting the commercial harvest of conch had more conch after five years compared to a fished area. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that a marine protected area prohibiting the commercial harvest of conch had smaller adult conch after five years compared to a fished area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2237https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2237Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:44:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of sea urchins Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting the harvest of sea urchins in marine protected areas on their populations and/or other subtidal benthic invertebrates. Both studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Echinoderm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins had higher adult sea urchin biomass six to 33 years after their designations, compared to harvested areas. Echinoderm reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins had higher urchin population reproductive biomasses, but similar reproductive indices six to 33 years after their designations, compared to harvested areas. Echinoderm condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins had bigger adult sea urchins six to 33 years after their designations, compared to harvested areas. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins (year of designation unspecified) had more juvenile red abalone and juvenile flat abalone compared to harvested areas, and that juvenile abalone abundance was positively related to sea urchin abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2238https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2238Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:12:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and introduce some fishing restrictions (types unspecified) Four studies examined the effects of introducing unspecified types of fishing restrictions in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Indian Ocean (Seychelles, South Africa), one was a global systematic review, and one was in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had a different combined invertebrate and algae community composition, while the other (time since designation unspecified) found similar compositions compared to fished areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions had similar invertebrate abundance compared to unprotected fished areas (time since designation unspecified). Bryozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had similar abundance of bryozoans compared to fished areas. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more lobsters compared to fished areas. Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Indian Ocean found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more sea cucumbers after more than 20 years but the other found fewer sea lilies (year of designation unspecified) compared to fished areas. Hydrozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had more hydrozoans compared to fished areas. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more scallops compared to fished areas. Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had more sponges compared to fished areas. Tunicate abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area closed to fishing with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had similar abundance of ascidians/sea squirts (tunicates) compared to fished areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2239https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2239Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:34:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit aquaculture activity One study examined the effects of prohibiting aquaculture activity in a protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Tapong Bay lagoon (Taiwan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture in a marine protected area, the biomasses of amphipods and shrimps had decreased, and that the biomass of crabs had not changed. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture in a marine protected area, the biomasses of gastropods and bivalves had decreased. Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture in a marine protected area, the biomass of polychaete worms had stayed the same. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2240https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2240Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:37:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area without setting management measures, usage restrictions, or enforcement We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area without setting management measures, usage restrictions, or enforcement on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2241https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2241Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish community-based fisheries management One study examined the effects of establishing community-based fisheries management on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management was community-based had more New Zealand scallops compared to a protected area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing recreational harvest. Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management was community-based, tended to have smaller New Zealand scallops compared to a protected area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing recreational harvest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2242https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2242Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:39:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage with stakeholders when designing Marine Protected Areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging with stakeholders when designating a Marine Protected Area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2243https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2243Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:41:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming (biogenic) species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2244https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2244Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species - Translocate reef- or bed-forming molluscs Two studies examined the effects of translocating habitat-forming molluscs on associated subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both were in Strangford Lough (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough found that plots with translocated mussels had different associated invertebrate communities to plots without mussels, but also to natural mussel beds. One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or directly onto the seabed led to similar associated invertebrate communities. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough found that plots with translocated mussels had higher richness and diversity of associated invertebrates to plots without mussels, and similar to natural mussel beds. One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or directly onto the seabed led to similar richness and diversity of associated invertebrates. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough presented unclear abundance results. One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or directly onto the seabed led to higher abundance of associated invertebrates in one of two comparisons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2245https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2245Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:48:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species - Translocate reef-forming corals Two studies examined the effects of translocating habitat-forming corals on associated subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One was in Tayabas Bay (Philippines) and one in the South China Sea (Philippines). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation associated invertebrate communities did not change and remained similar to plots without translocated corals. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation richness of associated invertebrates increased but also increased in plots without corals, likely due to spill-over. One replicated, controlled study in Tayabas Bay found that richness of associated invertebrates was higher in plots with translocated corals than in plots without. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation abundance of associated invertebrates increased and became higher than in plots without translocated corals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2246https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2246Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:52:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore mussel beds Two studies examined the effects of restoring mussel beds (not by transplanting or translocating mussels) on mussels and mussel bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Both were in Strangford Lough (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate community composition in restored plots was different to that of unrestored plots. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, overall invertebrate community composition in plots restored with shells and mussels was different to plots restored without mussels (shells only), and both were different to unrestored plots and to nearby natural horse mussel beds. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate species diversity was lower in restored plots compared to unrestored plots, but species richness was similar. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, species richness and diversity were higher in restored plots with mussels and shells compared to plots with shells only, and similar to nearby natural horse mussel beds. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate abundance was higher in restored plots compared to unrestored plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:33:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore oyster reefs Eight studies examined the effects of restoring oyster reefs (not by transplanting or translocating oysters) on oysters and oyster reef-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two were in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), one was a global review, four were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one was in the Mission-Aransas estuary (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, the community composition of combined mobile decapod invertebrates and fish was similar on all types of restoration material used, but the other found that composition varied with the material used. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was similar in reefs restored by laying rocks regardless of age, in young reefs restored by laying oyster shells, and in natural reefs, but lower in old shell-restored reefs. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was higher in all restored reefs than on unrestored sediment, but that diversity varied between the restoration materials used. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that diversity of fish, crabs and shrimps varied with the restoration material used. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on the abundance of reef-associated invertebrates depended on the material used for restoration and the age of the reef. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that abundance of combined reef-associated mobile decapod invertebrate and fish was similar on all restored reefs regardless of the restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, crab abundance, but not biomass, and shrimp biomass, but not abundance, varied with the restoration material used. Oyster abundance (6 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster reefs restored by laying rocks had similar oyster abundance to natural reefs, and higher than reefs restored by laying oyster shells. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that oyster cover and abundance varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster spat abundance was similar on all types of restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, that for those placed below MLLW, keeping them there led to similar cover compared to moving them above MLLW halfway through the study, and that placing the lines on cobbly seabed led to similar cover compared to placing them on muddy seabed. Oyster reproductive success (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher recruitment of oyster spat on clam shells than by lacing lines above MLLW, that recruitment was higher on lines placed on cobbly seabed than on muddy seabed, and that recruitment was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster survival (5 studies): One global systematic review found that two of nine restoration techniques (restoring oyster reef by transplanting juveniles, and by creating no-harvest sanctuaries) assessed resulted in over 85% survival of restored oysters. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar survival of oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to higher survival than keeping then below, that survival was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that survival was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster condition (5 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on average spat size varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar growth of oysters on the shells than placing lines above MLLW. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by non-native species than placing lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to lower cover than keeping then below, that cover was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that cover of clam shells by non-native species was higher on lines placed near compared to far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:37:47 +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: Refill disused borrow pits One study examined the effects of refilling disused borrow pits on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Barnegat Bay estuary (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Barnegat Bay estuary found that overall invertebrate species richness and diversity increased at a disused borrow pit after being refilled with sediments but remained lower than at a natural non-dredged site. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Barnegat Bay estuary found that overall invertebrate abundance increased at a disused borrow pit after being refilled with sediments but remained lower than at a natural non-dredged site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2251https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2251Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:51:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen concentration One study examined the effects of installing a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen concentration on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Osaka Bay (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka Bay found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrate and fish species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka Bay found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrates and fish abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2252https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2252Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:52:56 +0100