Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3439Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or alter maintenance activities on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or altering maintenance activities on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3440https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3440Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:24:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3441Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:02:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the slope of subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the slope of subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3442https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3442Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:09:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large protrusions (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating large protrusions on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3443https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3443Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:51:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3444Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:00:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large ridges or ledges (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating large ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3445https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3445Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:10:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the abundance of juvenile canopy macroalgae that settled onto structure surfaces, regardless of the topography depth. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or alter maintenance activities on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or altering maintenance activities on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was in an estuary in southeast Australia and one was in an inland bay in eastern USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not alter the combined invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish species richness or diversity on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures increased the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the area cleaned on a subtidal artificial structure increased the seahorse abundance on structure surfaces. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the survival of transplanted oysters. Condition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the growth of transplanted oysters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3447https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3447Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:57:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on open coastlines in Japan and northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that groove habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported macroalgae, non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from a similar structure without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in Japan and Israel reported that creating groove habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material in one, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3448Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:38:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create 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 long flexible habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Five studies examined the effects of creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Three studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia and two were in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Australia and the Netherlands reported that long flexible habitats created on subtidal artificial structures supported macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate or fish species that were absent from on and around structure surfaces without flexible habitats. Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures altered the non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the fish species richness around structures, depending on fish presence when flexible habitats were created. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that long flexible habitats created on subtidal artificial structures supported higher combined macroalgae and invertebrate (mostly mussels) biomass than structure surfaces without flexible habitats, and found that deeper flexible habitats supported higher biomass than shallower ones. Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, two controlled and one randomized study) in Australia and the Netherlands found that creating long 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 species group and survey week, or the flexible habitat length and density. One study reported that creating flexible habitats decreased the mussel abundance on structure surfaces but that the flexible habitats themselves supported higher biomass (mostly mussels) than the structure surfaces. Fish abundance (2 studies): Two randomized, controlled studies (including one replicated study) in Australia found that creating long flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the abundance of fishes or seahorses on and around structures, depending on the species and fish presence when flexible habitats were created, or the survey week. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia reported that long flexible habitats created on subtidal artificial structures were used by seahorses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3451https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3451Thu, 09 Sep 2021 12:22:16 +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: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating small protrusions on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One controlled study in Japan reported that creating small protrusions on a subtidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:06:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create crevice habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating crevice habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3454Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:22:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating pit habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that pit habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from a similar structure without the added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:31:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (>100 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was in a lagoon in Mayotte and one was in a marina in southeast USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA reported that large swimthrough habitats created in front of a subtidal artificial structure supported fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without swimthroughs. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that creating large swimthrough habitats in front of a subtidal artificial structure increased the overall fish species richness on and around structure surfaces, but that effects varied depending on the fish size class. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that creating large swimthrough habitats in front of a subtidal artificial structure increased the overall fish abundance on and around structure surfaces, but that individual species abundances varied depending on the species, size class and survey month. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Mayotte reported that large swimthrough habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with small swimthroughs and environmentally-sensitive material, were used by juvenile spiny lobsters and groupers, sea firs, and adult fishes from five families. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3456Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:12:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on 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: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on open coastlines in Italy, and one was in ports and on open coastlines in Gibraltar and southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain reported that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the limpet abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain found that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures resulted in larger limpets with more balanced sex ratios than unrestricted structures. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, and had mixed effects on the combined mobile invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during low tide, depending on the site. Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures decreased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide, depending on the site. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal 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 Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the abundance of non-mobile invertebrates on structure surfaces, and of mobile invertebrates during high tide, depending on the species group and site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during high tide. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of structure surfaces.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3459https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3459Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:23:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create long flexible habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating long flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that creating long flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. The flexible habitats themselves supported macroalgae, mobile and non-mobile invertebrates that were absent from structure surfaces without flexible habitats. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3460https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3460Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:51:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the slope of intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of reducing the slope of intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia reported that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure, along with creating rock pools, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the oyster or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, small ridges and pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the shore level. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large protrusions (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating large protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and one was in a marina in northeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia reported that large protrusions created on an intertidal artificial structure supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without protrusions. The study also found that protrosions tilted at an angle supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to horizontal ones.  Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the UK and Australia found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges in one study, did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies also reported that tilting protrusions at an angle did not increase the species richness compared to those that were horizontal. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges, increased limpet but not barnacle abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3463https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3463Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:22:23 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

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

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

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

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

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

This website uses Cookies

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

Accept & continue