Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat amphibians with chytridiomycosis in the wild or pre-release One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that treating wild midwife toads with fungicide, along with pond drying, reduced infection levels but did not eradicate chytridiomycosis.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F767Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:18:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant trees We found no evidence for the effect of transplanting trees on planted trees. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1162Wed, 18 May 2016 15:42:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2007Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:37:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome Two studies evaluated the effects of treating bats with a probiotic bacterium to reduce white-nose syndrome infection. One study was in Canada and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome (but not 21 days prior) increased survival within cages in a laboratory. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium within a mine increased survival for free-flying bats, but not caged bats. Condition (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that little brown bats caged in a laboratory and treated with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome had reduced symptoms of the disease, but bats treated 21 days prior to infection had worse symptoms. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats kept within cages in a mine and treated with a probiotic bacterium had a similar severity of white-nose syndrome to untreated bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:40:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat ballast water before exchange We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating ballast water before exchange 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%2F2165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2165Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:15:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/translocate ‘bioremediating’ species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting and/or translocating bioremediating 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%2F2175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2175Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:25:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release climate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals to re-establish or boost native populations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting/releasing mate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals 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%2F2218https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2218Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:36:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/release crustaceans Five studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared crustacean species on their wild populations. Four examined lobsters in the North Sea (Germany, Norway, UK), and one examined prawns in the Swan-Canning Estuary (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary  found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the abundance of egg-bearing female prawns increased. Crustacean reproductive success (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the North Sea found that after their release, recaptured hatchery-reared female lobsters carried eggs, and the number, size and developmental stage of eggs were similar to that of wild females. One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary  found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild the overall population fecundity (egg production/area) increased. Crustacean survival (2 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that 50–84% and 32–39% of hatchery-reared lobsters survived in the wild after release, up to eight and up to five years, respectively. Crustacean condition (4 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that hatchery-reared lobsters grew in the wild after release. One controlled study in the North Sea found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared female lobsters had similar growth rates as wild females. One study in the North Sea found that after releasing hatchery-reared lobsters, no recaptured lobsters displayed signs of “Black Spot” disease, and 95% had developed a crusher-claw. One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary  found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the size of egg-bearing female prawns increased. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean movement (1 study): One controlled study in the North Sea found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared female lobsters had similar movement patterns as wild females. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2266https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2266Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/release molluscs Eight studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared mollusc species on their wild populations. One examined abalone in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada), one examined clams off the Strait of Singapore (Singapore), one examined oysters in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), and four examined scallops in the North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Mollusc abundance (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, abundance of juvenile scallops typically increased, but not that of adult scallops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean, found that after releasing hatchery-reared oyster larvae, more spat initially settled using a direct technique compared to a traditional remote technique, and equal number of spat settled on cleaned and natural oyster shells. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, larval recruitment increased across all areas studied. Mollusc survival (5 studies): One replicated study in the Strait of Singapore found that, after transplantation in the field, aquarium-reared clams had a high survival rate. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, the number of transplanted scallops surviving decreased regardless of the methods used, and maximum mortalities was reported to be 0–1.5%. One replicated, controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that transplanting hatchery-reared abalone into the wild reduced survivorship compared to non-transplanted hatchery-reared abalone kept in tanks. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after releasing hatchery-reared oyster larvae, 61% of the settled spat survived the winter, and settled spat survived equally on cleaned and natural oyster shells. Mollusc condition (3 studies): Two replicated studies in the Strait of Singapore and the North Atlantic Ocean found after transplantation in the wild, aquarium-reared clams and hatchery-reared scallops increased in weight and/or grew. Scallops grew in both free-planted plots and suspended bags but grew more in free-planted plots. One replicated, before-and-after study in the Gulf of Mexico found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, wild populations had not become genetically more similar to hatchery-reared scallops. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, free-planted scallops developed less shell biofouling than suspended scallops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2267https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2267Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:16:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species in predator exclusion cages One study examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared species in predator exclusion cages on their wild populations. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study the North Pacific Ocean found that hatchery-reared abalone transplanted in predator exclusion cages had similar survivorship following release compared to those transplanted directly onto the seabed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2268https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2268Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:32:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat mammals to reduce conflict caused by disease transmission to humans One study evaluated the effects of treating mammals to reduce conflict caused by disease transmission to humans. This study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Germany found that following a worming programme, proportions of red foxes infested with small fox tapeworm fell. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2342https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2342Thu, 21 May 2020 17:23:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat disease in wild mammals Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of treating disease in the wild. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Condition (2 studies): A replicated study in Germany found that medical treatment of mouflons against foot rot disease healed most infected animals. A before-and-after study in the USA found that management which included vaccination of Yellowstone bison did not reduce prevalence of brucellosis. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Uptake (1 study): A study in the USA found that a molasses-based bait was readily consumed by white-tailed deer, including when it contained a dose of a disease vaccination. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:45:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat ballast water before release We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating ballast water before release, on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2854https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2854Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:01:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat disease in wild marine and freshwater mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating disease in wild marine and freshwater mammals. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2860https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2860Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:19:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace blocks of vegetation: freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting or replacing blocks of freshwater marsh vegetation. Three studies were in the USA. One study was in the UK. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that plots of transplanted marsh vegetation contained a plant community characteristic of wetter conditions than plots without transplants after one growing season – but not after two. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK reported that plant species richness within transplanted freshwater marsh vegetation was similar before transplanting and six years later. There was a temporary increase in richness after one year. One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted freshwater marshes in the USA found that plots of transplanted marsh vegetation contained more wetland plant species than plots without transplants after one growing season – but that there was no significant difference after two. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted freshwater marshes in the USA found that plots of transplanted marsh vegetation had greater cover of wetland plants than plots without transplants, after 1–2 growing seasons. Individual species abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in a wet prairie in the USA found that after three growing seasons, the density of prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata stems was lower in transplanted sods than in pristine or source prairies. One before-and-after study of transplanted freshwater marsh vegetation in the UK reported changes in the frequency of individual plant species from before to six years after transplanting. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in a wet prairie in the USA found that after three growing seasons, prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata was shorter in transplanted sods than in pristine or source prairies. Diameter/perimeter/area (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated) in wet prairies in the USA found that the average area of small transplanted sods (≤0.28 m2 initial size) increased over 3–4 growing seasons. One of the studies transplanted larger sods (0.65 m2 initial size) and reported that their average area decreased over 3–4 growing seasons. OTHER Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated) in wet prairies in the USA reported ≥90% survival of transplanted sods of wet prairie vegetation after 3–4 growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3268https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3268Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:36:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater marshes Ten studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create freshwater marshes. Nine studies were in the USA. One study was in Guam. Two studies were in the same region but used different sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in rewetted marshes in the USA found that areas amended with wetland soil contained a plant community characteristic of wetter conditions than unamended plots after one growing season – but not after two. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a recently excavated marsh in the USA found that amended and unamended plots contained a plant community of similar overall wetness after both one and two growing seasons. Overall richness/diversity (10 studies): Eight studies (including four at least replicated and controlled) in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that areas amended with wetland soil had greater plant richness and/or diversity than unamended areas and/or nearby natural marshes. One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted freshwater marshes in the USA found that plots amended with sieved marsh soil contained a similar number of wetland plant species to unamended plots, after 1–2 growing seasons. One before-and-after study of freshwater pool in Guam simply quantified plant species richness one year after adding wetland soil (along with other interventions). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in the USA reported that plots amended with wetland soil developed a greater richness of wetland-characteristic plant species than unamended plots, at the end of the growing season. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (6 studies): Six controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that plots amended with wetland soil typically contained more vegetation overall than unamended plots, after 1–2 growing seasons. This was true for cover and biomass, but not stem density. Individual species abundance (7 studies): Seven studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, site comparison) in freshwater marshes, meadows and pools in the USA and Guam quantified the effect of this action (sometimes along with others) on the abundance of individual plant species. Results were mixed and likely depended on the composition of the donor wetland. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3270Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create brackish/salt marshes.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3271https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3271Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create freshwater swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3272Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or replace wetland soil: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to restore or create brackish/saline swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3273https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3273Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:48:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to freshwater wetlands planted with emergent, non-woody plants. One study was in the USA and one was in Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of created freshwater marshes in the USA found that those amended with marsh soil developed plant communities characteristic of wetter conditions than unamended marshes. Most marshes had also been planted. All were ≥5 years old. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that marshes amended with marsh soil had similar (dry season) or lower (wet season) plant species richness and diversity to unamended marshes. Most marshes had also been planted. All were ≥5 years old. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                 Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of created freshwater marshes in the USA reported that amongst planted marshes, adding marsh soil had no significant effect on overall vegetation cover or biomass, after ≥5 years. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of created freshwater marshes in the USA reported that amongst planted marshes, those also amended with marsh soil had greater cover of wetland-characteristic plants than unamended marshes, after ≥5 years. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in freshwater trenches in Canada found that adding peat-rich soil to pots of mine tailings before planting water sedge Carex aquatilis typically increased its above-ground biomass two growing seasons later. VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in freshwater trenches in Canada found that adding peat-rich soil to pots of mine tailings either increased or had no significant effect on survival of planted water sedge Carex aquatilis over two growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3320https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3320Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:33:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to brackish/saline wetlands planted with emergent, non-woody plants.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3321https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3321Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:33:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to freshwater wetlands planted with trees/shrubs.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3322https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3322Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:33:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to brackish/saline wetlands planted with trees/shrubs.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3323https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3323Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:34:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or seed organisms onto subtidal artificial structures Eleven studies examined the effects of transplanting or seeding species onto subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Eight studies were on open coastlines in Japan, Italy and Croatia, and one of each was in an inland bay in eastern USA, an estuary in southeast Australia, and on an island coastline in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that transplanting oysters onto subtidal artificial structures altered the combined invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that transplanting oysters onto subtidal artificial structures increased the combined invertebrate and fish species richness and diversity on and around structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore reported that transplanting corals onto a subtidal artificial structure increased the coral species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that transplanting oysters onto subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces, but that the effects varied for different species. Algal abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Italy and Croatia found that the cover of canopy algae transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures increased and/or was higher when transplanted under cages but decreased and/or was lower when left uncaged. One study in Japan reported that the abundance of kelp recruits on a subtidal artificial structure varied depending on the distance from transplanted kelp individuals and the surface orientation. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled and site comparison study in Australia found that transplanting sea urchins onto a subtidal artificial structure reduced the cover of non-native sea mat on kelps growing on the structure. One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore reported that transplanting corals increased the coral cover on structure surfaces. Algal reproductive success (1 study): One study in Japan reported that kelp transplanted onto a subtidal artificial structure appeared to reproduce. Invertebrate reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA reported that oysters transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures appeared to reproduce. Algal survival (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies) in Italy found that the survival of canopy algae transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures varied depending on the wave-exposure and surrounding habitat or the presence and/or mesh size of cages around transplants, while in one the surface orientation had no effect. Two studies reported that no canopy algae transplants survived, and in one this was regardless of the presence of cages. Invertebrate survival (3 studies): One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore found that the survival of corals transplanted onto a subtidal artificial structure varied depending on the species. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that cleaning activities did not affect survival of transplanted oysters. One replicated, randomized, controlled and site comparison study in Australia simply reported that transplanted sea urchins survived. Algal condition (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Italy found that the growth of canopy algae transplanted onto subtidal artificial structures varied depending on the wave-exposure and surface orientation or the presence of cages around transplants, while in one the mesh size of cages had no effect. One study in Japan simply reported that transplanted kelp grew. Invertebrate condition (2 studies): One randomized, before-and-after study in Singapore reported that the growth of corals transplanted onto a subtidal artificial structure varied depending on the species. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA reported that cleaning activities did not affect the growth of transplanted oysters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3471https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3471Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:57:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant or seed organisms onto intertidal artificial structures Ten studies examined the effects of transplanting or seeding species onto intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Seven studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia and Hong Kong, two were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and one was in a port and on an open coastline in southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Hong Kong and Australia reported that oysters transplanted onto intertidal artificial structures supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from on and around structure surfaces without transplanted oysters. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Hong Kong and Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces, depending on the site and/or the presence and size of grooves and small ridges or ledges on surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. Fish richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized studies (including two controlled studies) in Australia found that transplanting oysters and/or coralline algae onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One found mixed effects of transplanting oysters, depending on the presence and size of grooves and small ridges on surfaces and the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found mixed effects depending on the presence and size of grooves and small ridges/ledges on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Hong Kong and Australia found that transplanting oysters onto intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the presence of grooves and small ridges or ledges on surfaces and/or the site. One of the studies also found that transplanting oysters increased the non-mobile invertebrate and oyster recruit abundance and decreased barnacle abundance. One found increased oyster and mobile invertebrate abundance. Fish abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized studies (including two controlled studies) in Australia found that transplanting oysters and/or coralline algae onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. One found that fish abundance around transplanted oysters was similar regardless of the presence and size of grooves and small ridges on structure surfaces. Algal survival (1 study): One replicated study in Singapore found that macroalgae transplanted onto an intertidal artificial structure were more likely to survive at mid- and highshore than at lowshore. Invertebrate survival (8 studies): Six of eight studies (including six replicated, three randomized and two controlled studies) in Australia, Spain, Singapore and Hong Kong reported that the survival of mobile invertebrates (seasnails, starfish and/or urchins and anemones) or non-mobile invertebrates (limpets, corals and sponges or oysters) transplanted onto intertidal artificial structures varied depending on the species, site, and/or the presence and size of grooves and small ridges or ledges on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that oyster survival was higher when transplanted into grooves compared with on ridges, while one found that survival in grooves and on ledges varied depending on the site. Two studies simply reported that a proportion of transplanted oysters survived. Algal condition (1 study): One replicated study in Singapore found that the growth of macroalgae transplanted onto an intertidal artificial structure was similar at lowshore, midshore and highshore. Invertebrate condition (2 studies): One study in Singapore reported that the growth of corals and sponges transplanted onto an intertidal artificial structure varied depending on the species. One replicated study in Spain simply reported that transplanted limpets grew. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that transplanting oysters and/or coralline algae onto intertidal artificial structures did not increase the time fishes spent interacting with structure surfaces or the number of bites they took, but that benthic fishes took more bites from surfaces with transplanted oysters than from those with transplanted algae and oysters together. These results were true regardless of whether there were grooves and small ridges on structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3472https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3472Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:55:42 +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