Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Thirty-nine studies (including 13 replicated controlled trials of which three also randomized and four reviews) from eight European countries compared wildlife on uncultivated margins with other margin options. Twenty-four found benefits to some wildlife groups (including 11 replicated controlled trials of which one also randomised, and four reviews). Nineteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands and the UK found uncultivated margins support more invertebrates (including bees) and/or higher plant diversity or species richness than conventionally managed field margins or other field margin options. One replicated, controlled study showed that uncultivated margins supported more small mammal species than meadows and farmed grasslands. Four studies (two replicated UK studies, two reviews) reported positive associations between birds and field margins including food provision. A review from the UK found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) benefited plants and some invertebrates. Fifteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK found that invertebrate and/or plant species richness or abundance were lower in naturally regenerated than conventionally managed fields or sown margins. Six studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Belgium, Germany and the UK found uncultivated margins did not have more plant or invertebrate species or individuals than cropped or sown margins. A review found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) did not benefit ground beetles. Five studies (including three replicated controlled trials) from Ireland and the UK reported declines in plant species richness and invertebrate numbers in naturally regenerated margins over time. One replicated trial found that older naturally regenerated margins (6-years old) had more invertebrate predators (mainly spiders) than newly established (1-year old) naturally regenerated margins. Five studies (including one replicated, randomized trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found that cutting margins had a negative impact on invertebrates or no impact on plant species. One replicated controlled study found cut margins were used more frequently by yellowhammers when surrounding vegetation was >60 cm tall. Seven studies (including four replicated controlled trials and a review) from Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK reported increased abundance or biomass of weed species in naturally regenerated margins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:51:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grassland Eight studies from the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (three replicated and controlled of which one also randomized and one European systematic review) found that delaying mowing or grazing dates resulted in benefits to some or all plants, invertebrates or birds studied. These benefits included: higher plant species richness, higher densities of two rare arable weeds, more insect species and individuals visiting flowers, greater abundance of some spiders and ground beetles, increased breeding wading bird densities, and increased Eurasian skylark productivity. Three reviews found the UK corncrake population increased after measures including delaying mowing dates were introduced. Six studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (including three replicated controlled trials of which one was also randomized and a European systematic review) found that delaying mowing or grazing dates on grassland had no clear effect on plant species richness, ground beetle communities, abundance of some insects and spiders, or population trends of wading bird species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F131https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F131Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:17:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools Three studies from Sweden and the UK (including two site comparisons one of which was replicated) found that the creation of scrapes and pools provided habitat for a range of plant, invertebrate or bird species and resulted in increased aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity. One of these studies found constructed pools supported locally or nationally scarce species of plant and water beetle. A study in Sweden found that a combination of large surface area, high shoreline complexity and shallow depth resulted in increased bird, bottom-dwelling invertebrate and aquatic plant diversity. However there were fewer fish species than in natural wetlands. Two replicated studies from Ireland and the UK (one controlled paired study and a site comparison) found that bird visit rates were higher but invertebrate numbers varied in ditch-fed paired ponds compared with dry controls and total macroinvertebrate and beetle richness did not differ between artificial and natural ponds, although communities did differ. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F153https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F153Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:30:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields for birds A replicated, controlled study from the USA found that three sparrow species found on uncultivated margins were not found on mown field edges. A replicated study from Canada found fewer species in uncultivated margins than in hedges or in trees planted as windbreaks. Three replicated studies from the USA and UK, one controlled, found that some birds were associated with uncultivated margins, or that birds were more abundant on margins than on other habitats. One study found that these effects were very weak. Four replicated studies (two of the same experiment) from the UK, two controlled, found that uncultivated margins contained similar numbers of birds in winter, or that several species studied did not show associations with margins. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella used uncultivated margins more than crops in early summer, but use fell in uncut margins in late summer. Cut margins however, were used more than other habitat types late in summer. A replicated study from the UK found high rates of survival for grey partridge Perdix perdix released in margins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F190Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:47:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply herbicide to mid- and understorey vegetation Of seven studies, one replicated, controlled study in forests in Canada found that bird species richness declined after the treatment of deciduous trees with herbicide. Two of the four studies monitoring bird populations (two replicated, controlled before-and-after studies) these found that numbers of red-cockaded woodpeckers or male greater sage grouse increased in all or some herbicide-treated areas. Increases of sage grouse were larger at two areas without vegetation control. One study considered two species: one decreased while the other showed no response. Another found that bird densities increased equally in both control and treatment areas. Three replicated, controlled before-and-after studies in forests found that nest survival was lower where herbicide was applied to exotic shrubs or deciduous vegetation. One study also found lower nesting densities. One controlled study found northern bobwhite chicks higher had foraging success in herbicide-treated forest areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F346Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:17:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools in wetlands and wet grasslands Of six studies captured, four before-and after studies from the UK and North America found that the use of sites, or the breeding population of birds on sites, increased following the creation of ponds and scrapes or was higher in areas with ditch-fed ponds. A study from the USA found that dabbling ducks used newly-created ponds in large numbers, although other species preferred older ponds. Songbirds did not appear to be affected by pond-creation. A replicated site from the UK found that northern lapwing chicks foraged in newly created wet features and that chick condition was higher in sites with a large number of footdrains. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F359Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:26:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create skylark plots All four studies from the UK and Switzerland (two replicated and controlled, and one review) investigating the effect of skylark plots on Eurasian skylarks, found a positive effect, reporting increases in skylark population size, breeding density, duration or success or a lower likelihood of skylarks abandoning their territory relative to fields without plots. A replicated study from Denmark found that skylarks used undrilled patches within cereal fields more than expected by an even distribution across the landscape. Four studies reported the effect of undrilled patches on wildlife other than skylarks. Three studies from the UK (including two replicated studies, of which one also controlled and a review) found benefits to plants and invertebrates. Whilst two studies (both replicated, one also controlled) from the UK found no significant differences in the number of some invertebrates or seed-eating songbirds between skylark plots and conventional crop fields. One replicated study from the UK investigated different skylark plot establishment techniques. Plots that were undrilled had greater vegetation cover and height than plots established by spraying out with herbicide. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F540Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:08:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Connect areas of natural or semi-natural habitat All four studies (including one site comparison and two replicated trials) from the Czech Republic, Germany and the Netherlands investigating the effects of habitat corridors or restoring areas of natural or semi-natural habitat between existing patches found some degree of colonization of these areas by invertebrates or mammals. However for invertebrates one unreplicated site comparison reported that the colonization process was slow (Gruttke 1994), and three studies found that the extent of colonization varied between invertebrate taxa. One small, replicated study from the Czech Republic investigated colonization of two bio-corridors by small mammal species. It found more small mammal species in the bio-corridors than in an adjacent forest or arable fields. All three studies from Germany and the Netherlands looking at the effects on invertebrates found mixed results. One replicated study found more species of some wasps (cavity-nesting wasps and caterpillar-hunting wasps) in grass strips connected to forest edges than in isolated strips. An unreplicated study found that the abundance of three ground beetle species substantially increased in an arable field undergoing restoration to heathland but that typical heathland species failed to colonize over the 12 year period. One study found that two out of 85 ground beetle species used a meadow and hedge-island strip extending from semi-natural habitats into arable farmland. In the same study the habitat strip did not function well for ground beetles and harvestmen but was colonized by snails and spiders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F579Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:08:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks Fourteen reports from eight studies out of a total 24 reports from 12 individual studies (including eight replicated studies of which three controlled and four literature reviews) from Denmark and the UK found that beetle banks provide some benefits to farmland biodiversity. Sixteen reports from eight individual studies looked at invertebrates and beetle banks. Five reports from two replicated studies (of which one controlled) and a review found positive effects on invertebrate densities/numbers, distribution, or higher ground beetle density and species diversity in spring and summer but not winter. Six reports from three replicated studies (of which one randomized and controlled) found that invertebrate numbers varied between specific grass species sown on beetle banks. Two replicated studies (one paired and controlled) found that the effect of beetle banks varied between invertebrate groups or families. Five replicated studies (of which two controlled) found lower or no difference in invertebrate densities or numbers on beetle banks relative to other habitats. One review found lesser marsh grasshopper did not forage on two plant species commonly sown in beetle banks. Six studies looked at birds and beetle banks. Two reviews and one replicated controlled trial found positive effects on bird numbers (in combination with other farmland conservation measures) or evidence that birds used beetle banks. Two studies (one replicated site comparison) found mixed effects on birds. One replicated study found no farmland bird species were associated with beetle banks. One replicated, paired, controlled study and a review looked at the effects of beetle banks on plants and found either lower plant species richness on beetle banks in summer, or that grass margins including beetle banks were generally beneficial to plants but these effects were not pronounced on beetle banks. One controlled study and a review found beetle banks acted as nest sites for harvest mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:24:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow natural regeneration of ground cover beneath perennial cropsNatural enemies on crop trees and vines: Five studies (including one replicated, randomised, controlled test) from Australia, China, Italy and Portugal compared natural and bare ground covers by measuring numbers of natural enemies in fruit tree or vine canopies. Three found effects varied between groups of natural enemies, two found no difference. Two studies from Australia and France compared natural to sown ground cover and found no effect on enemies in crop canopies. Natural enemies on the ground: Five studies (including three replicated, randomised, controlled trials) from Australia, Canada, China, France, and Spain compared natural and bare ground covers by measuring natural enemies on the ground. Two studies found more natural enemies in natural ground cover, but in one the effects were only short-term for most natural enemy groups. Three studies found mixed effects, with higher numbers of some natural enemy groups but not others. Two studies compared natural and sown ground covers, one study found more natural enemies and one found no effect. Pests and crop damage: Four studies (three controlled, one also replicated and randomised) from Italy, Australia and China measured pests and crop damage in regenerated and bare ground covers. Two studies found fewer pests, whilst two studies found effects on pests and crop damage varied for different pest or disease groups. One study found more pests in natural than in sown ground covers. Crops studied were apple, grape, lemon, olive and pear.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F720https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F720Thu, 30 May 2013 11:41:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Alter the timing of insecticide useNatural enemies: One controlled study from the UK reported more natural enemies when insecticides were sprayed earlier rather than later in the growing season. Pests: Two of four studies from Mozambique, the UK and the USA found fewer pests or less disease damage when insecticides were applied early rather than late. Effects on a disease-carrying pest varied with insecticide type. Two studies (one a randomised, replicated, controlled test) found no effect on pests or pest damage. Yield: Four studies (including one randomised, replicated, controlled test) from Mozambique, the Philippines, the UK and the USA measured yields. Two studies found mixed effects and one study found no effect on yield when insecticides were applied early. One study found higher yields when insecticides were applied at times of suspected crop susceptibility.Profit and costs: One controlled study from the Philippines found higher profits and similar costs when insecticides were only applied at times of suspected crop susceptibility. Crops studied were aubergine, barley, maize, pear and stringbean.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F723https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F723Thu, 30 May 2013 12:36:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grasslandNatural enemy abundance: One replicated, randomised, controlled study found fewer predatory spiders with delayed cutting. Three studies from the UK (two of them replicated, randomised and controlled) found no change in insect predator numbers and one replicated study from Sweden found mixed effects between different predator groups. Natural enemy diversity: One replicated study from Sweden found a decrease in ant diversity with delayed cutting and one replicated, randomised, controlled study from the UK found no effect on spider and beetle diversity. Pests: One of two replicated, randomised, controlled studies from the UK and USA found more pest insects in late-cut plots and one found no effect. Insects in general: Four replicated, randomised, controlled studies measured the abundance of insect groups without classifying them as pests or natural enemies. One UK study found lower numbers in late-cut plots, while two found effects varied between groups. Two studies from the UK and USA found no effect on insect numbers. Crops studied were barley, bird’s-foot trefoil, clovers, fescues, rapeseed, ryegrass, other grasses and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F727https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F727Thu, 30 May 2013 13:34:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banksNatural enemies in fields: Six studies from Canada, the UK and USA (three replicated, controlled, of which two were also randomised) examined the effects on predator numbers in adjacent crops. A review found that predators increased in adjacent crops, but one study found effects varied with time and another found no effect. Two studies found small or slow movements of predators from banks to crops. One study found greater beetle activity in fields but this did not improve pest predation. Natural enemies on banks: Four studies and a review found more invertebrate predators on beetle banks than in surrounding crops, but one of these found that effects varied with time. Eight studies from the UK and USA (including two randomised, replicated, controlled trials and two reviews) compared numbers of predatory invertebrates on beetle banks with other refuge habitats. Two studies found more natural enemies on beetle banks, but one of these found only seasonal effects. One review found similar or higher numbers of predators on beetle banks and four studies found similar or lower numbers. Pests: A replicated, randomised study and a review found the largest pest reductions in areas closest to a beetle bank or on the beetle bank itself. One review found fewer pests in fields with than without a beetle bank. Economics: One replicated, randomised, controlled trial and a review showed that beetle banks could make economic savings if they prevented pests from reaching a spray threshold or causing 5% yield loss. Beetle bank design: Two studies from the UK found certain grass species held higher numbers of predatory invertebrates than others. Crops studied were barley, field bean, maize, oats, pea, radish, rapeseed, soybean, wheat and pasture.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F729https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F729Thu, 30 May 2013 14:45:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create refuges Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Indonesia found that adding coarse woody debris to forest floors had no effect on the number of amphibian species or overall abundance, but had mixed effects on abundance of individual species. One before-and-after study in Australia found that restoration that included reintroducing coarse woody debris to the forest floor increased frog species. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that creating refugia for great crested newts, along with other interventions, maintained four populations. Two studies (including one replicated study) in New Zealand and the USA found that artificial refugia were used by translocated Hamilton's frogs and hellbenders, although few were used for breeding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F772https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F772Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:40:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding frogs Thirty-three studies investigated the success of breeding frogs in captivity. Twenty-three of 33 studies, three of which were reviews and 30 replicated studies, across the world found that amphibians produced egg in captivity, in four cases by captive-bred females. Seven found mixed results, with some species of frogs or 17–50% of captive populations reproducing successfully in captivity, but with other species difficult to maintain or raise to adults. One found that frogs did not breed successfully in captivity and another that all breeding frogs died. Seventeen of the studies found that captive-bred frogs were raised successfully to hatching, tadpoles, froglets or adults in captivity. One found that froglet survival was low and another that three species were not successfully raised to adulthood. Four replicated studies (including one small study) in,Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Italy found that 30–88% of eggs hatched or survival to metamorphosis was 75%, as froglets was 17–51% or to adults was 50–90% in captivity. One review and four replicated studies (including two small studies) in Germany, Italy and the USA found that reproductive success of frogs in captivity depended on temperature or a simulated wet and dry season, but not on whether frogs were housed in high or low maintenance facilities. Three replicated studies (including one small study) in Germany, Australia and Canada found that egg or tadpole development in captivity was affected by parental care, density or temperature. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:25:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding salamanders (including newts) Four of six replicated studies (including four small studies) in Japan, Germany, the UK and USA found that eggs were produced successfully in captivity, in one case by one captive-bred female. Two found that production of eggs depended on tank habitat or was more successful in semi-natural compared to laboratory conditions. Captive-bred salamanders were raised to yearlings or a small number of larvae or adults in captivity. One review found that four salamander species bred successfully in captivity, but slimy salamanders produced eggs that did not hatch. One replicated study in Japan found that 60% of Japanese giant salamander eggs survived to hatching in captivity. Two replicated studies (including one small study) in Mexico and the USA found that larval development, body condition and survival of captive-bred amphibians were affected by water temperature, density and whether they were raised under laboratory or semi-natural conditions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F838https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F838Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:43:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for natterjack toads Five before-and-after studies (including three replicated and one controlled study) in the UK and Denmark found that pond creation, along with other interventions, significantly increased natterjack toad populations, or in two cases maintained or increased populations at 75% of sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that compared to natural ponds, created ponds had lower natterjack toad tadpole mortality from desiccation, but higher mortality from predation by invertebrates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F866https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F866Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for amphibians Twenty-eight studies investigated the colonization of created ponds by amphibians in general (rather than by targeted species, which are discussed below). All of the studies found that amphibians used some or all created ponds. Nine site comparison studies (including seven replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Spain, the UK and USA compared amphibian numbers in created and natural ponds. Five found that numbers of species or breeding species were similar or higher in created ponds, and numbers of ponds colonized were similar. Four found that species composition differed, and comparisons between abundance of individual species, juvenile productivity and size at metamorphosis differed depending on species. One found that numbers of species were similar or lower depending on the permanence of created water bodies. One found that populations in created ponds were less stable. One review and two replicated, before-and-after studies in Denmark and the USA found that amphibians established stable populations in 50–100% of created ponds. Six replicated studies (including one randomized study) in France, the Netherlands, UK and USA found that amphibians used 64–100% and reproduced in 64–68% of created ponds, or used 8–100% and reproduced in 2–62% depending on species. One review and 15 studies (including 12 replicated studies, one of which was randomized) in Europe and the USA found that created ponds were used or colonized by up to 15 naturally colonizing species, up to 10 species that reproduced, as well as by captive-bred amphibians. Five replicated studies (including three site comparison studies) in Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy and the USA found that pond creation, and restoration in three cases, maintained and increased amphibian populations or increased numbers of species. Seven studies (including one review) in Austria, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands and USA found that use or colonization of or reproductive success in created ponds was affected by pond age, permanence, vegetation cover, surrounding landscape, distance to existing ponds and presence of fish. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:16:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Construct artificial reefs One controlled study in the Red Sea found no difference in sediment carbon at artificial reef sites adjacent to or away from fish farms. Another publication from the same controlled study reports that the artificial reefs at both sites were colonised with various species with the potential to remove organic compounds from fish farm effluents. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F934https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F934Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:01:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply insecticide to protect seedlings from invertebrates One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that applying insecticide increased tree seedling emergence and survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1149https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1149Tue, 17 May 2016 15:18:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide live invertebrate prey, including in feeding devices One replicated study in the USA found that provision of live prey increased explorative behaviours in fennec foxes compared to other types of enrichment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1926https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1926Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:19:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping 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%2F2056https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2056Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:33:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit oil and gas drilling We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting oil and gas drilling 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%2F2061https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2061Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:43:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the deposit of drill cuttings on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the deposit of drill cuttings on the seabed 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%2F2062https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2062Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:45:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dispose of drill cuttings on land rather than on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of disposing of drill cuttings on land rather than on the seabed 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%2F2063https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2063Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:46:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the seabed surface We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the seabed surface 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%2F2066https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2066Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:49:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit aggregate extraction Seven studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting aggregate extraction on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the English Channel (France), one in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy), one a global study, and four in the North Sea (UK, Belgium). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Overall community composition (4 studies): One global systematic review found that it took nine months to several decades for overall invertebrate community composition to recover after ceasing aggregate extraction. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea and one of two site comparison studies in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction overall invertebrate community composition became more similar to pre-extraction and/or natural site communities. Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Two before-and-after, site comparison studies in the English Channel and the Mediterranean Sea and one of two site comparison studies in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction, overall invertebrate species richness and/or diversity became more similar to that of pre-extraction and/or natural sites. The other site comparison found that species richness did not change over time and remained different to that of natural sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the North Sea found that 21 months after ceasing aggregate extractiom, invertebrate species richness was similar to that of natural sites. Worm community composition (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction, nematode worm community composition remained different to the pre-extraction community. Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction, nematode worm species richness remained different to pre-extraction richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Two before-and-after, site comparison studies in the English Channel and the Mediterranean Sea and one of two site comparison studies in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction overall invertebrate abundance and/or biomass became more similar to that of pre-extraction and/or natural sites. The other site comparison found that abundance and biomass did not change over time and remained different to that of natural sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the North Sea found that 21 months after ceasing aggregate extraction, invertebrate abundance was similar to that of natural sites. Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction, nematode worm abundance remained different to pre-extraction abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2070https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2070Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:07:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit marine mining One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mining on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Bering Sea (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate community composition became similar to that of an unmined site. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate richness and diversity became similar to that of an unmined site. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate abundance and biomass became similar to that of an unmined site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2075https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2075Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:43:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mining waste (tailings) disposal at sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mining waste (tailings) disposal at sea 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%2F2076https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2076Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:43:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Co-locate aquaculture systems with other activities and other infrastructures (such as wind farms) to maximise use of marine space We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting the number and/or extent of, or prohibit additional, renewable energy installations in an 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%2F2079https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2079Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:46:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed 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%2F2082https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2082Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit shipping Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shipping on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping developed different overall invertebrate community compositions compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping did not develop different overall invertebrate species richness and diversity compared to areas where shipping occurred. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that after closing an area to shipping, invertebrate community energy flow did not change, but it increased in nearby areas where shipping occurred. Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing an area to shipping had mixed effects on species-level energy flow. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:54:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert shipping routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of diverting shipping routes 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%2F2087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2087Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:59:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing Five studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing developed different overall invertebrate community compositions compared to fished areas. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing did not develop different overall invertebrate species richness and diversity compared to fished areas after three years, but the other found higher species richness in the closed areas after 20 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas after three and five years. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing a site to all fishing led to similar numbers of lobster compared to a fished site after 20 months. Crustacean condition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing a site to all fishing led to larger sizes of lobster compared to a fished site after 20 months. OTHER (1 STUDY) Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that, during the 12–14 months after closing an area to all fishing, the invertebrate community structure (measured as energy flow) at sites within the closed area did not change, but that it increased in nearby fished sites. Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing an area to all fishing for 12–14 months had mixed effects on species-level energy flow. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2096https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2096Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:32:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit commercial fishing Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting commercial fishing on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand), the third on Gorges Bank in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that an area closed to commercial trawling and dredging for 28 years had different overall invertebrate communities than an area subject to commercial fishing. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study on Georges Bank found no difference in invertebrate species richness between an area closed to commercial fishing for 10 to 14 years and a fished area. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Tasman Sea and on Georges Bank found that areas prohibiting commercial fishing for 10 to 14 years and 28 years had greater overall invertebrate abundance compared to areas where commercial fishing occurred. One of the studies also found higher biomass, while the other found similar biomass in closed and fished areas. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that in commercial fishing exclusion zones lobster abundance was not different to adjacent fished areas after up to two years. OTHER (1 STUDY) Overall community biological production (1 study): One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that an area closed to commercial trawling and dredging for 28 years had greater biological production from invertebrates than an area where commercial fishing occurred. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2097https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2097Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:41:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit bottom trawling Four studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting bottom trawling on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Bering Sea (USA), one in the North Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after, one replicated) in the North Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that in areas prohibiting trawling for either 15 or 20 years, overall invertebrate community composition was different to that of trawled areas. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one paired, one before-and-after, one replicated) in the Bering Sea, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea found that invertebrate diversity was higher in sites closed to trawling compared to trawled sites after either 37 or 15 years, but the other found no differences after 20 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one paired, one replicated) in the Bering Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that total invertebrate abundance was higher in sites closed to trawling compared to trawled sites after 37 years, but the other found no differences after 20 years. Both found no differences in total invertebrate biomass. Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that during the three years after closing areas to all bottom trawling, unwanted catch of crabs appeared to have decreased, while no changes appeared to have occurred in nearby trawled areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2099https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2099Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:41:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit midwater/semi-pelagic trawling We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting midwater/semi-pelagic trawling 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%2F2100https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2100Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:44:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit dredging Four studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting dredging on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal), one in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one in the English Channel and one in the Irish Sea (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that after ceasing dredging, overall invertebrate community composition was different to that in dredged areas. The other two found that communities remained similar in dredged and non-dredged areas. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that after ceasing dredging, large (macro-) invertebrate diversity was higher but small (meio-) invertebrate diversity was lower compared to dredged areas. The other two found that overall diversity remained similar in dredged and non-dredged areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that four years after ceasing dredging, large (macro-) and small (meio-) invertebrate abundance and/or biomass appeared higher to that in dredged areas. The other two found that abundance and/or biomass remained similar in dredged and non-dredged areas after either two or six years. Tunicate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of ascidians/sea squirts (tunicates) was similar to that in dredged areas. Bryozoan abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of bryozoan was higher than in dredged areas. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of spider crabs was higher than in dredged areas, but abundance of edible crab was similar. Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of sea fans was higher than in dredged areas. Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of sponges was higher than in dredged areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2101https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2101Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:53:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear Eight studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all towed fishing gear on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Limfjord (Denmark), two in the English Channel (UK), three in Georges Bank in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA and Canada), one in the Ria Formosa lagoon (Portugal), and one in the Irish Sea (Isle of Man). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, site comparison studies in the Limfjord and the English Channel, found that areas excluding towed fishing gear for either an unspecified amount of time or two to 23 years had different overall invertebrate community composition compared to areas where towed-fishing occurred and one found that ceasing towed-gear fishing for nine years had mixed effects. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the English Channel reported that areas excluding towed fishing gear for either an unspecified amount of time or two to 23 years had different or greater invertebrate species richness and diversity to areas where towed-fishing occurred. One site comparison study in Georges Bank found no difference in invertebrate species richness between an area closed to mobile fishing gear for 10 to 14 years and a fished area. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the English Channel and Georges Bank found that sites excluding towed gear for either two to 23 years or 10 to 14 years had greater overall invertebrate biomass compared to sites where towed-gear fishing occurred, but one also found that abundance was similar in both areas. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Ria Formosa lagoon found that ceasing towed gear for 10 months led to increases in the cover of mobile but not sessile Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Irish Sea and the English Channel found that areas closed to towed fishing gear for either two to 23 years or 14 years had more scallops compared to adjacent fished areas. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study the Irish Sea found that an area closed to towed fishing gear for 14 years had higher proportions of older and larger scallops compared to an adjacent fished area. Starfish abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Georges Bank found more starfish in areas closed to towed fishing gear for five to nine years compared to adjacent fished areas. Starfish condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Georges Bank found that starfish arm length was similar in areas closed to towed fishing gear for five to nine years and adjacent fished areas. OTHER (1 STUDY) Overall community biological production (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Georges Bank found an increase in the biological production from invertebrate in sites closed to towed fishing gear for approximately five years compared to adjacent fished sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2102https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2102Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:58:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit static fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or 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%2F2103https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2103Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:29:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean the hull, anchor and chain of commercial and recreational vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cleaning the hull, anchor and chain of commercial and recreational 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%2F2166https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2166Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:16:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean anthropogenic platforms, structures or equipment We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cleaning anthropogenic platforms, structures or equipment 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%2F2167https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2167Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:17:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add chemicals or minerals to sediments to remove or neutralise pollutants Two studies examined the effects of adding chemicals or minerals to sediments to remove or neutralise pollutants on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both studies evaluated the use of coal ash in Hiroshima Bay (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Hiroshima Bay found that adding coal ash increased invertebrate species richness in winter but not summer compared to untreated sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in Hiroshima Bay found that adding coal ash increased invertebrate abundance in winter but not summer compared to untreated sites. One controlled study in Hiroshima Bay found that one of two types of coal ash increased combined invertebrate and fish abundance, but not biomass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2176https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2176Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:27:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit aquaculture activity Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting aquaculture activity on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy and Spain). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity invertebrate community composition remained different to that of an unfarmed site. Worm community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity worm community composition community composition remained different to that of an unfarmed site. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity overall invertebrate abundance was similar to an unfarmed site. Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity abundance of health-indicating worms increased, and abundance of pollution-indicating worms decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2185https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2185Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:46:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial wetlands to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching the sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating artificial wetlands to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching the sea 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%2F2201https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2201Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:12:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields 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%2F2207https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2207Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:19:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create a Marine Protected Area or set levels of legal protection where natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and recovery of species facing climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating a marine protected area or setting levels of legal protection where natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and recovery of species facing climate change 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%2F2222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2222Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:39:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to regulate impactful maritime activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Particularly Sensitive Sea 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%2F2223https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2223Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:59:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing Thirty studies examined the effects of prohibiting all types of fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies were systematic reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand and across the world). Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bahamas). Five were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, French Polynesia). Three were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). Seven were in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia). One was in the Florida Keys (USA). One was in the Coral Sea (Australia). Three were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Spain). One was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK). Two were in the Firth of Clyde (UK). One was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish community composition, similar combined mollusc and echinoderm community composition, and similar overall community composition of large invertebrates but different composition of small sessile invertebrates, compared to fished areas. Overall species richness/diversity (5 studies): One global systematic review, and three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar overall invertebrate species richness/diversity, similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish species richness, and similar combined mollusc and echinoderm species richness, compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found inside a marine protected area prohibiting all mobile fishing that macroinvertebrate species richness remained stable over the 15 years after its designation and enforcement, but decreased at fished sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two systematic reviews of marine protected areas across the world prohibiting all fishing found that they had greater overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas. Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after, one replicated) in the Tasman Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, overall invertebrate abundance did not change over the 15 years after their designation and enforcement and that it did not change in fished areas either, and that all areas had similar combined mollusc and echinoderm abundance after 16 years. Overall condition (1 study): One global systematic review found that in marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, invertebrates were bigger compared to fished areas. Crustacean abundance (17 studies): Two reviews (one global and systematic, one of New Zealand areas) found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more lobsters compared to marine protected areas only partially prohibiting fishing and unrestricted fished areas. Eleven of 15 site comparison studies (including replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-after) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Coral Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, the abundances and/or biomasses of lobsters and mud crabs were higher compared to areas where seasonal or unrestricted fishing was allowed, after four to 33 years depending on the study. Four found that they had mixed effects on the abundances of lobster, and crab species, after one to seven years depending on the study. Two found that they had similar abundance of lobsters compared to fished areas after either five to seven years or after approximately 30 years. Crustacean reproductive success (4 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated, randomized) in the Florida Keys and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing and harvesting had similar population sex ratios of lobsters compared to where seasonal fishing or all fishing was allowed, after four to seven years depending on the study. Two replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had greater lobster egg production potential compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones and fully fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. One site comparison study in the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more female lobsters with eggs than fished areas, after four to seven years. Crustacean condition (8 studies): One review of studies in New Zealand, and five of seven site comparison studies (four replicated, one replicated and randomized) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Coral Sea, and the Tasman Sea, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had bigger lobsters and crabs compared to seasonally fished or fully fished areas, after four to seven years depending on the study. Three found mixed effects on lobsters and crabs depending on species, sex, and locations, after one to seven years depending on the study. Crustacean population structure (2 studies): Two replicated site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had different population size structures of lobsters compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones (only for females) and compared to fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. Echinoderm abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (two replicated, one paired) in the North Pacific Ocean, the South Pacific Ocean, and the North Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had similar abundance of Kina sea urchins after more than 10 years, and sea cucumbers after eight years to fished areas, and a third found higher abundance of red sea urchins after approximately 30 years. One also found that the effects on abundance of red sea urchins depended on the age of the protected area and the size of the urchins. Echinoderm condition (1 study): One paired, site comparison study in the South Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for over 10 years had heavier Kina sea urchins compared to fished areas. Mollusc abundance (10 studies): Four of 10 site comparison studies (including replicated before-and-after, and site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Foveaux Straight found that inside a marine reserve prohibiting all fishing, abundances/biomass of giant clams, adult queen conch, Cook’s turban snails, rock scallops and green abalone were higher compared to a fished area, after eight to 36 years depending on the study. Six found similar abundances of scallop species, pink abalone, juvenile queen conch, and top shell species, after five to 36 years depending on the study. Three found lower abundances of star limpets after 23 to 25 years and blacklip abalone after 15 to 16 years. One found that the effects of marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing on the abundance of mussel species compared to a commercial fishing exclusion zone varied with the age and location of the protected areas. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area that had been prohibiting all fishing for 33 to 36 years, abundance of queen conch larvae was higher compared to an unprotected fished area. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that in marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing pink abalone were bigger five to 23 years after their designation, compared to fished site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:04:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit commercial fishing Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting commercial fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), and one in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison) in the South Pacific Ocean found that after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster abundance inside the park did not increase over the 12 years after implementation, and abundance was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. Crustacean condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the South Pacific Ocean found that over the 12 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, the biomass of legal-size lobsters inside the park did not increase. One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the South Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea found bigger lobsters in an area closed to commercial fishing for an unspecified amount of time compared to a fished area. The second study found that 10 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster size was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that 80% of the lobster population occurring in a protected area (year of designation unspecified) where commercial fishing was prohibited remained in the unfished area, and thus remained protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:59:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting bottom trawling in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and one in the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to trawled seamounts and to never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). Overall diversity/species richness (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had similar invertebrate species richness and diversity to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had more invertebrate species compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar combined invertebrate and fish species richness in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had lower invertebrate biomass compared to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had higher invertebrate biomass compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar invertebrate and fish biomass in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:03:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and install physical barriers to prevent trawling One study examined the effects of installing physical barriers to prevent trawling in a protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the South China Sea (Hong Kong). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had a different community composition of nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Worm species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had similar diversity and species richness of nematode worms to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer small invertebrates compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Worm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2227Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:05:31 +0100Collected 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: Create artificial reefs Twelve studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy); three were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Portugal, France); one in the Firth of Lorn (UK); two in the North Pacific Ocean (USA); one in the English Channel (UK), one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA); and one in the Yellow Sea (China). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the English Channel and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate communities growing on artificial reefs were different to that of natural reefs. One replicated study the North Pacific Ocean found that invertebrate community composition changed over time on an artificial reef. Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on the artificial reef or in the sediments inside and adjacent to the reef area were lower compared to on natural reefs or in nearby natural sediments. One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that artificial breakwaters had more species of nekton compared to adjacent mudflats. One site comparison study in English Channel recorded 263 taxa on the artificial reef, including at least nine not recorded on nearby natural reefs but excluding at least 39 recorded on natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean found a 49% increase in species richness over five years on an artificial reef. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs hosted at least five species of large mobile invertebrates. Mollusc richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc species richness and diversity were lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm community composition was similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef. Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm species richness and diversity were similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef, but lower at the second artificial reef. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Overall abundance (10 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that abundance of invertebrates in the sediment was lower at the reef sites than in nearby natural sediments, but increased in the sediments directly adjacent to the reefs, while the other study found that abundance was similar in the sediments inside and directly adjacent to the artificial reef area, but lower than in nearby natural sediments. Of five site comparison studies (four replicated) in the North Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Yellow Sea, one found that invertebrate biomass was higher on the artificial reef than in adjacent natural sediments, two that invertebrate abundance and biomass and nekton abundance were similar on artificial reefs and natural habitats (reef; mudflat), and two found mixed effects on abundances of invertebrates. One site comparison study in the English Channel reported that the abundances of some species were lower on the artificial reef compared to natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean reported an 86% increase in invertebrate abundance growing on an artificial reef over five years. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that two of five species at one artificial reef, and three of seven at another, were recorded during >50% of dives. Overall condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Yellow Sea found mixed effects of creating an artificial reef on the sizes of mobile invertebrates. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc abundance was lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison in the Firth of Lorn found that abundances of edible crabs and velvet swimming crabs were typically higher on artificial than natural reefs. OTHER (1 STUDY) Biological production (1 study): One site comparison study in North Atlantic Ocean found that secondary production was higher from invertebrates growing on an artificial reef than from invertebrates in adjacent natural sediments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:26:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure and material used Eight studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs of different typology on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the English Channel (UK), three in the Mediterranean Sea (Israel, Italy), one in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Firth of Lorn (UK), one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One controlled study in the English Channel found that artificial reef modules made of scrap tyres developed a similar sessile invertebrate community composition as traditional artificial concrete modules. Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that pyramids reefs made of “sea-friendly” concrete developed different invertebrate community compositions compared to reefs of either traditional concrete plinth-pole structures or bundles of traditional concrete tubes. Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico found no differences in overall invertebrate richness/diversity or combined mobile invertebrate and fish richness between reef structure and/or material. One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that invertebrate species richness was lower on “sea-friendly” pyramid reefs compared to bundle reefs of traditional concrete. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated) in the English Channel, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico found no differences in overall invertebrate abundances or combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance between reef structure and/or material. One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that “sea-friendly” concrete pyramids had lower abundance compared to plinth-pole structures after two years, but higher after three. Crustacean abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs made of limestone boulders, gravel concrete aggregate, or tyre-concrete aggregate had similar abundance of spiny lobsters. One replicated, controlled study in the Firth of Lorn found that the complexity of artificial reef modules had mixed effects on the abundance of edible crab and velvet swimming crab. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that breakwaters made of bags of oyster shells recruited more oysters and ribbed mussels compared to “ReefBall” breakwaters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2259https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2259Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:39:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvesting of scallops on their populations. One study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one in the English Channel (UK) and one in the Irish Sea (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Scallop abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in the South Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea found that in areas where scallop harvesting had stopped scallop abundance was similar, and one found that scallop biomass was higher, compared to harvested areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:53:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvest of conch We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvest of conch on their 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%2F2278https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2278Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:35:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvest of sea urchins We found no studies that evaluated the effects ceasing or prohibiting the harvest of sea urchins on their 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%2F2279https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2279Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:36:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all (mobile and static) fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mobile and static fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species in an area on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Greenland Sea (Iceland), the North Pacific Ocean (Canada) and the North Atlantic Ocean (USA/Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One of three replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Greenland Sea, North Pacific Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean found that an area where fishing gears targeting bottom-dwelling species had been prohibited for 15 years had higher numbers of larger and older cod than openly fished areas. One study found that fish densities in areas closed to mobile and static bottom fish gears (trawls and longlines) for at least 11 years varied between fish species/groups, and also with depth and temperature. The other study found that prohibiting mobile and static bottom fish gears (trawls and hook and line) in protected areas for 2–7 years had no effect on fish densities compared to non-protected areas. Condition (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Greenland Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean found that cod had better growth in areas closed for 5-15 years to mobile and static gears that targeted bottom-dwelling fish, compared to openly fished areas. The other study found that fish size varied between areas closed and open to bottom fish gears (trawls and longlines) and was also affected by depth and temperature. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2654https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2654Thu, 12 Nov 2020 14:42:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor Ten studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor on marine fish populations. Two studies were in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, Portugal), the Indian Ocean (Tasmania, Kenya) and the Mediterranean Sea. One study was in each of the North Sea (Denmark), the Arafura Sea (Australia), the Coral Sea (Australia) and the Gulf of Mexico (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated and randomized, and one before-and-after) in the North Sea, Indian Ocean and Gulf of Mexico found that the number of fish species, the fish assemblage and overall species richness and diversity (fish and invertebrates combined) varied between areas with different exposures to bottom trawling, and was also dependent on bottom depth and habitat type. The other study reported no effect of closing an area to all towed bottom fishing gears on the species richness of bottom-dwelling fish after 10 years and compared to areas open to trawling. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of three replicated studies (one controlled and before-and-after, and two site comparison) and one of two before-and-after studies (one site comparison) in the North Sea, Arafura Sea, North Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea found that ceasing or prohibiting fishing with towed bottom gears resulted in higher total fish biomass after 15 years, higher biomass of adult red mullet after 14 years and increased abundances of long-snouted, but not short-snouted, seahorses after one year, compared to openly fished areas. The other two studies found that a ban on towed bottom fishing gears for five and 10 years had no effect on the abundance of bottom-dwelling fish species after closure compared to before, or the abundance and biomass of fish and invertebrate species (combined) compared to areas open to towed gears/trawling. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two before-and-after studies (one site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea found that after the closure of an area to all bottom-towed fishing gears for 14 years, recruitment of young red mullet had increased. The other study found that an area closed to bottom trawling did not have higher recruitment of young haddock seven years after closure and compared to a trawled area. Survival (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that closing an area to bottom trawling did not increase the survival of young haddock seven years after closure, and compared to a trawled area. Condition (5 studies): One of four replicated studies (two site comparison and one randomized, site comparison) and one before-and-after study in the Arafura Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Mexico and the Indian Ocean found that areas prohibiting bottom towed fishing gears had larger sizes of adult red mullet 14 years after closure than before. Two studies found that the effect on fish size of closing areas to towed bottom gears for 3–6 years or areas with no bottom fishing activity varied between individual fish groups and with habitat type, compared to fished areas. The other two found that areas closed to bottom trawling for five years and 15 years had no effect on the overall size of fish and invertebrate species combined or average fish weight, compared to trawled areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (1 study): One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found no reduction in the biomass of non-commercial unwanted catch (fish and invertebrate discard) or in the number of ‘common’ and ‘rare’ discard species in areas closed to trawling for seven years compared to trawled areas. Catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Indian Ocean found that areas prohibiting beach and all other seine nets for 3–6 years found overall fish catch rates were higher, and catch rates of individual fish groups were variable, compared to unrestricted areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2673Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:12:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area Seventy-nine studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing in a marine protected area on fish populations. Fifteen studies were in the Indian Ocean (Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, multiple African countries, Australia). Twelve studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, France, Italy). Ten studies were in the Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, USA, Hawaii, New Caledonia, Costa Rica, Tonga, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands). Seven studies were in each of the Coral Sea (Australia, Vanuatu), the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia) and the Atlantic Ocean (Brazil, USA, Puerto Rico, Argentina, South Africa, UK, Canary Islands, Portugal, Turks and Caicos Islands). Four studies were in the Philippine Sea (Philippines). Three studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Puerto Rico). One study was in each of the Gulf of Mexico (USA), the Java Sea (Indonesia), the Pacific and Indian Oceans (multiple countries), the Sulu Sea (Malaysia) and the North Sea (Norway). Six studies were reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand, Latin America/Caribbean, regions unspecified and across the world). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (26 STUDIES) Community composition (7 studies): Seven site comparison studies (two replicated, and one before-and-after) in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, Philippine Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for between three and 16 years, had a different fish community composition, compared to fished areas. Richness/diversity (22 studies): Fourteen of 20 site comparison studies (eight replicated, one replicated and paired, and one before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Philippine Sea, Tasman Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Coral Sea and the Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas that had prohibited all fishing for between one to more than 25 years, had higher fish species/richness compared to fished areas. Six studies found similar fish species/richness between one and 20 years after all fishing was banned in protected areas, compared to fished areas. One systematic review in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found no difference in species richness between unfished protected areas and fished areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the effects of prohibiting all fishing on fish species richness/diversity after 15 years varied with the sampling method used. POPULATION RESPONSE (66 STUDIES) Abundance (64 studies): Thirty of 54 site comparison studies (18 replicated, eight replicated and paired, two before-and-after, one paired and before-and-after, and one replicated and before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Pacific Ocean, Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Philippine Sea, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and the Sulu Sea, found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for up to 25 years or more, had higher abundances (density and/or biomass) of all fish (total fish biomass, total fish density), fishery targeted fish species, non-fishery targeted fish species and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, except fish densities (all or most) and non-fishery targeted species, compared to unprotected fished areas and/or partly-fished protected areas. The studies also found that in some cases where the total fish biomass or densities were higher in no-fished areas, the effect varied between individual groups of fish based on species family and/or position in the food chain, commercial target and non-target species, fish sizes, depth and habitat types. Eight studies found that inside protected areas prohibiting all fishing there were similar abundances of all fish, and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas between one and 20 years after implementation. The other sixteen studies found that the effect of prohibiting fishing in protected areas for three to 20 years on fish abundance varied between fish species or groups and on their fished status (fishery target or non-target) and/or position in the food chain. One also found that the effect varied with size or age of the protected areas. Five of six reviews (three systematic) across the world, in the Pacific and/or Atlantic Oceans and in unreported regions found that non-fished marine reserves with one to 27 years of protection had higher abundances of all fish, all fish and invertebrates combined and blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between species/groups and fishing intensity outside reserves. The other review found that fish abundance varied between species in no-take marine reserves between one and 25 years old, and was affected by food chain position, level of exploitation and duration of protection. One replicated study in the Pacific Ocean found a long-term decline in the abundance/presence of eight of 12 shark and ray species inside an established (>15 years) no-fishing protected area, however enforcement was poor. One before-and after, site comparison study in the Pacific Ocean, found no differences in overall fish abundance between a marine reserve closed permanently to fishing for five years and a closed area that was harvested for two years during the same period. One site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that in a no-take zone of an area protected for at least 10 years, fish abundance of four of six fish groups were similar to no-entry and fished zones, but two had lower abundance than the no-entry zone. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that in a non-fished marine park zone abundance of commercially targeted fish was higher than partly fished zones but lower than unprotected areas after four to eight years. Reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found more eggs of four commercially targeted fish species inside a non-fished marine reserve enforced for three years than in fished areas outside the reserve. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that prohibiting all fishing in a marine protected area for three years resulted in similar survival of red hind grouper, compared to fished areas. Condition (20 studies): Two global review studies (one systematic) and two systematic reviews in the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found that prohibiting all fishing in marine protected areas for one to 27 years resulted in larger fish overall and larger blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between individual fish families or species. Eight of 11 site comparison studies (four replicated, one before-and-after, one paired, and one replicated and paired) in the Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Java Sea and the Philippine Sea, found that non-fished protected areas had larger fish overall and larger individuals of all or most of the fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas, after one to 22 years. The other three studies found similar fish sizes of all or all but one species, compared to fished areas one to 16 years after all fishing was prohibited. Three site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Coral Sea, Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that fish size in protected areas that had not been fished for six to more than 20 years, varied between fish species or food chain groups. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that red hind grouper were larger, but had similar growth, in an area protected from fishing for three years compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that young lemon sharks in areas protected from fishing for 20 years had similar growth rates, but lower condition, than sharks in unprotected fished areas. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Pacific and Indian Oceans found that surgeonfish and parrotfish inside established protected areas where fishing was prohibited, showed a similar avoidance response to fishing gears as in fished areas, and this increased with increasing fishing intensity outside the protected areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in non-fished areas protected for one and 24 years, fish grazing rates were higher compared to fished areas. OTHER (15 STUDIES) Use (7 studies): Four of six site comparison studies in the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and the Tasman Sea found that marine protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for at least five to 15 years, were used for a large proportion of time by shark and ray species and commercially important reef fish species, compared to fished areas, thus were provided protection from fishing. Two other studies found that time spent inside areas closed to all fishing for 20 years and over 30 years, varied between species and with size for three shark species and with size for giant trevally. One replicated study in the Indian Ocean found that most individuals of five fish species remained inside a marine reserve zone closed to fishing over a nine-year period. Catch abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean found that commercial fish catch rates in small-scale traditional fisheries were highest closest to a marine reserve closed to all fishing for 22 years, and decreased with increasing distance from the reserve. The other study found that there was no increase in fish catch rates in commercially landed catch in the five years after a no-fishing zone was implemented in a co-managed protected area. Stock biomass (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the stock biomass (the harvested portion of the population) of reef fish species was highest in enforced protected areas closed to all fishing, compared to various other area management regimes. Fishing mortality (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the North Sea and Pacific Ocean found that prohibiting fishing in protected areas resulted in reduced commercial fishing mortality of corkwing wrasse tagged inside non-fished marine reserves compared to fished areas, and that the overall fishing mortality of grey reef sharks tagged inside protected areas was low. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682Sat, 28 Nov 2020 14:35:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Decrease the circumference or diameter of the codend of a trawl net Thirteen studies examined the effects of decreasing the circumference or diameter of a trawl codend on marine fish populations. Four studies were in the Tasman Sea (Australia) and three studies were in the North Sea (UK, Norway). Two studies were in the Adriatic Sea (Italy) and two were in the Baltic Sea (Denmark/ Germany). One study and one review were in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Northern Europe). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (13 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (6 studies): Two of six replicated, controlled studies (three paired, and one randomized and paired) in the Tasman Sea, Adriatic Sea and Northeast Atlantic Ocean found that bottom trawl nets of smaller circumferences reduced discarded catch of fish in three of five cases and of total discarded catch (fish and invertebrates) in one of two areas, but not overall, compared to standard trawls. Two studies found that reduced circumference codends reduced non-target or discarded fish catch in three of 12 cases and for one of four species. The two other studies found that discarded fish catch was not reduced in smaller circumference codends. Improve size-selectivity of fishing gear (8 studies): Four of eight replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the North Sea, Adriatic Sea and Baltic Sea, and one review in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, found that decreasing the circumference or diameter of the codend of trawl gear (bottom trawls and seines) improved the size-selectivity of haddock, Atlantic cod, whiting and European hake and red mullet, compared to larger circumferences/diameters. One also found the effect was the same across two codend mesh sizes, and one also found the effect was greater in diamond mesh with the netting orientation turned by 90° compared to standard diamond mesh. Two studies found that a decrease in codend circumference/diameter improved size-selectivity of haddock and saithe in one of two cases, and of one of three fish species. The other study found that a smaller circumference codend reduced size-selectivity of the gear for one of three fish species and was similar for the other two. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2706https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2706Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:51:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater marshes Twenty studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting/mowing to maintain or restore disturbance in freshwater marshes. There were four studies in Belgium, three of which took place in one wetland area so probably shared some experimental plots. There were two studies in each of the UK, the USA and Estonia. There was one study in each of seven other European countries, Japan, Mexico and Brazil. In 15 of the studies vegetation was measured at least six months after the last cut. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (6 studies): Four replicated, paired, controlled studies (two also randomized and before-and-after) of freshwater marshes and wet meadows in Belgium, Switzerland, Mexico and Estonia reported that the overall plant community composition differed between cut and uncut sites after 1–5 years, or typically diverged in cut and uncut areas over 3–10 years. One before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Belgium reported that the overall plant community composition changed over seven years after resuming annual mowing. One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Germany reported that over 20 years, mowing increased the average moisture preference of the vegetation. Overall richness/diversity (11 studies): Seven studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled) in freshwater marshes in Belgium, the UK, Mexico and Estonia reported that cut marshes had higher plant species richness than uncut marshes. Two of these studies reported the same result for diversity. One before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Belgium reported that plant species richness increased over seven years after resuming annual mowing. Three replicated, paired, controlled studies in reedbeds in the UK and wet meadows in Germany and Estonia reported that cutting typically had no clear or significant effect on plant species richness, after 3–5 months or over 5–20 years. The two studies in the UK and Estonia found the same result for diversity. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a temporary marsh in France reported that two years of annual autumn cutting increased the number of habitat-characteristic plant species present. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomized, paired, before-and-after) in freshwater marshes in the USA found that cutting had no significant effect on overall vegetation cover over 72 days or three years. One replicated, paired, controlled study in wet grasslands in Belgium reported that plots mown annually for two years contained less above-ground biomass, just before mowing, than unmown plots. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Germany reported that mowing increased sedge cover over 20 years, but had no clear effect on cover of rushes, forbs, ferns, grasses and legumes. Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a wet prairie in the USA found that cutting had no significant effect on woody plant cover: there were similar increases, over three years, in cut and uncut plots. Bryophyte abundance (1 study): One replicated study in a freshwater marsh in Belgium reported that total moss cover increased over five years after resuming annual mowing. Individual species abundance (15 studies): Fifteen studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, five studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in freshwater marshes in Belgium, the UK and the Czech Republic reported that common reed Phragmites australis was more abundant in cut than uncut areas. Two studies (one site comparison, one before-and-after) in fresh/brackish marshes in Belgium and Denmark reported that cutting reduced common reed cover or density. The two studies in Belgium reported that cutting had no clear effect on common reed frequency. Four studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-after) in freshwater marshes in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan and Italy found that the effect of cutting on common reed abundance depended on factors such as the year, plant community type, cutting season, cutting intensity and time since mowing. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in wet meadows in Switzerland reported that mown plots experienced a shift in vegetation cover towards lower vegetation layers, over 3–4 years, compared to a shift to upper layers in unmown plots. Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Belgium reported that summer-cut plots had lower horizontal vegetation cover than uncut plots (or winter-cut plots) over six years after resuming annual mowing. Height (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (one also randomized and paired) in freshwater marshes in Belgium, the UK and the USA reported that cut marshes had shorter vegetation than uncut marshes. This was true for vegetation overall, vegetation other than common reed Phragmites australis, and for common reed cut in winter or spring (but not summer). Two replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in a marsh in Mexico and wet grasslands in Germany reported that cutting/mowing had no significant or clear effect on vegetation height, after 12 months or over 20 years. One site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that common reed was taller, when measured in the summer, in a winter-mown reedbed than in an unmown reedbed. Diameter/perimeter/area (5 studies): Two studies (one site comparison, one before-and-after) in fresh/brackish marshes in Belgium and Denmark reported that cutting, or time since last cutting, had no significant or clear effect on the stem diameter of common reed Phragmites australis. Two studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) of reedbeds in the UK and the Czech Republic found that cut areas contained thicker reed stems than uncut areas, after one growing season. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet meadows in Switzerland found that the effect of cutting on common reed shoot diameter depended on the plant community type and season of mowing. Basal area (1 study): One site comparison study in a fresh/brackish marsh in Denmark found that the basal area of common reed Phragmites australis stems was smaller in a reedbed cut two years previously than in a reedbed cut seven years previously. Only “tall” stems were sampled. OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wet prairie in the USA found that mowing had no significant effect on woody plant survival over the following year. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3044https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3044Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:18:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild invertebratesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild invertebrates in marshes or 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%2F3141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3141Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:25:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in northern Israel, one was in a marina in northern Israel, and one was off the west coast of Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with grooves, environmentally-sensitive material and pits or small ledges in two studies, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate or mobile invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structures. They also supported mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with grooves, environmentally-sensitive material and pits or small ledges, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on and around structures. One found that creating holes did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness or diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study off Sweden reported that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structures. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating hole habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with pits, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures increased the abundance of brown crabs on and around structures, but not other mobile invertebrates. One reported that creating holes, along with pits grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in Israel and off Sweden found that creating hole habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase fish species abundances on and around structures. One reported that creating holes, along with pits grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3434Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:45:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that natural topography created on intertidal artificial structures was colonized by macroalgae and limpets, and that limpets used shaded grooves and water-retaining depressions created by the topography. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05:11 +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 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 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: 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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and two were in estuaries in Hong Kong and southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, did increase the species richness, and that varying the habitat size and arrangement had mixed effects, depending on the shore level. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that small ridges or ledges supported lower species richness than grooves created in between them, but one of them found that species diversity on ridges compared with grooves varied depending on the ridge height. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate species richness than grooves created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish species richness to grooves created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges supported similar abundance to grooves created in between them. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than grooves created in between them. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish abundance to grooves created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:00:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large ridges or ledges (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating large ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in an estuarine sound in northwest USA and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK reported that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the combined macroalgae, microalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. One study found that creating large ridges, along with large protrusions, did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the combined macroalgae, microalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that creating large ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased the rockweed abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK found that creating large ledges or ridges on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small protrusions, or large protrusions, increased the abundance of mussels or limpets, but not barnacles, on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small protrusions, did not increase juvenile salmon abundance around the structure. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating large ledges on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small protrusions, increased juvenile salmon feeding activity around the wall. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3465https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3465Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:25:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, one was in a port in the Netherlands, and one was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the type of texture created and the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the UK and the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site. One found increased barnacle abundance, regardless of the type of texture created, but that different textures supported different abundances. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:05:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Five studies examined the effects of creating hole habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Three studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was on an open coastline in the Netherlands, and one was in a marina in northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in Israel found that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, small ridges and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. The study, along with two other replicated, controlled studies in Australia and the UK, also reported that hole habitats, along with rock pools, or grooves, small protrusions and environmentally-sensitive material, supported macroalgae and/or non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study) in Australia, the UK and Israel found that creating hole habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with rock pools, or grooves, small protrusions and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and/or richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired sites study) in Australia and the Netherlands reported that creating hole habitats on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating holes, along with rock pools, had mixed effects on the limpet abundance, depending on the shore level and site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Australia reported that hole habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with rock pools, were used by sea slugs, urchins and octopuses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3467https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3467Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:18:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and in an estuary in the Netherlands and one was on an open coastline in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness in and on the structures. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile invertebrate species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats altered the invertebrate abundance in and on structures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:03:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Fourteen studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Seven studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia, the UK and Hong Kong, four were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, two were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, and one was in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. However, one of these studies reported that grooves supported macroalgae, mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without grooves. One study found that creating grooves did alter the community composition. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without grooves and pits. Overall richness/diversity (8 studies): Three of six replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves did not increase their species richness. One found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness depending on the site. One of the studies found that increasing the density and fragmentation of grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that grooves supported higher species richness than small ridges or ledges created in between them, but one found that species diversity in grooves vs ridges varied depending on the groove depth. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and one paired sites study) in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the species richness of mobile or non-mobile invertebrates or limpets on structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate species richness than small ledges created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish species richness to small ledges created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One found that creating grooves did not increase their abundance. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar abundances to small ledges created in between them. Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (6 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in Australia, the Netherlands and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate, limpet or chiton abundances on structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on mobile invertebrate and barnacle abundances, depending on the site. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia reported that grooves supported non-mobile invertebrates more frequently than structure surfaces without grooves, but not mobile invertebrates. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than small ledges created in between them. Fish abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish abundance to small ledges created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure were used by mussels and periwinkles. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3473https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3473Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create grooves and small protrusions, ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Sixteen studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats and small protrusions, ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Five studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, seven were in estuaries in northwest USA, southeast Australia and Hong Kong, and one was in each of a marina in northern Israel and a port in southeast Spain. One was on an open coastline and in an estuary in the UK, and one was in 14 estuaries and bays worldwide. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Three of five replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Singapore and Israel found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes and environmentally-sensitive material in one, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves and small ridges, along with pits in one, had mixed effects on the community composition depending on the site, the presence of water-retaining and light-shading covers, and the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges. In contrast, one of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement had no significant effect. One of the studies, along with four other replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia, reported that groove habitats and small ridges/ledges, along with pits or holes and environmentally-sensitive material in two studies, supported species that were absent from structure surfaces without grooves and ridges/ledges. Overall richness/diversity (11 studies): Six of 11 replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites, before-and-after study) in Singapore, the USA, Israel, the UK, Hong Kong, Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits or holes and environmentally-sensitive material in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity and/or richness on structure surfaces. Five studies found that creating grooves and small protrusions/ridges/ledges, along with large ledges or using environmentally-sensitive material in two, had mixed effects on species diversity and/or richness, depending on the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the presence of large ledges on structure surfaces, the shore level, species group and site. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges increased the species richness, while one found that effects depended on the shore level. One of the studies found that partially-covering grooves and ridges with water-retaining and light-shading covers increased the species richness. Algal richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the size of grooves and ridges and the location. One study found that creating grooves and ridges, along with pits, increased the species richness, regardless of their size and arrangement. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small ridges on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the size of grooves and ridges and the location. One study found that creating grooves and small ledges increased the mobile invertebrate species richness. Fish richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves and ridges had mixed effects on fish species richness depending on the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Overall abundance (6 studies): Two of six replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, the USA and Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves and small protrusions/ridges, along with large ledges in one, and when partially-covered with water-retaining and light-shading covers in the other, did increase abundance. Two found that creating grooves and small ridges/ledges, along with pits in one, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges/ledges, the shore level and/or the site. Algal abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore, the USA and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions/ridges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges in one, had mixed effects on rockweed or combined macroalgal abundance, depending on the presence of large ledges on structure surfaces, the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the shore level and/or the site. One study found that creating grooves and small ridges, along with pits, did not increase the macroalgal abundance, regardless of the size and arrangement of grooves and ridges. Invertebrate abundance (7 studies): Five of seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA, Singapore, the UK, Hong Kong, Australia and worldwide found that creating groove habitats and small protrusions/ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges or using environmentally-sensitive material in two, had mixed effects on mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate, limpet, mussel, juvenile oyster and/or barnacle abundances, depending on the depth/height of grooves and ridges, the presence of large ledges or water-retaining and light-shading covers, the shore level, and/or the site. Two studies found that creating grooves and small ridges/ledges increased oyster but not mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (4 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies and one before-and-after study in Australia and the USA found that creating groove habitats and small ridges/ledges on intertidal artificial structures, along with large ledges in one study, did not increase combined fish or juvenile salmon abundances on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Spain reported that grooves and small protrusions created on an intertidal artificial structure were colonized by a number of microalgal species. Fish behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating groove habitats and small ledges on intertidal artificial structures increased the time benthic fishes spent interacting with structure surfaces but decreased the number of bites they took and did not change pelagic fish behaviour. One before-and-after study in the USA reported that creating grooves and small protrusions, along with large ledges, increased juvenile salmon feeding activity around the structure.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3474https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3474Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:40:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Twenty-two studies examined the effects of creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were on open coastlines in the UK, the Netherlands and the Azores, six were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, three were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was in a port in the Netherlands, one was in an estuary and on an open coastline in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia, Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits did not alter the community composition. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects depending on the size and arrangement of pits and other habitats and the site, while one found that varying the pit size and arrangement had no significant effect. Three of these studies, along with three other replicated, controlled studies (including one that was randomized) in the UK and Singapore, reported that pit habitats, along with grooves and ridges in one, supported macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitats. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that pit habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without pits and grooves. Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Eight of 12 replicated controlled studies (including six randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, or grooves, small protrusions and ridges in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating pits did not increase the species richness, while two found that creating pits, along with grooves or using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects depending on the site. One of the studies found that varying the pit size and arrangement resulted in higher species richness, while one found that this had mixed effects depending on the shore level. Two of the studies found that varying the pit size did not affect species richness. One of them found that increasing the density and fragmentation of pits, along with grooves, had mixed effects on species richness. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small ridges, increased the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and the Azores reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure increased the limpet and periwinkle species richness on structure surfaces, and that their richness and diversity varied depending on the pit arrangement. One found that creating pits did not affect the limpet species richness, regardless of the pit size. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Two of five replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits decreased their abundance and one found no effect. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement, shore level and site. Algal abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Netherlands, Singapore and the Azores found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small ridges in one study, did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement and the site. Invertebrate abundance (9 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (including six randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Azores, the Netherlands, Australia and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Three studies found that creating pits, along with grooves in one study, had mixed effects on barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site, the species, the size of animals, and/or the pit size and arrangement. Two studies found that creating pits, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, increased barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances. Two of the studies found that the pit size or arrangement did not affect abundances, while two found that the effects of pit size and arrangement varied depending on the site and species. One replicated randomized study in the UK found that increasing pit density increased periwinkle abundance, but pit arrangement did not. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the Azores reported that occupancy of pit habitats created on intertidal artificial structures by limpets and/or periwinkles varied depending on the pit size and arrangement, the size of animals, the species and/or site. Three replicated studies (including two paired sites, controlled studies) in the Netherlands and in Singapore and the UK reported that pit habitats were used by periwinkles, macroalgae and invertebrates. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:58:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create 'rock pools' on intertidal artificial structures Eighteen studies examined the effects of creating ‘rock pools’ on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were in estuaries in Australia, the UK and eastern USA, five were on open coastlines in the UK, Ireland and southeast Spain, two were in straits in the UK and Malaysia, and one was in a marina in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (17 STUDIES) Overall community composition (16 studies): Thirteen replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and three site comparison studies) in Australia the UK, the USA, Spain and Malaysia, reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without pools or holes. One of the studies also found that pools supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to surfaces without pools. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found mixed effects on the community composition depending on the pool depth, shore level and site. One of the studies found that created pools supported different combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate communities but similar combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities to natural rock pools, while one found that combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities differed to natural pools. Two of the studies found that the pool depth did not affect the community composition, while one found that the pool angle did. One replicated study in Ireland found that the shore level and wave-exposure affected the community composition, and that wave-sheltered pools filled with sediment within two years. One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects on community composition depending on the species group and site. Overall richness/diversity (15 studies): Nine of 12 replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and two site comparison studies) in Australia, the UK, Spain and Malaysia found that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported higher combined macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species diversity and/or richness than structure surfaces without pools or holes. Three studies reported similar combined macroalgae and invertebrate or combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in pools and on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools was similar to natural rock pools, while one reported lower combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools. Two of the studies, along with one replicated study in Ireland, found that the shore level of pools, along with holes in one, did not affect the species richness, but in one, the functional richness (species grouped according to their role in the community) was lower in highshore pools than midshore. Three of the studies found that the pool depth had no effect on species richness, one found higher richness in tilted pools than horizontal ones, and one replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects depending on the species group and site. One before-and-after study in Australia reported that creating pools, along with reducing the slope of a structure, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia reported that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the fish species richness on and around the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundance in pools, depending on the species group and site. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances depending on the pool depth, shore level, species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one with paired sites) in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one, had mixed effects on limpet or combined invertebrate abundances, depending on the shore level, pool depth, species group and/or site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia found that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the fish abundance on and around the structure, depending on the species group and site. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study) in Australia reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one study, were used by sea slugs, urchins, octopuses, macroalgae, invertebrates and fishes. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of pool surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3476https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3476Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:49:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease grazing on grassland to allow early succession Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of ceasing grazing on grassland to allow early succession. Five studies were in the UK, four were in each of Germany and the USA, three were in each of Sweden and Finland, two were in each of Spain and the Czech Republic, and one was in each of Switzerland, Europe and Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the Czech Republic and Germany found that the community composition of butterflies and moths in grasslands which had been abandoned for >5 years or an unspecified length of time was similar to grasslands managed by grazing or mowing (results not distinguished). One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that after grazing and mowing management was abandoned, over 6 years the butterfly community became dominated by generalist species, and species with fewer generations/year. Richness/diversity (12 studies): Six of nine replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study, one paired, site comparison, and seven site comparisons) in Germany, the USA, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic found that grasslands which had been not been grazed for >5 years, or an unspecified length of time, in one case with burning, had a similar species richness of butterflies and day-flying, burnet or all moths to grasslands grazed by cattle, horses and cattle or a mix of livestock (in two studies grazing and mowing were not distinguished) or grazed with cattle and burned. One of these studies also found that grasslands abandoned for 5–15 years had a greater species richness than grasslands grazed by sheep. A further two studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for >5–20 years or many years had a lower species richness of butterflies than grazed grasslands (in one study grazing and mowing were not distinguished). The other study found that butterfly species richness was higher in grasslands where grazing ceased 2–9 years ago than those abandoned >10 years ago or those currently grazed. Three replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and two site comparison studies) in Switzerland, Germany and the UK found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 4, 5–10 or >10 years had a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths and nocturnal moths than extensively grazed, recently abandoned or commercially grazed grasslands. Two of these studies also found that grassland abandoned for 4 or 5–10 years had a similar species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths and all moths to grassland lightly grazed by cattle or sheep/sheep and cattle. POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (24 studies): Six of 20 replicated studies (including one paired, controlled, before-and-after study, three randomized controlled studies, and 15 site comparison studies) in Germany, the USA, the UK, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Spain, the Czech Republic and Israel found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 1-25 years had a higher abundance of Scotch argus, butterflies and day-flying moths, nocturnal moths, caterpillars, and of small insects including caterpillars, than grasslands grazed by goats, sheep and/or cattle. Two of these studies only found a difference compared to grazing at commercial/intensive, not low, densities. Four of the studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for two weeks, 5–20 years or an undetermined time had a lower abundance of butterflies and spring webworm caterpillars than grasslands grazed by cattle or a mix of livestock (in two studies grazing and mowing were not distinguished). A further four of the studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 5-15 years had a similar abundance of butterflies, burnet moths, day-flying moths and meadow neb moth caterpillars to grasslands grazed by sheep, horses and cattle or a mix of livestock. A further four of the studies found that in grasslands which had been abandoned for >10 years, many years or an unspecified number of years, and in one case with burning, abundance or density was mixed depending on butterfly and moth species compared to grasslands grazed by cattle or unspecified grazers or grazed with cattle and burned. The other study found that butterfly density was higher in grasslands where grazing ceased 2–9 years ago than those abandoned >10 years ago or those currently grazed. Two replicated studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study and one site comparison study) in Spain and Germany found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 1–6 years or an unspecified time period had a higher abundance of woodland and hedgerow butterflies and burnet moths, but a lower abundance of grassland or farmland species, than grasslands managed by grazing and/or mowing (results not distinguished). Two studies also found that the large blue and silver-studded blue went extinct in some abandoned meadows. One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that grasslands which were ungrazed for the year had a lower abundance of clouded Apollo butterflies than lightly grazed grasslands, but a higher abundance than heavily grazed grasslands. One review in Europe reported that ceasing grazing on grassland benefitted six out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found that grassland which had been abandoned for >5 years had a similar occurrence of hoary bell moth caterpillars to grassland grazed by sheep. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of grasslands which had been abandoned for one year, and grazed grasslands, contained >20 marsh fritillary caterpillar webs. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that grizzled skipper and painted lady occurred less frequently, but small pearl-bordered fritillary occurred more frequently, in meadows which had been abandoned for at least 1–2 years than in meadows managed by grazing or mowing (results not distinguished). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3956https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3956Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:36:11 +0100