Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2156Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:07:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of disease or non-native or problem species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2157Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:07:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use sterile individuals in aquaculture systems using non-native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using sterile individuals in aquaculture systems using non-native species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2158https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2158Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:08:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Source spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with diseases or non-native or problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of sourcing spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with diseases or non-native or problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2159https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2159Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:09:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Import spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of importing spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2160Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce and/or eradicate aquaculture escapees in the wild We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing and/or eradicating aquaculture escapees in the wild 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%2F2161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2161Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:12:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 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%2F2162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2162Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:12:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 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%2F2163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2163Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:13:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit ballast water exchange in specific areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting ballast water exchange in specific areas 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%2F2164https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2164Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:14:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat ballast water before exchange We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating ballast water before exchange on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2165Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:15:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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: Use antifouling coatings on the surfaces of vessels and anthropogenic structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using antifouling coatings on the surfaces of vessels and anthropogenic structures 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%2F2168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2168Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:18:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit the sale and/or transportation of commercial non-native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting the sale and/or transportation of commercial non-native species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2169Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:18:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Genetically modify non-native, invasive or other problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of genetically modifying non-native, invasive or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2170Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:19:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use biocides or other chemicals to control non-native, invasive or other problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using biocides or other chemicals to control non-native, invasive or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2171Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:20:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use biological control to manage non-native, invasive or other problematic species populations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using biological control to manage non-native, invasive or other problematic species populations 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%2F2172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2172Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:21:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or capture non-native, invasive or other problematic species One study examined the effects of removing or capturing non-native, invasive or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that, regardless of the method used, removing invasive corals reduced the cover of native zoanthids. Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that the effect of removing invasive corals on the cover of native sponges varied with the removal method used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:23:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of non-native, invasive or other problematic species from populations established in the wild for recreational or commercial purposes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using non-native, invasive or other problematic species from populations established in the wild for recreational or commercial purposes 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%2F2174https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2174Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:24:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/translocate ‘bioremediating’ species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting and/or translocating bioremediating species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2175Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:25:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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: Establish pollution emergency plans We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing pollution emergency plans 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%2F2177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2177Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:28:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of untreated sewage We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting the dumping of untreated sewage 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%2F2178https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2178Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:29:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of sewage sludge Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the dumping of sewage sludge on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the New York Bight (USA), one in the North Sea (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the New York Bight found that after ceasing sewage sludge dumping, overall invertebrate community composition became more similar to less disturbed sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the North Sea found that overall invertebrate community composition changed but remained different to that of natural sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Sea found that after ceasing sewage sludge dumping, overall invertebrate abundance became similar to that of natural sites. Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the New York Bight found that after ceasing sewage sludge dumping, abundance of pollution-indicator polychaete worms decreased and became similar to that of natural sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2179https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2179Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:31:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set or improve minimum sewage treatment standards One study examined the effects of improving minimum sewage treatment standards on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Bay of Biscay (Spain).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate community composition at an impacted site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate richness and diversity at an impacted site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, total cover of invertebrates significantly increased at an impacted site at 8 m but not 3 m depth, compared to unimpacted sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2180Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:36:42 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

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

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

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


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust