Study

The role of geometric structure and texture on concrete for algal and macrofaunal colonization in the marine and estuarine intertidal zone

  • Published source details Paalvast P. (2015) The role of geometric structure and texture on concrete for algal and macrofaunal colonization in the marine and estuarine intertidal zone. RECIF Conference on artificial reefs: From materials to ecosystems, Caen, France, 77-84.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures
  1. Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2008–2010 on an intertidal breakwater on open coastline in the North Sea, Netherlands (Paalvast 2015a) reported that settlement plates with textured surfaces supported similar abundances of macroalgae and invertebrates to plates without texture. Data were not statistically tested. After 28 months, there were no clear differences in macroalgal or invertebrate abundances on plates with and without textured surfaces (data not reported). Concrete settlement plates (250 × 250 mm) were made with and without textured surfaces using a mould. Plates with texture had either fine (0.5 mm) or coarse (1 mm) texture. One of each and one plate without texture were placed on each of 10 vertical surfaces on each side of a concrete-block breakwater (wave-exposed, wave-sheltered) in May 2008. One plate with fine texture and one without were also placed on each of 10 horizontal surfaces on each side of the breakwater. On the wave-exposed side, plates were at mid-highshore, while on the wave-sheltered side, plates were at low-midshore. Macroalgae and invertebrates on plates were counted during low tide over 28 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  2. Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2009 on 14 jetty pilings in Rotterdam Port in the Rhine-Meuse estuary, Netherlands (Paalvast 2015b) reported that settlement plates with textured surfaces supported similar abundances of macroalgae and invertebrates to plates without texture. Data were not statistically tested. After nine months, there were no clear differences in macroalgal or invertebrate abundances on plates with and without textured surfaces (data not reported). Concrete settlement plates (250 × 250 mm) were made with and without textured surfaces using a mould. One plate with texture and one without were attached to vertical surfaces on each of 14 wooden pilings at lowshore in March 2009. Macroalgae and invertebrates on plates were counted during low tide over nine months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  3. Create hole habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2008–2010 on an intertidal breakwater on open coastline in the North Sea, Netherlands (Paalvast 2015) reported that settlement plates with hole habitats supported similar abundances of macroalgae and invertebrates to plates without holes. Data were not statistically tested. After 28 months, there were no clear differences in macroalgal or invertebrate abundances on plates with and without holes (data not reported). Concrete settlement plates (250 × 250 mm) were made with and without hole habitats using a mould. Plates with holes had one hemispherical hole/plate (diameter: 150 mm; depth: 50 mm). One plate with a hole and one without were placed on each of 10 horizontal surfaces on each side of a concrete-block breakwater (wave-exposed, wave-sheltered) in May 2008. On the wave-exposed side, plates were at mid-highshore, while on the wave-sheltered side, plates were at low-midshore. Macroalgae and invertebrates on plates were counted during low tide over 28 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  4. Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2008–2010 on an intertidal breakwater on open coastline in the North Sea, Netherlands (Paalvast 2015a) reported that settlement plates with groove habitats supported similar abundances of macroalgae and invertebrates to plates without grooves. Data were not statistically tested. After 28 months, there were no clear differences in macroalgal or invertebrate abundances on plates with and without grooves (data not reported). Blue mussels Mytilus edulis and periwinkles Littorina saxatilis and Littorina neritoides were seen using grooves. Concrete settlement plates (250 × 250 mm) were made with and without groove habitats using a mould. Plates with grooves had five variable grooves/plate (length: 250 mm; width: 10–35 mm; depth: 20–40 mm) in horizontal or vertical orientation. One of each orientation and one plate without grooves were placed on each of 10 horizontal and 10 vertical surfaces on each side of a concrete-block breakwater (wave-exposed, wave-sheltered) in May 2008. On the wave-exposed side, plates were at mid-highshore, while on the wave-sheltered side, plates were at low-midshore. Macroalgae and invertebrates on plates were counted during low tide over 28 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  5. Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2009 on 14 jetty pilings in Rotterdam Port in the Rhine-Meuse estuary, Netherlands (Paalvast 2015b) reported that settlement plates with groove habitats supported similar abundances of macroalgae and invertebrates to plates without grooves. Data were not statistically tested. After nine months, there were no clear differences in macroalgal or invertebrate abundances on plates with and without grooves (data not reported). Concrete settlement plates (250 × 250 mm) were made with and without groove habitats using a mould. Plates with grooves had five variable grooves/plate (length: 250 mm; width: 10–35 mm; depth: 20–40 mm) in horizontal orientation. One plate with grooves and one without were attached to vertical surfaces on each of 14 wooden pilings at lowshore in March 2009. Macroalgae and invertebrates on plates were counted during low tide over nine months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  6. Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2008–2010 on an intertidal breakwater on open coastline in the North Sea, Netherlands (Paalvast 2015a) reported that settlement plates with pit habitats supported similar abundances of macroalgae and invertebrates to plates without pits. Data were not statistically tested. After 28 months, there were no clear differences in macroalgal or invertebrate abundances on plates with and without pits (data not reported). Periwinkles Littorina saxatilis and Littorina neritoides were seen using pits. Concrete settlement plates (250 × 250 mm) were made with and without pit habitats using a mould. Plates with pits had 25 variable pits/plate (diameter: 12–35 mm; depth: 25–50 mm). One plate with pits and one without were placed on each of 10 horizontal and 10 vertical surfaces on each side of a concrete-block breakwater (wave-exposed, wave-sheltered) in May 2008. On the wave-exposed side, plates were at mid-highshore, while on the wave-sheltered side, plates were at low-midshore. Macroalgae and invertebrates on plates were counted during low tide over 28 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  7. Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2009 on 14 jetty pilings in Rotterdam Port in the Rhine-Meuse estuary, Netherlands (Paalvast 2015b) reported that settlement plates with pit habitats supported similar abundances of macroalgae and invertebrates to plates without pits. Data were not statistically tested. After nine months, there were no clear differences in macroalgal or invertebrate abundances on plates with and without pits (data not reported). Periwinkles Littorina saxatilis were seen using pits. Concrete settlement plates (250 × 250 mm) were made with and without pit habitats using a mould. Plates with pits had 25 variable pits/plate (diameter: 12–35 mm; depth: 25–50 mm). One plate with pits and one without were attached to vertical surfaces on each of 14 wooden pilings at lowshore in March 2009. Macroalgae and invertebrates on plates were counted during low tide over nine months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

Output references
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 19

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust