Study

Mitigating against the loss of species by adding artificial intertidal pools to existing seawalls

  • Published source details Browne M.A. & Chapman M.G. (2014) Mitigating against the loss of species by adding artificial intertidal pools to existing seawalls. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 497, 119-129.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Transplant or seed organisms onto intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures

Create 'rock pools' on intertidal artificial structures

Action Link
Biodiversity of Marine Artificial Structures
  1. Transplant or seed organisms onto intertidal artificial structures

    A study in 2010 on two intertidal seawalls in Sydney Harbour estuary, Australia (Browne & Chapman 2014) reported that the survival of mobile invertebrates transplanted into rock pools created on the seawalls varied depending on the species. After 10 days, transplanted turban snails Turbo undulatus, keyhole limpets Scutus antipodes and sea anemones Actinia tenebrosa survived in midshore pools on both seawalls (data not reported). All transplanted sea urchins Heliocidaris erythrogramma and starfish Patiriella calcar had died and no transplanted nerite snails Nerita atramentosa remained in pools. Six species of mobile invertebrates were collected from natural reefs and transplanted into rock pools created on two vertical sandstone seawalls at highshore and midshore in 2010. No other details were reported. Transplanted animals were surveyed during low tide after 10 days.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

  2. Create 'rock pools' on intertidal artificial structures

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2009–2010 on two intertidal seawalls in Sydney Harbour estuary, Australia (Browne & Chapman 2014; same experimental setup as Browne & Chapman 2011) reported that rock pools created on the seawalls supported similar macroalgae and invertebrate species richness to seawall surfaces without pools, but found that community composition and abundances varied depending on the pool depth, shore level, species group and site. After seven months, macroalgae and invertebrate species richness was similar in deep pools (highshore: 7–10 species groups/site; midshore: 16–23/site), shallow pools (highshore: 11/site; midshore: 23/site) and on seawall surfaces without pools (highshore: 10/site; midshore: 12–18/site) (data not statistically tested). Abundances and community composition varied in pools and on seawall surfaces depending on the pool depth, shore level and site (see paper for results). Rock pools were created by attaching concrete pots to vertical sandstone seawalls in December 2009. Six deep (depth: 380 mm; volume: 10 l) and six shallow (220 mm; 6 l) half-flowerpot shaped pools (top diameter: 360 mm) were attached at both highshore and midshore on each of two seawalls. Pools were compared with seawall surfaces adjacent to each pool with surface areas matching inside pool surfaces (deep: 500 × 500 mm, reported from Browne & Chapman 2011; shallow: not reported). Macroalgae and invertebrates were counted in pools and on seawall surfaces during low tide over seven months. Five deep and 10 shallow pools were missing and no longer provided habitat.

    (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