Study

Effects of habitat area and spatial configuration on biodiversity in an experimental intertidal community

  • Published source details Loke L.H.L., Chisholm R.A. & Todd P.A. (2019) Effects of habitat area and spatial configuration on biodiversity in an experimental intertidal community. Ecology, 100, e02757.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2014–2015 on an intertidal seawall on an island coastline in the Singapore Strait, Singapore (Loke et al. 2019) found that creating groove habitats on the seawalls, along with pits, increased the macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on seawall surfaces, and that increasing the density and fragmentation of grooves and pits had mixed effects on species richness. After 12 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species richness was higher on seawall surfaces with grooves and pits (13–29 species/surface) than on surfaces without (3/surface). Species richness varied on surfaces with high-density (19–29/surface), medium-density (14–27/surface) and low-density (13–16/surface) grooves and pits, depending on their arrangement, and vice versa (unfragmented arrangement: 14–20/surface; moderately-fragmented: 13–29/surface; highly-fragmented: 15–20/surface). It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating grooves or pits. Concrete settlement plates (200 × 200 mm) were moulded with seven groove habitats amongst 37 pits, both with variable length, width and depth (2–56 mm). Plates with grooves and pits were attached to 2.4 × 2.4 m seawall surfaces in varying densities (high: 30 plates/surface; medium: 20/surface; low: 10/surface) and arrangement (unfragmented, moderately-fragmented, highly-fragmented). Four surfaces with each density-fragmentation combination and four with no plates were randomly arranged, spanning low-highshore, on a granite boulder seawall in February 2014. Macroalgae on seawall surfaces with and without plates were counted from photographs and invertebrates in the laboratory after 12 months.

    (Summarised by: Ally Evans)

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2014–2015 on an intertidal seawall on an island coastline in the Singapore Strait, Singapore (Loke et al. 2019) found that creating pit habitats on the seawalls, along with grooves, increased the macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on seawall surfaces, and that increasing the density and fragmentation of pits and grooves had mixed effects on species richness. After 12 months, macroalgae and invertebrate species richness was higher on seawall surfaces with pits and grooves (13–29 species/surface) than on surfaces without (3/surface). Species richness varied on surfaces with high-density (19–29/surface), medium-density (14–27/surface) and low-density (13–16/surface) pits and grooves, depending on their arrangement, and vice versa (unfragmented arrangement: 14–20/surface; moderately-fragmented: 13–29/surface; highly-fragmented: 15–20/surface). It is not clear whether these effects were the direct result of creating pits or grooves. Concrete settlement plates (200 × 200 mm) were moulded with 37 round pit habitats amongst seven grooves, both with variable length, width and depth (2–56 mm). Plates with pits and grooves were attached to 2.4 × 2.4 m seawall surfaces in varying densities (high: 30 plates/surface; medium: 20/surface; low: 10/surface) and arrangement (unfragmented, moderately-fragmented, highly-fragmented). Four surfaces with each density-fragmentation combination and four with no plates were randomly arranged, spanning low-highshore, on a granite boulder seawall in February 2014. Macroalgae on seawall surfaces with and without plates were counted from photographs and invertebrates in the laboratory after 12 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 18

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