Provide artificial shelters

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    70%
  • Certainty
    63%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Five studies examined the effects of providing artificial shelters on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Three studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico); one in Florida Bay and one in the Florida Keys (USA).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Lobster abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies in the Caribbean Sea found that abundance of lobsters either increased in plots with artificial shelters but not in plots without, or increased in all plots but more so in plots with artificial shelters than those without.
  • Lobster condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Caribbean Sea found that lobsters in plots with artificial shelters were bigger than in plots without.

BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1997–1999 of nine plots in a reef lagoon with seagrass meadows in the Caribbean Sea, Mexico (Briones-Fourzàn & Lozano-Álvarez 2001 – same experimental setup as Lozano-Álvarez et al. 2009) found that during one year after deploying artificial shelters (‘casitas’), abundance of Caribbean spiny lobsters Panulirus argus increased in plots with artificial shelters but not in plots without, regardless of whether the plots had lobsters or not before deployment. Lobster abundance increased over time in plots with shelters (before deployment: 0–30; after: 7–104 lobsters/ha) while it did not increase in plots without (before: 0–24; after: 0–32 lobsters/ha). After a year, plots with artificial shelters had bigger lobsters (average 25 mm) than sites without (22 mm). Ten ‘casitas’ (1.1 m2, 3.8 cm diameter entrance) were deployed in each of five plots (1 ha) (≤5 m depth) in July 1998. On 13 occasions before (February 1997–July 1998) and every two months for a year after deployment, divers counted and visually estimated the carapace length of all lobsters across each ‘casitas’ plots and at four plots without casitas. Before deployment, three ‘casitas’ plots and two plots without ‘casitas’ had zero lobsters. No fishing is reported to occur in the study area because all lobsters present are typically undersize juveniles.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 1993–1995 in four sites across two areas of seagrass in the Everglades National Park, Florida Bay, USA (Nizinski 2007) found that providing artificial shelters had varied effects on Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus abundance (shelter occupancy) depending on shelter designs, but all designs had similar abundance of their molluscan prey. Lobster abundance was greater in full-roof artificial shelters (13 lobsters/shelter) than mesh-roof shelters (6 lobsters/shelter), and more lobsters were found in these two designs than in either artificial shelter frames (1 lobster/shelter) or plots without artificial shelters (0 lobster/plot). Abundance was not significantly different in shelter frames and plots without shelters. Abundance data for molluscs in each treatment were not shown. Four treatments (three shelter designs and no shelter) were tested; 1) an artificial shelter frame without a roof, 2) an artificial shelter frame covered with a 3.8 cm diamond mesh roof, 3) an artificial shelter frame covered with an aluminium sheet and 4) delimited empty plot of similar size as an artificial shelter. In July 1993, at two sites (1 km apart) in each of two areas (12 km apart), artificial shelters were deployed (4 replicates/treatment/site). Quarterly in 1993–1994 and twice in 1995, divers counted and measured lobsters >20 mm, and using a suction sampler identified and counted molluscs >1 mm sampled (1 replicate/treatment/sampling time; 0.05 m2 samples) in all treatments.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated study in 1998–2002 of nine plots in a reef lagoon with seagrass meadows in the Caribbean Sea, Mexico (Lozano-Álvarez et al. 2009) found that over the 2.5 years after their deployment, artificial shelters (‘casitas’) were occupied by more and bigger Caribbean spiny lobsters Panulirus argus than natural shelters (crevices). More lobsters were found occupying artificial shelters (3.5–5.5 on average; 3,707 in total) than crevices (1–1.6 on average; 200 in total). In addition, artificial shelters hosted larger lobsters (30–32 mm carapace length) than crevices (17–18 mm). Ten ‘casitas’ (1.1 m2, 3.8 cm diameter entrance) were deployed in each of five plots (1 ha) (≤5 m depth) in July 1998. On 22 occasions after deployment (September 1998–November 2002), divers counted and visually estimated the carapace length of all lobsters inside all artificial shelters and inside all naturally occurring shelters (crevices) in each plot. 

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1997–2002 of nine plots in a reef lagoon with seagrass meadows in the Caribbean Sea, Mexico (Lozano-Álvarez et al. 2010 – same experimental setup as Briones-Fourzàn & Lozano-Álvarez 2001) found that over the 2.5 years after deploying artificial shelters (‘casitas’), abundance of Caribbean spiny lobsters Panulirus argus increased in all plots but more so in plots with artificial shelters than those without, and that lobsters in plots with artificial shelters were bigger. Before deployment, all plots had similar lobster abundance (1.5–8 lobsters/ha). After deployment, abundance increased approximately four times more in plots with artificial shelters (17–83 lobsters/ha) than plots without (5–21 lobsters/ha). Plots with artificial shelters had bigger lobsters (31 mm) than sites without (24 mm). Ten ‘casitas’ (1.1 m2, 3.8 cm diameter entrance) were deployed in each of five plots (1 ha) (≤5 m depth) in July 1998. On six occasions before (December 1997–July 1998) and 22 occasions after (September 1998–November 2002) deployment, divers counted all lobsters across each ‘casitas’ plots and at four plots without casitas. For the ‘after’ surveys only, the carapace length of lobsters was also visually estimated.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, controlled study in summer 2012–2013 of multiple sites in two areas of either rocky, sandy or seagrass bed in the Florida Keys, USA (Gutzler et al. 2015) found that the effects of artificial shelters (‘casitas’) on the nutritional condition of Caribbean spiny lobsters Panulirus argus varied with location, and that lobsters occupying them had similar sex ratio and typically similar survival, compared to lobsters in natural shelters, but lobsters in the artificial shelters were larger. The nutritional condition of lobsters (data presented as an index) differed between the two areas, but within each area lobsters inside artificial shelters had greater nutritional condition than lobsters in crevices. In addition, artificial shelters hosted larger lobsters (average 66 mm) than crevices (52 mm). Each artificial shelter was on averaged occupied by 22–41 lobsters. In three of four comparisons, lobster survival following predation experiment was similar in artificial (59–97% survival) and natural shelters (57–93% survival). In one comparison (of lobsters <35 mm), survival was lower in artificial (56% survival), compared to natural shelters (82% survival). The ‘casitas’ (4 m2) were flat rectangular structures with at least two open sides. In one area, ’casitas’ (number unspecified) had been deployed in 1990 (at 2–3 m depth). In the other area, 16 were deployed (at 10 m depth). In May–August 2012–2013, divers counted lobsters occupying 16 of the ‘casitas’, and collected lobsters using hand nets and tail snares found inside artificial and natural shelters at all sites. All lobsters were measured (carapace length), their sex recorded, and a subset was used to assess nutritional condition based on the weight of their lobster’s digestive gland. Divers also experimentally assessed lobster mortality from predation inside artificial and natural shelters (using a tethering method).

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation - Published 2020

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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

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