Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools Three studies from Sweden and the UK (including two site comparisons one of which was replicated) found that the creation of scrapes and pools provided habitat for a range of plant, invertebrate or bird species and resulted in increased aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity. One of these studies found constructed pools supported locally or nationally scarce species of plant and water beetle. A study in Sweden found that a combination of large surface area, high shoreline complexity and shallow depth resulted in increased bird, bottom-dwelling invertebrate and aquatic plant diversity. However there were fewer fish species than in natural wetlands. Two replicated studies from Ireland and the UK (one controlled paired study and a site comparison) found that bird visit rates were higher but invertebrate numbers varied in ditch-fed paired ponds compared with dry controls and total macroinvertebrate and beetle richness did not differ between artificial and natural ponds, although communities did differ.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F153https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F153Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:30:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create skylark plots for bird conservation A before-and-after study found an increase in Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis population on a farm after the creation of skylark plots; a replicated, controlled study from the UK found higher densities of skylarks on fields with plots, compared to those without. No other studies investigated population-level effects. Two UK studies, one replicated and controlled, found that skylark productivity was higher in plots or in fields with plots than in controls. One replicated and controlled study from Switzerland found no differences in productivity between territories that included plots and those that did not. Two replicated studies (one controlled) from Denmark and Switzerland found that skylark plots were used by skylarks more than expected. A replicated and controlled study from the UK found that seed-eating songbirds did not use skylark plots more than surrounding crops.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F214Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:43:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools in wetlands and wet grasslands Of six studies captured, four before-and after studies from the UK and North America found that the use of sites, or the breeding population of birds on sites, increased following the creation of ponds and scrapes or was higher in areas with ditch-fed ponds. A study from the USA found that dabbling ducks used newly-created ponds in large numbers, although other species preferred older ponds. Songbirds did not appear to be affected by pond-creation. A replicated site from the UK found that northern lapwing chicks foraged in newly created wet features and that chick condition was higher in sites with a large number of footdrains.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F359Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:26:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create skylark plots All four studies from the UK and Switzerland (two replicated and controlled, and one review) investigating the effect of skylark plots on Eurasian skylarks, found a positive effect, reporting increases in skylark population size, breeding density, duration or success or a lower likelihood of skylarks abandoning their territory relative to fields without plots. A replicated study from Denmark found that skylarks used undrilled patches within cereal fields more than expected by an even distribution across the landscape. Four studies reported the effect of undrilled patches on wildlife other than skylarks. Three studies from the UK (including two replicated studies, of which one also controlled and a review) found benefits to plants and invertebrates. Whilst two studies (both replicated, one also controlled) from the UK found no significant differences in the number of some invertebrates or seed-eating songbirds between skylark plots and conventional crop fields. One replicated study from the UK investigated different skylark plot establishment techniques. Plots that were undrilled had greater vegetation cover and height than plots established by spraying out with herbicide. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F540Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:08:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create rotational grass or clover leys A controlled study in Finland found that creating clover leys resulted in higher spider abundance and fewer pest insects than a barley control plot. A study in the UK found that one-year ley plots had significantly lower earthworm species richness and abundance than three-and-a-half-year leys. A replicated study in the UK found that grass leys had fewer plant species than nine other conservation measures.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F643Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:45:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create refuges Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Indonesia found that adding coarse woody debris to forest floors had no effect on the number of amphibian species or overall abundance, but had mixed effects on abundance of individual species. One before-and-after study in Australia found that restoration that included reintroducing coarse woody debris to the forest floor increased frog species. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that creating refugia for great crested newts, along with other interventions, maintained four populations. Two studies (including one replicated study) in New Zealand and the USA found that artificial refugia were used by translocated Hamilton's frogs and hellbenders, although few were used for breeding.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F772https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F772Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:40:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create refuge areas in aquatic habitats We found no evidence for the effects of creating refuge areas in aquatic habitats on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F813Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:08:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for great crested newts Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies) in Germany and the UK found that naturally colonizing, captive-bred and translocated great crested newts established breeding populations at 57–75% of created ponds or sites. One systematic review in the UK found that there was no conclusive evidence that mitigation, which often included pond creation, resulted in self-sustaining populations. Three replicated, before-and-after studies in the UK found that up to 88% of created ponds were colonized by translocated or by small numbers of naturally colonizing great crested newts. One replicated before-and-after study in the UK found that head-started great crested newts reproduced in 38% of created ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F863https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F863Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:57:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for green toads Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in Denmark found that pond creation, along with other interventions, significantly increased green toad populations. One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that green toads used 59% and reproduced in 41% of created ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F864https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F864Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:23:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for natterjack toads Five before-and-after studies (including three replicated and one controlled study) in the UK and Denmark found that pond creation, along with other interventions, significantly increased natterjack toad populations, or in two cases maintained or increased populations at 75% of sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that compared to natural ponds, created ponds had lower natterjack toad tadpole mortality from desiccation, but higher mortality from predation by invertebrates.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F866https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F866Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for salamanders (including newts) Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies) in France, Germany and the USA found that naturally colonizing alpine newts, captive-bred smooth newts or translocated spotted salamanders established stable breeding populations in 20–100% of created ponds. Two replicated, before-and-after study in France and China found that alpine newts or Chinhai salamanders reproduced in 60–100% of created ponds. One small, replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that translocated spotted salamanders but not tiger salamanders reproduced in created ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F867https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F867Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:55:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for toads Four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Germany, the UK and USA found that translocated and naturally colonizing toads established breeding populations in created ponds, or in one case 33% of created ponds. Two before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Denmark and Switzerland found that common toads and midwife toads naturally colonized 29–100% of created ponds, whereas captive-bred garlic toads did not colonize. One before-and-after study in Denmark found that creating and restoring ponds, along with head-starting, increased populations of European fire-bellied toads. One replicated, before-and-after study in Switzerland found that midwife toads reproduced in 16% of created ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F868https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F868Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:55:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create spaces for roosting bats in road/railway bridges and culverts One study evaluated the effects of creating spaces for roosting bats in road bridges. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Use (1 study): One review in the USA found that spaces created in road bridges for roosting bats to replace those lost during bridge works were recolonized by bats in similar or greater numbers to the original roosts at four of eight sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1967https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1967Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:07:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in marinas in France and Morocco, while one was in each of a lagoon in Mayotte and a port in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the juvenile fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, depending on the site and survey month. Swimthrough habitats supported six species that were absent from structure surfaces without swimthroughs. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile fish species richness on and around structure surfaces, depending on the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Fish abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species, site, survey month and/or juvenile development stage. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile seabream habitat use on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species and juvenile development stage. Two studies (including one replicated study) in Mayotte and Morocco reported that small swimthrough habitats, along with large swimthroughs and environmentally-sensitive material in one, were used by juvenile spiny lobsters, sea firs, adult fish and/or juvenile fish. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3436https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3436Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:15:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3444Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:00:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in Italy and Israel, and one was in an estuary in eastern USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, while one found no effect. One of the studies also reported that textured surfaces with environementally-sensitive material supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from fibreglass surfaces without texture. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Italy and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate live cover on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did increase the cover and biomass. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the non-mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:40:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia and one was in marinas in northwest France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate community composition, depending on the density or length of flexible habitats and/or the site. One of the studies found it altered the non-mobile invertebrate community composition. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile or non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Three randomized, controlled studies (including two replicated and one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate abundance on and around structure surfaces, depending on the survey week, species group, flexible habitat length, or site. One of the studies found no effect on mobile invertebrate abundance. Fish abundance (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the seahorse abundance on and around structures, depending on the survey week. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:19:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating small protrusions on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One controlled study in Japan reported that creating small protrusions on a subtidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:06:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, and had mixed effects on the combined mobile invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during low tide, depending on the site. Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures decreased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide, depending on the site. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the abundance of non-mobile invertebrates on structure surfaces, and of mobile invertebrates during high tide, depending on the species group and site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during high tide. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of structure surfaces.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3459https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3459Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:23:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, small ridges and pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the shore level. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and two were in estuaries in Hong Kong and southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, did increase the species richness, and that varying the habitat size and arrangement had mixed effects, depending on the shore level. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that small ridges or ledges supported lower species richness than grooves created in between them, but one of them found that species diversity on ridges compared with grooves varied depending on the ridge height. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate species richness than grooves created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish species richness to grooves created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges supported similar abundance to grooves created in between them. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than grooves created in between them. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish abundance to grooves created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:00:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, one was in a port in the Netherlands, and one was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the type of texture created and the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the UK and the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site. One found increased barnacle abundance, regardless of the type of texture created, but that different textures supported different abundances. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:05:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and in an estuary in the Netherlands and one was on an open coastline in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness in and on the structures. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile invertebrate species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats altered the invertebrate abundance in and on structures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:03:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create suitable habitats to offset habitat lost within development footprint We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating suitable habitats to offset habitat lost within a development footprint on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3480https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3480Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:00:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating scrapes and pools. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3951https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3951Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:19 +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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue