Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28926608›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Epibenthic and mobile species colonisation of a geotextile artificial surf reef on the south coast of England.

Roger J H Herbert, Ken Collins, Jenny Mallinson, Alice E Hall, Josephine Pegg, Kathryn Ross, Leo Clarke, Tom Clements

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Roger J H HerbertBournemouth University, Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Talbot Campus, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9854-3112
Ken CollinsSchool of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, National Oceanography Centre, Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jenny MallinsonSchool of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, National Oceanography Centre, Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Alice E HallBournemouth University, Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Talbot Campus, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom.
Josephine PeggUniversity Centre Sparsholt, Sparsholt, Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
Kathryn RossBritish Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Leo ClarkeBournemouth University, Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Talbot Campus, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom.
Tom ClementsSchool of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, National Oceanography Centre, Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With increasing coastal infrastructure and use of novel materials there is a need to investigate the colonisation of assemblages associated with new structures, how these differ to natural and other artificial habitats and their potential impact on regional biodiversity. The colonisation of Europe's first artificial surf reef (ASR) was investigated at Boscombe on the south coast of England (2009-2014) and compared with assemblages on existing natural and artificial habitats. The ASR consists of geotextile bags filled with sand located 220m offshore on a sandy sea bed at a depth of 0-5m. Successional changes in epibiota were recorded annually on differently orientated surfaces and depths using SCUBA diving and photography. Mobile faunal assemblages were sampled using Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV). Distinct stages in colonisation were observed, commencing with bryozoans and green algae which were replaced by red algae, hydroids and ascidians, however there were significant differences in assemblage structure with depth and orientation. The reef is being utilised by migratory, spawning and juvenile life-history stages of fish and invertebrates. The number of non-native species was larger than on natural reefs and other artificial habitats and some occupied a significant proportion of the structure. The accumulation of 180 benthic and mobile taxa, recorded to date, appears to have arisen from a locally rich and mixed pool of native and non-native species. Provided no negative invasive impacts are detected on nearby protected reefs the creation of novel yet diverse habitats may be considered a beneficial outcome.

Indexed as

Coral ReefsAnimalsChlorophytaEnglandFishesInvertebratesRhodophytaTextilesUrochordata

Identifiers

PMID28926608
PMCPMC5604948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.