2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10228-018-00678-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contrasting effects of dams with and without reservoirs on the population density of an amphidromous goby in southwestern Japan

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Dams and other barriers, such as perched culverts, evidently alter the fish communities upstream in areas where amphidromous species are prevalent. Case studies from New Zealand (Joy and Death 2001; Jellyman and Harding 2012), Japan (Fukushima et al 2007;Sumizaki et al 2019), and Puerto Rico (Coomey and Kwak 2013) indicate that dams result in decreased abundance and species richness upstream, driven by a loss of diadromous species. Barriers need not be large dams for this pattern to emerge; indeed, island-wide surveys of Puerto Rico have demonstrated that amphidromous (and other diadromous) species are typically restricted (though not completely blocked) by 2 m high structures, and extirpated above 4 m high barriers (Coomey and Kwak 2013).…”
Section: Physical Barriers To Migrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dams and other barriers, such as perched culverts, evidently alter the fish communities upstream in areas where amphidromous species are prevalent. Case studies from New Zealand (Joy and Death 2001; Jellyman and Harding 2012), Japan (Fukushima et al 2007;Sumizaki et al 2019), and Puerto Rico (Coomey and Kwak 2013) indicate that dams result in decreased abundance and species richness upstream, driven by a loss of diadromous species. Barriers need not be large dams for this pattern to emerge; indeed, island-wide surveys of Puerto Rico have demonstrated that amphidromous (and other diadromous) species are typically restricted (though not completely blocked) by 2 m high structures, and extirpated above 4 m high barriers (Coomey and Kwak 2013).…”
Section: Physical Barriers To Migrationmentioning
confidence: 99%