The impact of small physical obstacles on upstream movements of six species of fish

Ovidio, Michaël; Philippart, Jean-Claude

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0771-8_8

Cited by 94 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a paucity of knowledge on the effects of low-head obstacles; it is likely that they may also present serious deleterious impacts for fish populations through habitat fragmentation (Lucas & Frear, 1997;Ovidio & Philippart, 2002;O'Connor et al, 2006). Determining the likelihood of fish passage at riverine obstacles is highly complex due to variable swimming and leaping capabilities of fish of different sizes and species, coupled with the heterogeneity of environmental variables associated with riverine systems (Ovidio & Philippart, 2002;Sigourney et al, 2015). Viewed in the terms of fish passage, any single obstacle may prevent migration, cause a temporary delay in migration or have no effect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is evidence that upstream migrating adult Atlantic salmon are sometimes reluctant to pass obstacles which present no obvious physical impediment to upstream movement (Gerlier & Roche, 1998;Ovidio & Philippart, 2002). An upstream migrating Atlantic salmon was unable to surmount an obstacle 1.4 m in height due to low water depth below the obstacle and insufficient water depth on the face of the weir (Ovidio & Philippart, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An upstream migrating Atlantic salmon was unable to surmount an obstacle 1.4 m in height due to low water depth below the obstacle and insufficient water depth on the face of the weir (Ovidio & Philippart, 2002). Conversely indicated that Atlantic salmon were successful in ascending low obstacles \1.5 m in height within 24 h on the Pau River (France).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The impact of a small-scale riverine obstacle on the upstream migration of Atlantic Salmon

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behaviour of returning Salmo salar (Linnaeus, 1758) approaching, and attempting to pass low-head weirs remains relatively unknown. A radio telemetry array was created at a low-head weir to enable the behaviour of S. salar (n = 120) to be observed as they approached and attempted to pass the barrier. The majority of fish successfully passed the barrier on their first or second attempt, some individuals required 11 attempts prior to successful passage occurring. Mean delay at the barrier per fish was 47.8 h (±SD 132.0 h), range 15 min to 31 days. Passage success on a fish's initial attempt was significantly predicted by the amount of searching a fish undertook, fork length, and fat content. Fish were more likely to have a successful first passage attempt if it was smaller with a low fat content and exerted a greater effort in searching for a passage channel. Small-scale barriers cause delays and increased energy expenditure in migrating fish. Barriers may be creating an anthropogenic selection pressure for traits which enable passage success. The impact of a delay at a barrier and increased energy expenditure on reproduction and gonad development remains unknown but is likely to be negatively impacted by instream anthropogenic structures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of a small-scale riverine obstacle on the upstream migration of Atlantic Salmon

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The factors affecting the ability of fish to pass over a barrier include the water velocity over the structure, the height of the structure, the water depth immediately below and throughout the length of the obstacle, and the swimming and jumping capabilities of the fish attempting passage (FAO 2002;Ovidio and Philippart 2002;Peake 2004). In this study, our measurements of the physical dimensions of GCSs focused on structure slope because the slope design of the structure in turn affects water velocity and depth throughout the structure, the amount of building material needed to construct the desired length of the structure apron, and ultimately the monetary cost of the structure.…”

Section: Management Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over time, restricted fish passage may result in reduced fish abundance and species richness (Joy and Death 2001), fragmentation of populations and genetic divergence (Pringle et al 2000;Morita and Yamamoto 2002), shifts in fish assemblages in areas upstream and downstream from impoundments (Taylor et al 2001;Gehrke et al 2002), and possible extirpation of species in reaches upstream from barriers (Winston et al 1991;Taylor et al 2001). Although a great deal of past research has investigated fish passage through large barriers (i.e., dams built for hydroelectricity production and reservoir construction) and the corresponding changes in river fish communities resulting from these impoundments, small structures, such as low-head dams and road crossings, also present serious barriers to fish passage that may adversely affect fish populations and communities (Warren and Pardew 1998;Porto et al 1999;Ovidio and Philippart 2002;Santucci et al 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish Passage in a Western Iowa Stream Modified by Grade Control Structures

Litvan

Pierce

Stewart

et al. 2008

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grade control structures (GCSs) are commonly used in streams of western Iowa to control bank erosion and channel headcutting but may be barriers to fish passage. From May 2002 to May 2006, we used mark-recapture methods to evaluate fish passage over a total of five GCSs, ranging in slope (run : rise) from 13:1 to 18:1 in Turkey Creek, Cass County, Iowa. Three structures, over which limited fish movement was documented from 2002 to 2004, were modified in the winter of [2004][2005] to facilitate fish passage. Before modification, the majority of recaptured fish were recaptured at the station where they were originally marked; only 1% displayed movement between sites and either upstream or downstream over a GCS. After modification fish passage improved, 14% of recaptured fish displayed movement either upstream or downstream over a GCS. Individuals of four target species-channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis, black bullhead A. melas, and creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus-passed over at least one modified structure. The majority of documented movements over GCSs were in the upstream direction and occurred in late spring and early summer, when streamflow was relatively high. Although we documented low numbers of fish passing both upstream and downstream over GCSs, these structures are probably barriers to fish movement during periods of low flow and when there is a structural failure, such as in-channel movement of riprap. Grade control structures are pervasive in western Iowa streams; nearly every low-order stream contains at least one instream structure. To sustain fish populations, management efforts should focus on constructing or modifying GCSs to allow fish passage. RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is e...

show abstract

Recommendations for monitoring freshwater fishes in river restoration plans: A wasted opportunity for assessing impact

Rodeles

Galicia

Miranda

2017

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Many human activities in and on rivers cause the loss of freshwater biodiversity, especially fish, which now are one of the most endangered vertebrate groups. River fragmentation caused by the construction of dams is one of the main threats to fish species. In Spain, which has the highest number of dams per square kilometre in the world, more than half of all fish species are threatened by these constructions. The government has initiated the National Strategy for River Restoration, a plan to restore rivers and preserve their inhabitants, which includes the removal of dams.2. An information search and query was conducted to determine if fish monitoring was performed before and after dam removal, and the result was negative. Therefore, an assessment of the effects of dam removal on fish communities at a large spatial scale was not possible.Instead, an analysis was carried out to measure the effects of dam removal on river connectivity using a geometric network.3. The analysis of river connectivity improvement showed that 66% of removed dams had one or more dams less than 5 km away. The removal of dams increased the connected river length by an average of 6.4 km per dam removed, with the range varying between 1.04 km and 9.48 km, depending on the river basin. 4. These results show that, although monitoring programmes are strongly recommended after restoration actions, they are not usually performed. This is a wasted opportunity to gather large datasets to understand better the effects of human actions on fish communities and on rivers.5. River connectivity results may reflect a demolition strategy based more on economic and social opportunism rather than on ecological considerations. It is strongly recommended that dam removal plans should be based on ecological selection methods to achieve greater river improvements with less investment.

show abstract

The impact of small physical obstacles on upstream movements of six species of fish

Cited by 94 publications

References 23 publications

The impact of a small-scale riverine obstacle on the upstream migration of Atlantic Salmon

The impact of a small-scale riverine obstacle on the upstream migration of Atlantic Salmon

Fish Passage in a Western Iowa Stream Modified by Grade Control Structures

Recommendations for monitoring freshwater fishes in river restoration plans: A wasted opportunity for assessing impact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About