This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Migration barriers being selective for invasive species could protect pristine upstream areas. We designed and tested a prototype protective barrier in a vertical slot fish pass. Based on the individuals’ swimming responses to the barrier flow field, we assumed this barrier would block the ascension of the invasive round goby, but allow comparable native species (gudgeon and bullhead) to ascend. The barrier was tested in three steps: flow description, quantification of forces experienced by preserved fish in the flow field, and tracking the swimming trajectories of ca. 43 live fish per trial and species. The flow and the forces were homogenous over the barrier, though gudgeon experienced significantly smaller forces than round goby or bullhead. The swimming trajectories were distinct enough to predict the fish species with a random forest machine learning approach (92.16% accuracy for gudgeon and 85.24% for round goby). The trajectories revealed round goby and gudgeon exhibited increased, but varied, swimming speeds and straighter paths at higher water discharge. These results suggest that passage of round goby was prevented at 130 L/s water discharge, whereas gudgeon and bullhead could pass the barrier. Our findings open a new avenue of research on hydraulic constructions for species conservation.

No abstract

No abstract

Every fish migrating upstream through vertical slot fish passes must swim through slots, where the resistance force of flowing water could affect the passage success. We measured the hydraulic force acting on the body of preserved benthic fish in a vertical slot at different water discharge rates (80 and 130 L/s) to compare the hydraulic burden individual fish species (round goby Neogobius melanostomus Pallas, 1814, gudgeon Gobio gobio L. and bullhead Cottus gobio L.) must overcome. The forces measured in three spatial axes were then compared to acoustic Doppler velocity measurements and the passage probability of 39–45 live fish per species. Passage probability reduction of 28.26% for round goby and 39.29% for bullhead was observed at the higher water discharge. Gudgeon showed increased numbers of passages and approaches when larger hydraulic forces were experienced at 130 L/s compared to the lower water discharge. Gudgeon experienced significantly lower hydraulic forces (mean 0.27 N ± 0.12 standard deviation) compared to round goby (mean 0.32 N ± 0.12 SD) and bullhead (0.35 N ± 0.14 SD). Potentially, the increased hydraulic forces at the higher water discharge contributed to the reduction in passages in round goby and bullhead. That gudgeon behaved differently from the other species illustrates how fish species deal differently with flowing water and the hydraulic forces experienced. Our approach provides a species‐oriented assessment of the flow field in ecologically relevant fish passes. These findings represent an important step towards the development of purposeful fish pass designs, which is essential for ecosystem‐oriented river connectivity.