Downstream passage of European eel Anguilla anguilla (L.) in catchments with pump(s) for water level management is a major concern. Catchment‐wide acoustic telemetry revealed silver eels quickly migrated downstream through unobstructed reaches (n = 12; mean ± SD = 17.9 ± 1.9 km/day). Fourteen of 17 acoustic‐tagged eels detected at the pumping station (82.1%) retreated back upstream and ten (58.8%) passed through pumps after delays (9.5 ± 11.0 days). Multi‐beam sonar imaging across the intake screen (55‐mm gaps) revealed that peaks in migration occurred during the nights preceding the new moon but 76.7% retreated back upstream. All passive integrated transponder (PIT)‐tagged eels recaptured (n = 56) downstream of a large (2.23‐m diameter) mixed flow pump survived but 96.5% had minor injuries, reduced physical condition and/or abnormal behaviour. By contrast, 64.7% of PIT‐tagged eels recaptured (n = 17) downstream of a small (0.8‐m diameter) axial flow pump died. No acoustic‐tagged eels that passed through the small axial flow pump (n = 10) performed onward migration at sea, unlike “control” eels released downstream (n = 11). This evidence may help develop effective remediation measures, such as operational changes, to maximise escapement of catadromous eel species at pumping stations.

The European eel Anguilla anguilla (eel hereafter) is critically endangered and has a catadromous life cycle, which means adult eels that live in pumped catchments must pass through pumps during their downstream spawning migration. Policy makers are currently lacking detailed site-by-site eel distribution information to estimate the overall impact of individual pumping stations on eel escapement, and as such lack the data to enable informed prioritisation of pumping station management and targeted mitigation. This study investigated whether environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding can provide increased detection sensitivity for eel and fish community structure in highly regulated pumped catchments, when compared directly to current standard practice fish survey protocols (seine netting/electric fishing). Eels were detected in 14 of 17 sites (82.4%) using eDNA metabarcoding in contrast to 3 of 17 sites (17.6%) using traditional catch methods. In addition, when using eDNA monitoring, species richness was higher in 16 of 17 sites (94.1%), and site occupancy was greater than or equal to traditional methods for 23 of 26 of the fish species detected (88.5%). Although eDNA methods presented significantly higher average species richness and species site occupancy overall, eDNA and catch methods were positively correlated in terms of species richness and site occupancy. It was therefore found that eDNA metabarcoding was a high-sensitivity method for detecting eels in pumped catchments while also increasing the detection of overall fish community structure compared to traditional catch methods. In addition, this study highlights how eDNA monitoring is especially suited to increase the detection of particular species, with traditional methods sufficient for others. This high sensitivity, coupled with the ability to sample multiple sites in a short time frame, suggests that eDNA metabarcoding workflows could be invaluable tools when prioritising pumping station management.

No abstract

The European eel Anguilla anguilla (eel hereafter) is critically endangered and has a catadromous lifecycle, which means adult eels that live in pumped catchments must pass through pumps during their downstream spawning migration. We are currently lacking detailed site-by-site eel distribution information in order to estimate the overall impact of individual pumping stations on eel escapement, and as such lack the data to enable informed prioritisation of pumping station management and targeted mitigation. In this study, we investigated whether environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding can provide increased detection sensitivity for eel and fish community structure in highly regulated pumped catchments, when compared directly to current standard practice fish survey protocols (seine netting/electric fishing). Eels were detected in 14/17 sites (82.4%) using eDNA metabarcoding in contrast to 3/17 (17.6%) using traditional catch methods. Additionally, when using eDNA monitoring species richness was higher in 16/17 sites (94.1%) and site occupancy ≥ traditional methods for 23/26 of the fish species detected (88.5%). While eDNA methods presented significantly higher average species richness and species site occupancy overall, eDNA and Catch methods were positively correlated in terms of species richness and site occupancy. We therefore found that eDNA metabarcoding was a high sensitivity method for detecting eels in pumped catchments, while also increasing the detection of overall fish community structure compared to traditional catch methods. In addition, we highlight how eDNA monitoring is especially suited to increased detection of particular species, with traditional methods sufficient for others. This high sensitivity, coupled with the ability to sample multiple sites in a short time frame suggests eDNA metabarcoding could be an invaluable tool when prioritising pumping station management.