Barriers to fish passage and barriers to fish passage assessments: the impact of assessment methods and assumptions on barrier identification and quantification of watershed connectivity

Bourne, Christina; Kehler, Dan; Wiersma, Yolanda F.; Côté, David

doi:10.1007/s10452-011-9362-z

Cited by 73 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Still, we found barrier removals associated with maximum gains in the DCI (caused by removal of small barriers) were also associated with the greatest potential for increasing the distributions of small-bodied pelagophilic or lithopelagophilic guilds because the removal of such barriers would reconnect fragments with low probability of occurrence to fragments that have high probability of occurrence. These findings support previous conclusions that the DCI represents a useful tool for approximating potential responses in functional connectivity based on adjustments in structural connectivity (Bourne et al 2011, Perkin and Gido 2012, Perkin et al 2013a.…”

Section: Figsupporting

confidence: 90%

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

Perkin

Gido

Cooper

et al. 2015

Ecological Monographs

170

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Biodiversity in stream networks is threatened globally by interactions between habitat fragmentation and altered hydrologic regimes. In the Great Plains of North America, stream networks are fragmented by .19 000 anthropogenic barriers, and flow regimes are altered by surface water retention and groundwater extraction. We documented the distribution of anthropogenic barriers and dry stream segments in five basins covering the central Great Plains to assess effects of broad-scale environmental change on stream fish community structure and distribution of reproductive guilds. We used an informationtheoretic approach to rank competing models in which fragmentation, discharge magnitude, and percentage of time streams had zero flow (a measure of desiccation) were included to predict effects of environmental alterations on the distribution of fishes belonging to different reproductive guilds. Fragmentation caused by anthropogenic barriers was most common in the eastern Great Plains, but stream desiccation became more common to the west, where rivers are underlain by the depleted (i.e., extraction . recharge) High Plains Aquifer. Longitudinal gradients in fragmentation and desiccation contributed to spatial shifts in community structure from taxonomically and functionally diverse communities dominated by pelagic reproductive guilds where fragmentation and desiccation were least, to homogenized communities dominated by benthic guilds where fragmentation and desiccation were common. Modeling results revealed these shifts were primarily associated with decline of pelagic reproductive guilds, notably small-bodied pelagophilic and lithopelagophilic fishes that declined in association with decreased fragment length and increased number of days with zero flow. Graph theory combined with a barrier prioritization approach revealed specific fragments that could be reconnected to allow fishes within these guilds to colonize currently unoccupied fragments with the mitigation or removal of small dams (,10 m height). These findings are useful for natural resource managers charged with halting or reversing the prevailing pattern of declining fish diversity in the Great Plains. Our study represents one of the most comprehensive assessments of fish diversity responses to broad-scale environmental change in the Great Plains and provides a conservation strategy for addressing the simultaneous contributions of fragmentation and flow alteration to the global freshwater biodiversity crisis.

show abstract

Section: Figsupporting

confidence: 90%

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

Perkin

Gido

Cooper

et al. 2015

Ecological Monographs

170

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increased emphasis has also been placed upon predicting the most effective methods of reducing fragmentation at a catchment scale (Kemp and O'Hanley 2010;Bourne et al 2011). However, few empirical studies have examined the effects of connectivity restoration both at individual sites and on a wider spatial scale for fish communities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effectiveness of restoring longitudinal connectivity for stream fish communities: towards a more holistic approach

Tummers

Hudson

Lucas

2016

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. (2016) 'Evaluating the eectiveness of restoring longitudinal connectivity for stream sh communities : towards a more holistic approach.', Science of the total environment., 569-570 . pp. 850-860. Further information on publisher's website: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractA more holistic approach towards testing longitudinal connectivity restoration is needed in order to establish that intended ecological functions are achieved. We illustrate the use of a multi-method scheme to evaluate the effectiveness of 'nature-like' connectivity restoration for stream fish communities in the River Deerness, NE England. Electric-fishing, capture-mark-recapture, PIT telemetry and radio-telemetry were used to measure fish community composition, dispersal, fishway efficiency and upstream migration respectively. For measuring passage and dispersal, our rationale was to evaluate a wide size range of strong swimmers (exemplified by brown trout Salmo trutta) and weak swimmers (exemplified by bullhead Cottus perifretum) in situ in the stream ecosystem. Radiotracking of adult trout during the spawning migration showed that passage efficiency at each of five connectivity-restored sites was 81.3-100%. Unaltered (experimental control) structures on the migration route had a bottle-neck effect on upstream migration, especially during low flows.However, even during low flows, displaced PIT tagged juvenile trout (total n = 153) exhibited a passage efficiency of 70.1-93.1% at two nature-like passes. In mark-recapture experiments juvenile brown trout and bullhead tagged (total n = 5303) succeeded in dispersing upstream more often at most structures following obstacle modification, but not at the two control sites, based on a Laplace kernel modelling approach of observed dispersal distance and barrier traverses. Short-term post-restoration data (2-3 years) showed that the fish assemblage remained similar at five of six connectivity-restored sites and two control sites, but at one connectivity-restored headwater site previously inhabited by trout only, three native non-salmonid species colonised. We conclude that stream habitat reconnection should support free movement of a wide range of species and life stages, wherever retention of such obstacles is not needed to manage non-native invasive species. Evaluation of the effectiveness of fish community restoration in degraded streams benefits from a similarly holistic approach.

show abstract

“…Moreover, if done well, such engagement beyond disciplinary silos can contribute to increasing scientific literacy of the general public (Eagleman, 2013). I experienced this first-hand through a collaborative project that linked principles of connectivity (from my own discipline of landscape ecology) to concepts of fish movement (from aquatic ecology) to solve real-world problems of evaluating stream integrity and informing culvert replacement schedules in a national park (Bourne, Kehler, Wiersma, & Cote, 2011;Cote, Kehler, Bourne, & Wiersma, 2009;Mahlum, Cote, Wiersma, Kehler, & Clarke, 2013). In this project, our team's work influenced both policy (reporting on ecological conditions) and management (decisions on where to spend money on culvert restoration).…”

Section: So Why Conduct Interdisciplinary (And "Applied") Research?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Kind of Scientist Are You? Science and Interdisciplinary Research

Wiersma

2013

SRC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research that crosses disciplinary boundaries (“interdisciplinary research”) – and in particular, research that crosses academic boundaries to engage with industry, government and non-government agencies, and the broader public – can be rewarding personally and yield novel approaches and findings. While the scholarly literature suggests that interdisciplinary approaches are of immense value, interdisciplinary research carries challenges to academics, particularly in terms of funding and in relation to finding an academic “home.” In this article, the author outlines what is meant by interdisciplinary research and reflects on her career leading from graduate school to tenure. She illustrates how the interdisciplinary projects she has been involved in have been both rewarding and challenging. While not every scientist must be interdisciplinary, she concludes that being open to such an approach has many advantages.La recherche scientifique qui dépasse les frontières disciplinaires (la recherche « interdisciplinaire ») —et, particulièrement, celle qui dépasse les frontières académiques pour s’engager avec l’industrie, les agences gouvernementales et nongouvernementales et le public—peuvent être personnellement enrichissantes et engendrer de nouvelles approches et résultats. Même si la littérature académique indique que les approches interdisciplinaires ont beaucoup de mérite, la recherche interdisciplinaire pose des défis aux universitaires, notamment par rapport à l’obtention de subventions et la possibilité de trouver un chez-soi académique. Dans cet article, l’auteure décrit ce que l’on entend par recherche interdisciplinaire et réfléchit sur son propre parcours, des études supérieures à la titularisation. Elle montre ainsi comment les projets interdisciplinaires auxquels elle a participé ont été à la fois enrichissants et stimulants pour elle. Elle conclut que, bien que chaque savant ne doive pas être interdisciplinaire, être ouvert à une telle approche a plusieurs avantages.

show abstract

Barriers to fish passage and barriers to fish passage assessments: the impact of assessment methods and assumptions on barrier identification and quantification of watershed connectivity

Cited by 73 publications

References 36 publications

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

Evaluating the effectiveness of restoring longitudinal connectivity for stream fish communities: towards a more holistic approach

What Kind of Scientist Are You? Science and Interdisciplinary Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About