Effectiveness of a strobe light eel exclusion scheme

Patrick, Paul H.; Sheehan, R W; Sim, Bo-Ram

doi:10.1007/bf00016408

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chinook salmon exhibited an attraction to dim mercury light but coho salmon did not. These results were not unlike most fish guidance studies, which showed repulsion by strobe light (Fields and Finger 1956;Patrick 1982Patrick , 1983Patrick et al 1982Patrick et al , 1985Sager el al. 1987) and attraction to dim mercury lights (Wickham 1973).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response of Juvenile Coho and Chinook Salmon to Strobe and Mercury Vapor Lights

Nemeth

Anderson

1992

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species‐specific responses to flashing (strobe) and nonflashing (mercury vapor) lights were monitored in hatchery‐reared juveniles of coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch and chinook salmon O. tshawytscha. Fish behaviors were characterized as attraction and avoidance responses, and as active, passive, and hiding behaviors. We investigated how basic fish behavior and activity changed when fish held under a variety of ambient light conditions were exposed to strobe and mercury light. Implications of how these behaviors may influence migrating smolts at a fish bypass system were discussed. Both chinook and coho salmon avoided strobe and full‐intensity mercury light, but chinook salmon exhibited an attraction to dim mercury light. Coho and chinook salmon showed different behavior patterns under most conditions when exposed to strobe and mercury light: coho salmon hid 47% of the time, whereas chinook salmon swam actively 74% of the time. The greatest change produced by either of the stimulus lights was at night when both species normally were passive; exposure to mercury light at nighttime increased fish activity by 90%. Both species also showed similarities in their levels of excitability (e.g., sudden or explosive movements in otherwise sedentary behaviors). The results of this study showed that the behaviors were reproducible: more than 80% of the fish exhibited the same behavior during specific environmental conditions, and sudden and infrequent behaviors were strongly associated with these behavior categories. The behaviors observed in our experimental environment may give insight as to how changes in light relate to fish behavior in bypass systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the patterns are complex, several trends have emerged. Generally fish are repelled by strobe lights (Patrick 1982(Patrick , 1983Patrick et al 1982Patrick et al , 1985Sageret al 1987), whereas fish may exhibit a mixture of attraction and repulsion behavior to steady lighting (Wickham 1973;Taft et al 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of Juvenile Coho and Chinook Salmon to Strobe and Mercury Vapor Lights

Nemeth

Anderson

1992

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As silver eels follow the main flow (Jansen et al., ), the orientation of the water intake with respect to the main channel influences the probability of turbine passage (Bau et al., ). Different types of barriers have been proposed to divert eels from turbine passage, such as fish‐friendly trashracks (Raynal, Chatellier, Courret, Larinier, & David, ; Raynal, Courret, Chatellier, Larinier, & David, ), flow field manipulation (Piper et al., ), light (Hadderingh, Van Der Stoep, & Hagraken, ; Patrick, Sheehan, & Sim, ) and infrasound barriers (Sand, Enger, Karlsen, Knudsen, & Kvernstuen, ; Sand et al., ). The installation of bypasses is also a mitigation measure to prevent passages through turbines (Durif et al., ; Gosset et al., ; Haro, Watten, & Noreika, ). Environmental conditions: In a period of low discharge, when the flow through the turbine is high compared to the flow over weir, more eels will pass through the turbines than at high discharge, when the turbine flow is small compared to the weir flow. Obstacle location within the catchment: As eels are not uniformly distributed within a river catchment (Ibbotson, Smith, Scarlett, & Aprhamian, ), the number of eels impacted by a given facility depends on the number of eels that settle upstream the facility.…”

Section: Component 3—fragmentation and Habitat Loss: Fragmentation Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

Freshwater eels: A symbol of the effects of global change

Drouineau

Durif

Castonguay³

et al. 2018

Fish and Fisheries

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temperate eels Anguilla anguilla (European eel), A. rostrata (American eel) and A. japonica (Japanese eel) are three catadromous species which have been declining since the 1970s/1980s despite their remarkable adaptive capacity. Because of their specific life cycles, which share distant oceanic spawning grounds and continental growth stage, eels are affected by five components of the global change: (a) climate change affecting larval survival and drift, (b) an increase in pollution leading to high levels of contamination exacerbated by their high lipid levels, (c) increasing fragmentation and habitat loss that reduce dramatically the amount of available habitats and induce increased spawner mortality, (d) the appearance of Anguillicola crassus a parasitic alien nematode that impairs spawning success, and (e) the impact of commercial and recreational fisheries for all life stages of eel. In this context, the rapid increases of pressures during the “Great Acceleration” have surpassed the adaptive capacity of eels. This illustrates that cumulative effects of global change can lead to the collapse of species, even in species that have amazingly high adaptive capacities.

show abstract

“…Pulsed lighting has regularly been found to act as a repellent to organisms, with limited evidence for adaptive responses (e.g. Hamel, Brown, & Chipps, 2008;Linhart, 1984;Nemeth & Anderson, 1992;Patrick, Sheehan, & Sim, 1982;Sullivan et al, 2016), and to be less of an attractant than continuous lighting (Gehring, Kerlinger, & Manville, 2009). Areas experiencing pulsed lighting may thus as a consequence be avoided and may contribute to the fragmentation of habitats.…”

Section: Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature, extent and ecological implications of night‐time light from road vehicles

Gaston

Holt

2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The erosion of night‐time by the introduction of artificial lighting constitutes a profound pressure on the natural environment. It has altered what had for millennia been reliable signals from natural light cycles used for regulating a host of biological processes, with impacts ranging from changes in gene expression to ecosystem processes.Studies of these impacts have focused almost exclusively on those resulting from stationary sources of light emissions, and particularly streetlights. However, mobile sources, especially road vehicle headlights, contribute substantial additional emissions.The ecological impacts of light emissions from vehicle headlights are likely to be especially high because these are (1) focused so as to light roadsides at higher intensities than commonly experienced from other sources, and well above activation thresholds for many biological processes; (2) projected largely in a horizontal plane and thus can carry over long distances; (3) introduced into much larger areas of the landscape than experience street lighting; (4) typically broad “white” spectrum, which substantially overlaps the action spectra of many biological processes and (5) often experienced at roadsides as series of pulses of light (produced by passage of vehicles), a dynamic known to have major biological impacts.The ecological impacts of road vehicle headlights will markedly increase with projected global growth in numbers of vehicles and the road network, increasing the local severity of emissions (because vehicle numbers are increasing faster than growth in the road network) and introducing emissions into areas from which they were previously absent. The effects will be further exacerbated by technological developments that are increasing the intensity of headlight emissions and the amounts of blue light in emission spectra. Synthesis and applications. Emissions from vehicle headlights need to be considered as a major, and growing, source of ecological impacts of artificial night‐time lighting. It will be a significant challenge to minimise these impacts whilst balancing drivers' needs at night and avoiding risk and discomfort for other road users. Nonetheless, there is potential to identify solutions to these conflicts, both through the design of headlights and that of roads.

show abstract

Effectiveness of a strobe light eel exclusion scheme

Cited by 21 publications

References 3 publications

Response of Juvenile Coho and Chinook Salmon to Strobe and Mercury Vapor Lights

Response of Juvenile Coho and Chinook Salmon to Strobe and Mercury Vapor Lights

Freshwater eels: A symbol of the effects of global change

Nature, extent and ecological implications of night‐time light from road vehicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About