Environmental flows all at sea? Charting a new course through choppy waters

Kemp, Paul S.; Katopodis, C

doi:10.1080/24705357.2017.1383684

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This prompted comments from Beecher (2017) and Stalnaker et al (2017) and a corresponding response from Railsback (2017). Kemp and Katopodis (2017) also provided comments noting the timeliness of the Railsback (2017) paper and promoting further dialogue on the subject. We read all three comments and the author's response to the first two, and as active instream flow practitioners and independent reviewers of the original Railsback (2016) article, we felt there was more to be said.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Practitioner's Perspective on the Continuing Technical Merits of PHABSIM

Reiser¹,

Hilgert²

2018

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Practitioner's Perspective on the Continuing Technical Merits of PHABSIM

Reiser¹,

Hilgert²

2018

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This prompted comments from Beecher ( 2017 ) and Stalnaker et al ( 2017 ) and a corresponding response from Railsback ( 2017 ). Kemp and Katopodis ( 2017 ) also provided comments noting the timeliness of the Railsback ( 2017 ) paper and promoting further dialogue on the subject. We read all three comments and the author ' s response to the fi rst two, and as active instream fl ow practitioners and independent reviewers of the original Railsback ( 2016 ) article, we felt there was more to be said.…”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fisheries Volume 43 Number 6 June 2018

2018

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For physical habitat models, habitat is usually described by water depth, flow velocity, substrate and cover based on results of hydrodynamic modelling for different discharges and surveyed spatial information on morphology, in most cases, subreach scale (i.e. <1 km of river) (Conallin et al., 2010; Kemp & Katopodis, 2017; Wegscheider et al., 2020). As a result, the suitability of river model elements can be derived by the use of habitat preferences defined via microhabitat assessment, literature data or/and expert knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, practitioners have modelled fish habitat in streams and rivers using a suite of physical habitat modelling software, but their use has come under more scrutiny in recent years (Kemp & Katopodis, 2017; Railsback, 2016; Reiser & Hilgert, 2018). For physical habitat models, habitat is usually described by water depth, flow velocity, substrate and cover based on results of hydrodynamic modelling for different discharges and surveyed spatial information on morphology, in most cases, subreach scale (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A habitat connectivity reality check for fish physical habitat model results and decision‐making for river restoration

Hansen,

Schneider,

Hägele

2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish physical habitat models are a tool for guiding restoration efforts in lotic ecosystems, but often they overestimate restoration outcomes because currently they do not incorporate habitat connectivity. This persistent issue can, in extreme cases, result in little or no improvement to fish populations after the restoration, wasting valuable conservation resources. We present a case study where practitioners applied a fish habitat model for multiple life stages of gravel spawning fishes to a 52‐km stretch of the Iller River but did so at a microscale implementation by setting up a model based on cross sections with a maximum of 200 m distance from each other. This approach provided an opportunity to assess the connectivity of habitats for gravel spawning fishes, that is, European Grayling (Thymallus thymallus) and Common Nase (Chondrostoma nasus), integrating probabilities to find suitable habitats for all life‐history stages and seasonal movements. We used the assessed habitat estimates (availability of distinct habitat types within reaches defined by the 200 m cross sections) to calculate the minimum distance a fish would need to overcome to change from one habitat type into the other as it hypothetically ‘grew up’ from egg to full spawning adult. This approach can be interpreted as a life cycle habitat check as it considers all habitat types that are necessary to fulfil the life cycle of gravel spawning fishes including their size, distance and flow direction‐related orientation (e.g. larvae habitats only used when downstream of spawning areas). Our results show that the assumption of complete connectivity would require long movement distances for vulnerable life stages to find suitable habitat. This puts the high priority on the creation of migration corridors and passability of migration barriers in question. Without consideration of habitat types for all life stages of a species and their spatial context, restoration will not be successful. Shortly said: A perfect migration corridor does not necessarily provide habitat connectivity. We recommend the application of the habitat connectivity approach when predicting the effect of restoration measures and particularly setting the priority of measures for mitigation of fish migration.

show abstract

Environmental flows all at sea? Charting a new course through choppy waters

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

A Practitioner's Perspective on the Continuing Technical Merits of PHABSIM

A Practitioner's Perspective on the Continuing Technical Merits of PHABSIM

Fisheries Volume 43 Number 6 June 2018

A habitat connectivity reality check for fish physical habitat model results and decision‐making for river restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About