Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 816, Issue 1, pp 153–163 | Cite as

Effectiveness of a multi-slot vertical slot fishway versus a standard vertical slot fishway for potamodromous cyprinids

  • Filipe Romão
  • Paulo Branco
  • Ana L. Quaresma
  • Susana D. Amaral
  • António N. Pinheiro
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

Developing and testing new fishway designs is important to improve these facilities. Discharge-efficient passage systems are required in Mediterranean regions and other areas with dry climates. The present study compares the passage performance of the Iberian barbel, Luciobarbus bocagei (Steindachner, 1864), a potamodromous cyprinid, negotiating two different types of vertical slot fishways (VSF): a standard VSF and a multi-slot VSF (MSF). Results show that differences exist between configurations in the number of fish movements through the first slot. The I. barbel performed a significantly higher number of movements in the MSF. However, no differences were found in the entrance time and entry efficiency. The performance was similar between configurations in terms of successes, suggesting that both fishways could be used to restore longitudinal connectivity. Nevertheless, the MSF is a more discharge-efficient configuration, since it requires 31% less water to operate for the same water depth in the pools. Consequently, the velocity and turbulence have lower magnitudes which generally favour the negotiation by smaller individuals. Since it is a more discharge-efficient and cost-efficient configuration, future studies should focus on the passage performance of smaller species to determine if MSF is a useful solution for the whole fish community.

Keywords

Multi-slot fishway Vertical slot fishway Cyprinids Discharge-efficient configuration Turbulence Velocity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank José Maria Santos, Mario Eckert, Daniel S. Hayes and all the staff of the National Laboratory for Civil Engineering (LNEC) for all the help during the fish experiments. Filipe Romão (PD/BD/52512/2014), Ana L. Quaresma (SFRH/BD/87843/2012) and Susana D. Amaral (SFRH/BD/110562/2015) were supported by PhD grants and Paulo Branco (SFRH/BPD/94686/2013) was funded by a post-doctoral grant, all, from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT). CEF is a research unit funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia I.P. (FCT), Portugal (UID/AGR/00239/2013). We also thank the Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests (ICNF) which provided the necessary fishing and handling permits.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All relevant international, national, and/or institutional procedures for the care and use of animals were proceeded. Fish trials and sampling were supervised in agreement with national and international guidelines to maintain the welfare of the tested animals. Fish samplings were obtained from the Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests (ICNF). Fish experiments were carried out with strict agreement with the guidelines of the “protection of animal use for experimental and scientific work” of the Department for Health and Animal Protection (Direcção de Serviços de Saúde e Protecção Animal) that authorized animal experiments to be completed in the experimental facility, and fish to be held in the laboratory. All efforts were made to minimize stress and no fish were killed during the experiments.

References

  1. Alexandre, C. M., B. R. Quintella, A. F. Ferreira, F. A. Romão & P. R. Almeida, 2014. Swimming performance and ecomorphology of the Iberian barbel Luciobarbus bocagei (Steindachner, 1864) on permanent and temporary rivers. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 23(2): 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. J. & J. Robinson, 2001. Permutation tests for linear models. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics 43(1): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. R., N. Gorley, & R. K. Clarke, 2008. Permanova + for Primer: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods.Google Scholar
  4. Beamish, F. W. H., 1978. Swimming capacity. In Hoar, W. S. & D. J. Randall (eds.), Fish Physiology, Vol. 7. Academic Press, New York: 101–187.Google Scholar
  5. Bednarek, A. T., 2001. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management 27(6): 803–814.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Branco, P., P. Segurado, J. M. Santos, P. Pinheiro & M. T. Ferreira, 2012. Does longitudinal connectivity loss affect the distribution of freshwater fish? Ecological Engineering 48: 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branco, P. J., J. M. Santos, C. Katopodis, A. N. Pinheiro & M. T. Ferreira, 2013a. Pool-type fishways: two different morpho-ecological cyprinid species facing plunging and streaming flows. PLoS ONE 8(5): e65089.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Branco, P. J., J. M. Santos, C. Katopodis, A. N. Pinheiro & M. T. Ferreira, 2013b. Effect of flow regime hydraulics on passage performance of Iberian chub (Squalius pyrenaicus) (Gunther, 1868) in an experimental pool-and-weir fishway. Hydrobiologia 714(1): 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Branco, P., J. M. Santos, S. Amaral, F. Romao, A. N. Pinheiro & M. T. Ferreira, 2016. Potamodromous fish movements under multiple stressors: connectivity reduction and oxygen depletion. Science of the Total Environment 572: 520–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunt, C. M., T. Castro-Santos & A. Haro, 2012. Performance of fish passage structures at upstream barriers to migration. River Research and Applications 28(4): 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunt, C. M., T. Castro-Santos & A. Haro, 2016. Reinforcement and validation of the analyses and conclusions related to fishway evaluation data from bunt et al. Performance of fish passage structures at upstream barriers to migration. River Research and Applications 32(10): 2125–2137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calles, O. & L. Greenberg, 2009. Connectivity is a two-way street—the need for a holistic approach to fish passage problems in regulated rivers. River Research and Applications 25(10): 1268–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castro-Santos, T., F. J. Sanz-Ronda & J. Ruiz-Legazpi, 2013. Breaking the speed limit—comparative sprinting performance of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70(2): 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clay, C. H., 1995. Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  15. Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Lévêque & C. A. Sullivan, 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81(2): 163–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. DVWK FAO, 2002. Fish Passes: Design, Dimensions, and Monitoring.Google Scholar
  17. Enders, E. C., D. Boisclair & A. G. Roy, 2003. The effect of turbulence on the cost of swimming for juveniles of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60(9): 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327: 1–72.Google Scholar
  19. Farrell, A. P., 2011. Encyclopedia of Fish Physiology: From Genome to Environment. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  20. Feurich, R., J. Boubée & N. R. B. Olsen, 2012. Improvement of fish passage in culverts using CFD. Ecological Engineering 47: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuentes-Pérez, J. F., A. T. Silva, J. A. Tuhtan, A. García-Vega, R. Carbonell-Baeza, M. Musall & M. Kruusmaa, 2018. 3D modelling of non-uniform and turbulent flow in vertical slot fishways. Environmental Modelling & Software 99: 156–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammer, C., 1995. Fatigue and exercise tests with fish. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 112(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katopodis, C., 2005. Developing a toolkit for fish passage, ecological flow management and fish habitat works. Journal of Hydraulic Research 43(5): 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katopodis, C. & J. G. Williams, 2012. The development of fish passage research in a historical context. Ecological Engineering 48: 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katopodis, C., J. A. Kells & M. Acharya, 2001. Nature-like and conventional fishways: alternative concepts? Canadian Water Resources Journal 26(2): 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, S., K. Yu, B. Yoon & Y. Lim, 2012. A numerical study on hydraulic characteristics in the ice Harbor-type fishway. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 16(2): 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolden, E., B. D. Fox, B. P. Bledsoe & M. C. Kondratieff, 2016. Modelling whitewater park hydraulics and fish habitat in Colorado. River Research and Applications 32(5): 1116–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kottelat, M., & J. Freyhof, 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat.Google Scholar
  29. Larinier, M., 2002. Pool fishways, pre-barrages and natural bypass channels. BFPP-Connaissance et Gestion du Patrimoine Aquatique 364: 54–82.Google Scholar
  30. Liao, J. C., 2007. A review of fish swimming mechanics and behaviour in altered flows. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 362(1487): 1973–1993.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu, M., N. Rajaratnam & D. Z. Zhu, 2006. Mean flow and turbulence structure in vertical slot fishways. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 132(8): 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Link, O., C. Sanhueza, P. Arriagada, W. Brevis, A. Laborde, A. González & E. Habit, 2017. The fish Strouhal number as a criterion for hydraulic fishway design. Ecological Engineering 103: 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucas, M. C. & E. Baras, 2001. Migration of Freshwater Fishes. Blackwell Science Ltd, Durham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lupandin, A. I., 2005. Effect of flow turbulence on swimming speed of fish. Biology Bulletin 32: 461–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mader H., J. Kern, & M. Schober, 2012. Enature® multistructure slot fishpass—functioning analyses for “Hucho hucho” and “Silarus glanis”. Published in the 9th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics 2012 Proceedings. Edited by Helmut Mader & Julia Kraml.Google Scholar
  36. Mallen-Cooper, M. & D. A. Brand, 2007. Non-salmonids in a salmonid fishway: what do 50 years of data tell us about past and future fish passage? Fisheries Management and Ecology 14(5): 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mallen-Cooper, M., B. Zampatti, I. Stuart, & L. Baumgartner, 2008. Innovative fishways—manipulating turbulence in the vertical-slot design to improve performance and reduce cost. Murray-Darling Basin Commission.Google Scholar
  38. Mateus, C. S., B. R. Quintella & P. R. Almeida, 2008. The critical swimming speed of Iberian barbel Barbus bocagei in relation to size and sex. Journal of Fish Biololy 73: 1783–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moller, H., 2012. Hydropower Continues Steady Growth. Earth Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  40. Nooman, M. J., J. W. Grant & C. D. Jackson, 2012. A quantitative assessment of fishpassage efficiency. Fish and Fisheries 13: 450–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Odeh, M., J. F. Noreika, A. Haro, A. Maynard, & T. Castro-Santos, 2002. Evaluation of the effects of turbulence on the behavior of migratory fish. Final Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Contract 00000022, Project 200005700,Portland, Oregon: 46.Google Scholar
  42. Plaut, I., 2001. Critical swimming speed: its ecological relevance. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 131(1): 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pon, L. B., S. G. Hinch, C. D. Suski, D. A. Patterson & S. J. Cooke, 2012. The effectiveness of tissue biopsy as a means of assessing the physiological consequences of fishway passage. River Research and Applications 28(8): 1266–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Puertas, J., L. Cea, M. Bermúdez, L. Pena, Á. Rodríguez, J. Rabunal, L. Balairón, Á. Lara & E. Aramburu, 2012. Computer application for the analysis and design of vertical slot fishways in accordance with the requirements of the target species. Ecological Engineering 48: 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quaresma, A. L., R. M. L. Ferreira & A. N. Pinheiro, 2017. Comparative analysis of particle image velocimetry and acoustic Doppler velocimetry in relation to a pool-type fishway flow. Journal of Hydraulic Research 55(4): 582–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rajaratnam, N., G. Van der Vinne & C. Katopodis, 1986. Hydraulics of vertical slot fishways. Journal Hydraulic Engineering 112: 909–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rajaratman, N., C. Katopodis & S. Solanki, 1992. New designs for vertical slotfishways. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 19(3): 402–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Romão, F., A. L. Quaresma, P. Branco, J. M. Santos, S. Amaral, M. T. Ferreira, C. Katopodis & A. N. Pinheiro, 2017. Passage performance of two cyprinids with different ecological traits in a fishway with distinct vertical slot configurations. Ecological Engineering 108: 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodríguez, T. T., J. P. Agudo, L. P. Mosquera & E. P. González, 2006. Evaluating vertical-slot fishway designs in terms of fish swimming capabilities. Ecological Engineering 27: 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodriguez-Ruiz, A. & C. Granado-Lorencio, 1992. Spawning period and migration of three species of cyprinids in a stream with Mediterranean regimen (SW Spain). Journal of Fish Biology 41(4): 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roscoe, D. W. & S. G. Hinch, 2010. Effectiveness monitoring of fish passage facilities: historical trends, geographic patterns and future directions. Fish and Fisheries 11(1): 12–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santos, J. M., M. T. Ferreira, F. N. Godinho & J. Bochechas, 2005. Efficacy of a nature-like bypass channel in a Portuguese lowland river. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21(5): 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos, J. M., A. Silva, C. Katopodis, P. Pinheiro, A. Pinheiro, J. Bochechas & M. T. Ferreira, 2012. Ecohydraulics of pool-type fishways: getting past the barriers. Ecological Engineering 48: 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanz-Ronda, F. J., F. J. Bravo-Córdoba, J. F. Fuentes-Pérez & T. Castro-Santos, 2016. Ascent ability of brown trout, Salmo trutta, and two Iberian cyprinids—Iberian barbel, Luciobarbus bocagei, and northern straight-mouth nase, Pseudochondrostoma duriense—in a vertical slot fishway. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 417: 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silva, A. T., C. Katopodis, J. M. Santos, M. T. Ferreira & A. N. Pinheiro, 2012. Cyprinid swimming behaviour in response to turbulent flow. Ecological Engineering 44: 314–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Silva, A. T., C. Hatry, J. D. Thiem, L. F. Gutowsky, D. Hatin, D. Z. Zhu & S. J. Cooke, 2015. Behaviour and locomotor activity of a migratory catostomid during fishway passage. PloS ONE 10(4): e0123051.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Tauber, M. & H. Mader, 2009. Development of an Economical and Ecological Optimized Multi Slot Fish Pass. Small Hydro 2008. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  58. Tauber, M. & H. Mader, 2010. Hydraulic comparison of standard vertical slot and multi structure slot fish bypass. The first European IAHR Congress, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  59. Thiem, J. D., T. R. Binder, P. Dumont, D. Hatin, C. Hatry, C. Katopodis & S. J. Cooke, 2013. Multispecies fish passage behaviour in a vertical slot fishway on the Richelieu River, Quebec, Canada. River Research and Applications 29(5): 582–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walters, K. & L. D. Coen, 2006. A comparison of statistical approaches to analyzing community convergence between natural and constructed oyster reefs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang, R. W., L. David & M. Larinier, 2010. Contribution of experimental fluidmechanics to the design of vertical slot fish passes. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 396: 02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weber, J. M., K. Choi, A. Gonzalez & T. Omlin, 2016. Metabolic fuel kinetics in fish: swimming, hypoxia and muscle membranes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 219(2): 250–258.Google Scholar
  63. White, L. J., J. H. Harris & R. J. Keller, 2011. Movement of three non-salmonid fish species through a low-gradient vertical-slot fishway. River Research and Applications 27: 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams, J. G., G. Armstrong, C. Katopodis, M. Larinier & F. Travade, 2012. Thinking like a fish: a key ingredient for development of effective fish passage facilities at river obstructions. River Research and Applications 28(4): 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEris – Civil Engineering for Research and Innovation for Sustainability, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.CEF – Forest Research Centre, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations