Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
3rd Regional Stakeholder Workshop
Stockholm, Sweden, 04.06.2018
Ruben van Treeck
Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries
FIThydro activities related to non-
salmonid species
• To compile overview of existing data and literature
- on river fish population ecology
- on response of fish to fragmentation and hydropower
• To perform meta-analyses on fish response to hydropower
development at different temporal and spatial scales
• To identify species most at risk
• To develop a European Fish Population Hazard Index for
hydropower planning & environmental impact assessment
• To assess the cumulative impact of consecutive
hydropower plants in rivers
WP1: ObjectivesWP1: Fish population development in
hydropower-affected environments
WP1: Concept
Species hazard
Biological sensitivity
Type-specific
mortality risk
HP-specific
mortality risk
Site /constellation
-specific mortality risk
Fish population hazard index
Cumulative Impact analysis tool
European guidance for impact assessment for hydropower projects
Task 1.1 Task 1.2
Task 1.3
Task 1.4
WP1: Task 1 – Species’ biological sensitivity
Relevant metrics and life history traits
• Natural mortality adults – empirical rates, M calculated
• Maximum age – reported
• Age at first maturity – reported
• Maximum length – reported
• Parental care
• Egg numbers – reported
• Recruitment – recruits per year / generation time
• Recruitment – survival rate egg to juvenile
• Migration type
• Home range / movement range (calculated from maximum length)
The top 40 most sensitive taxaSpecies Score rounded Class
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii 5.58 6.00 5
Barbus barbus 5.58 6.00 5
Acipenser baeri 5.58 6.00 5
Acipenser nudiventris 5.42 5.00 4
Luciobarbus bocagei 5.42 5.00 4
Salmo obtusirostris 5.33 5.00 4
Polyodon spathula 5.25 5.00 4
Acipenser stellatus 5.25 5.00 4
Salvelinus fontinalis 5.25 5.00 4
Huso huso 5.17 5.00 4
Acipenser sturio 5.17 5.00 4
Acipenser oxyrinchus 5.17 5.00 4
Platichthys flesus 5.17 5.00 4
Luciobarbus sclateri 5.08 5.00 4
Acipenser ruthenus 5.08 5.00 4
Leuciscus idus 5.08 5.00 4
Luciobarbus comizo 5.08 5.00 4
Acipenser naccarii 5.00 5.00 4
Hucho hucho 5.00 5.00 4
Anguilla anguilla 5.00 5.00 4
Species Score rounded Class
Chondrostoma nasus 4.92 5.00 4
Coregonus maraena 4.92 5.00 4
Salmo salar 4.92 5.00 4
Salmo trutta 4.83 5.00 4
Petromyzon marinus 4.75 5.00 4
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 4.75 5.00 4
Barbus plebejus 4.75 5.00 4
Squalius tenellus 4.75 5.00 4
Pseudochondrostoma polylepis 4.75 5.00 4
Thymallus thymallus 4.75 5.00 4
Squalius cephalus 4.75 5.00 4
Esox lucius 4.67 5.00 4
Lampetra fluviatilis 4.67 5.00 4
Mylopharyngodon piceus 4.58 5.00 4
Alburnus chalcoides 4.58 5.00 4
Pseudochondrostoma duriense 4.58 5.00 4
Rutilus frisii 4.58 5.00 4
Squalius zrmanjae 4.55 5.00 4
Lampetra planeri 4.52 5.00 4
Dicentrarchus labrax 4.50 5.00 4
…of which at least 13 potentially occur in Scandinavian waters
WP1: Task 1 – Species’ biological sensitivity
Conservation value very lowvery high
very low
Bio
logi
cal s
en
siti
vity
Second axis accounts for non-biological aspects & provides higher resolution
WP1: Task 2 – Type-specific mortality
• 101 investigations (37 German and European studies)
• 42 species
• 643 data sets (species * investigation)
• 21 species with ≥5 studies with >10 specimens
• Mortality rate per species * site
Empirically observed turbine mortality
WP1: Task 3 – Site-specific mortality / efficient
mitigation
Efficient methods / devices to
lower mortality rates
WP1: Challenges – effects on fish population
Species hazard
Biological sensitivity
Type-specific
mortality risk
Fish population hazard index
How to translate individual mortality /
mitigation to population effects?
HP-specific
mortality risk
Site /constellation-
specific mortality risk
WP1: Challenges – effects on fish population Acipenser baeri
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii
Barbus barbusAcipenser nudiventrisLuciobarbus bocageiSalmo obtusirostrisAcipenser stellatusSalvelinus fontinalisAcipenser oxyrinchusAcipenser sturioHuso husoAcipenser ruthenusLuciobarbus comizoLuciobarbus sclateriPolyodon spathulaAcipenser naccariiPlatichthys flesusChondrostoma nasusCoregonus maraenaLeuciscus idusHucho huchoBarbus plebejusPetromyzon marinusPseudochondrostoma polylepisSalmo salarSqualius tenellusLampetra fluviatilisSalmo truttaAlburnus chalcoidesSqualius cephalusThymallus thymallusAnguilla anguillaEsox lucius
hig
he
st
sen
siti
vity
hig
h s
en
siti
vity
In bold:Gravel spawner
lithophils
WP1: Challenges – compensation
Habitat improvement
• Eggs / larvae recruitment per m² habitat provided?
• Effective number of spawners needed?
• Survival rates?
• How much habitat has to be provided to compensate losses from HP operation?
Barbus barbus
Common barbel
Migration type Potamodromous
Sensitvity Very high
Age at maturity [years] 3 – 5
Fecundity [eggs/female] ~8500k
Water depth spawningground [cm] 20 – 40
Current speed spawninghabitat [m/s] 0.1 – 1
Egg density [eggs/m²] ~550
Hatching rate [%] ~54
Traits and metrics – an example
• Spawns in freshwater; „it’s our business“
• Sensitive towards anthropogenic influence
• Takes up to 5 years to start reproducing
𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑒
𝑚2 ∗ 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒=𝑒𝑔𝑔𝑠
𝑚2 ∗ ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
"𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙"
𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒=𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑒𝑔𝑔𝑠𝑚2
550 * 0.54 = 297 larvae
8500 / 550 = 15.4 m²
What can one female specimen do?
Does not account for further, extreme mortalities within the 1st year