The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Impact of tide gates on the upstream movement of adult brown trout, Salmo trutta

Impact of tide gates on the upstream movement of adult brown trout, Salmo trutta
Impact of tide gates on the upstream movement of adult brown trout, Salmo trutta
Tide gates, used to regulate tidal flow as part of land reclamation programmes, temporally block fish movement by closing during the flood tide. Their impact on the upstream movement of brown trout, Salmo trutta, and other fish species has received little consideration. The River Stiffkey, UK, discharges into the North Sea via three top-hung tide gates, one counterbalanced (Gate 1), and two not (collectively referred to as Gate 2). Three-hundred adult trout were caught between 0.5 and 6.0 km upstream from the gates on 20 separate days between July and December 2011 (n = 15 per day) and implanted with 23 mm half-duplex Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags before being released 15 m downstream from Gate 1 where PIT antennas were located on either side. Overall, gate attraction (percentage of fish released that were detected by at least one antenna) and passage efficiencies (number of fish that passed Gate 1 reported as a proportion of those that approached) were 96.7% and 92.4%, respectively. The operation of an orifice, installed to improve connectivity for adult trout and juvenile eels, did not influence passage efficiency or delay. Of the fish that passed Gate 1 when the orifice was operational, 42.6–55.7% approached the orifice entrance and 70.6–92.3% of these passed through. Individuals that passed through the orifice were larger than those that did not. Movement past the tide gates (median duration = 6.04 h) took 6 times longer than passage through two unimpeded reaches upstream. Duration of passage through the gates was predominately related to the mean angle of gate opening during the time prior to passage, followed by water temperature. Overall, a counterbalanced top-hung tide gate delayed the upstream movement of brown trout, highlighting a need to assess and potentially mitigate the impact of gates with more restrictive opening apertures and durations.
0925-8574
495-505
Wright, G.V
98c6aa2b-d857-4fb7-89db-76bd6af182cb
Wright, R.M.
3a09b49d-87d1-4b85-9063-d1093de9a3b1
Bendall, B.
4da5a766-31b2-425f-978a-a8a91a2e6474
Kemp, P.S.
9e33fba6-cccf-4eb5-965b-b70e72b11cd7
Wright, G.V
98c6aa2b-d857-4fb7-89db-76bd6af182cb
Wright, R.M.
3a09b49d-87d1-4b85-9063-d1093de9a3b1
Bendall, B.
4da5a766-31b2-425f-978a-a8a91a2e6474
Kemp, P.S.
9e33fba6-cccf-4eb5-965b-b70e72b11cd7

Wright, G.V, Wright, R.M., Bendall, B. and Kemp, P.S. (2016) Impact of tide gates on the upstream movement of adult brown trout, Salmo trutta. Ecological Engineering, 91, 495-505. (doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.02.040).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Tide gates, used to regulate tidal flow as part of land reclamation programmes, temporally block fish movement by closing during the flood tide. Their impact on the upstream movement of brown trout, Salmo trutta, and other fish species has received little consideration. The River Stiffkey, UK, discharges into the North Sea via three top-hung tide gates, one counterbalanced (Gate 1), and two not (collectively referred to as Gate 2). Three-hundred adult trout were caught between 0.5 and 6.0 km upstream from the gates on 20 separate days between July and December 2011 (n = 15 per day) and implanted with 23 mm half-duplex Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags before being released 15 m downstream from Gate 1 where PIT antennas were located on either side. Overall, gate attraction (percentage of fish released that were detected by at least one antenna) and passage efficiencies (number of fish that passed Gate 1 reported as a proportion of those that approached) were 96.7% and 92.4%, respectively. The operation of an orifice, installed to improve connectivity for adult trout and juvenile eels, did not influence passage efficiency or delay. Of the fish that passed Gate 1 when the orifice was operational, 42.6–55.7% approached the orifice entrance and 70.6–92.3% of these passed through. Individuals that passed through the orifice were larger than those that did not. Movement past the tide gates (median duration = 6.04 h) took 6 times longer than passage through two unimpeded reaches upstream. Duration of passage through the gates was predominately related to the mean angle of gate opening during the time prior to passage, followed by water temperature. Overall, a counterbalanced top-hung tide gate delayed the upstream movement of brown trout, highlighting a need to assess and potentially mitigate the impact of gates with more restrictive opening apertures and durations.

Text
__soton.ac.uk_ude_personalfiles_users_pk2_mydesktop_Final Manuscript ECOLENG-D-15-00882.docx - Accepted Manuscript
Download (961kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 27 February 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 21 March 2016
Published date: June 2016
Organisations: Water & Environmental Engineering Group

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 395329
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/395329
ISSN: 0925-8574
PURE UUID: d93a03d8-45df-4043-9815-005b971ebe8f
ORCID for P.S. Kemp: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-0589

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 May 2016 10:12
Last modified: 19 Nov 2019 06:46

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: G.V Wright
Author: R.M. Wright
Author: B. Bendall
Author: P.S. Kemp ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×