Meta-analyses, metrics and motivation: mixed messages in the fish passage debate
Meta-analyses, metrics and motivation: mixed messages in the fish passage debate
Over recent years, there has been increasing challenge to the accepted wisdom that the environmental impacts of river engineering can be adequately mitigated through the installation of infrastructure, such as fish passes. This has led to a debate on the value of fish passage with some arguing that increased research and development will advance solutions for a variety of structures that are suitable for multiple species and transferable to different regions. Others suggest that policies and management strategies should reflect the realization that current mitigation technology frequently fails and can itself have negative impacts. Meta-analyses of the results of studies on fish passage effectiveness have led to the challenge of conventional views by highlighting lower than expected efficiencies, wide variation between and within fish pass designs, and bias towards consideration of a limited number of commercially important species mainly from northern temperate regions. Results of meta-analyses can also be controversial, and difficulties can arise when nuances associated with individual studies are lost and when metrics used are not standardized. Intrinsic variation in fish passage efficiency between and within species due to differences in patterns of movement and motivation may not be considered, and in many situations, current metrics are not appropriate. Quantification of variation in trends in fish passage efficiency over time and with spatial scale is lacking and should be the focus of future reviews. It is time to accept that fish passage does not provide a universally effective mitigation solution, particularly when designs and strategies are transferred to other regions and species for which they were not originally designed. Admitting to cases of failure is an essential first step to advancing water resources planning and regulation based on well-informed decision-making processes
2116-2124
Kemp, Paul
9e33fba6-cccf-4eb5-965b-b70e72b11cd7
7 December 2016
Kemp, Paul
9e33fba6-cccf-4eb5-965b-b70e72b11cd7
Kemp, Paul
(2016)
Meta-analyses, metrics and motivation: mixed messages in the fish passage debate.
River Research and Applications, 32 (10), .
(doi:10.1002/rra.3082).
Abstract
Over recent years, there has been increasing challenge to the accepted wisdom that the environmental impacts of river engineering can be adequately mitigated through the installation of infrastructure, such as fish passes. This has led to a debate on the value of fish passage with some arguing that increased research and development will advance solutions for a variety of structures that are suitable for multiple species and transferable to different regions. Others suggest that policies and management strategies should reflect the realization that current mitigation technology frequently fails and can itself have negative impacts. Meta-analyses of the results of studies on fish passage effectiveness have led to the challenge of conventional views by highlighting lower than expected efficiencies, wide variation between and within fish pass designs, and bias towards consideration of a limited number of commercially important species mainly from northern temperate regions. Results of meta-analyses can also be controversial, and difficulties can arise when nuances associated with individual studies are lost and when metrics used are not standardized. Intrinsic variation in fish passage efficiency between and within species due to differences in patterns of movement and motivation may not be considered, and in many situations, current metrics are not appropriate. Quantification of variation in trends in fish passage efficiency over time and with spatial scale is lacking and should be the focus of future reviews. It is time to accept that fish passage does not provide a universally effective mitigation solution, particularly when designs and strategies are transferred to other regions and species for which they were not originally designed. Admitting to cases of failure is an essential first step to advancing water resources planning and regulation based on well-informed decision-making processes
Text
__soton.ac.uk_ude_personalfiles_users_pk2_mydesktop_Bunt vs Williams_Kemp RRA accepted version.pdf
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 17 August 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 2 October 2016
Published date: 7 December 2016
Organisations:
Water & Environmental Engineering Group
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 400889
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/400889
ISSN: 1535-1459
PURE UUID: 7b0c15b0-b8be-49ff-a13e-00ac9b911930
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 29 Sep 2016 10:35
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 05:55
Export record
Altmetrics
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.
Loading...
View more statistics