+
O'Farrell, M., Burger, C., Crump, R., & Smith, K. (2013)
Blocking or guiding upstream-migrating fish: A commentary on the success of the graduated field electric fish barrier
Title: Blocking or guiding upstream-migrating fish: A commentary on the success of the graduated field electric fish barrier
Authors: O'Farrell, M., Burger, C., Crump, R., & Smith, K.
Journal: WIT Transactions on the State of the Art in Science and Engineering
Year: 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2495/978-1-84564-849-7/014
Species or groups: Sea lamprey, Bighead carp, Silver carp, Grass carp, Common carp, Bigmouth buffalo
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/829
Abstract: Fisheries managers have been interested in the control of fish movement for a
variety of reasons and for a considerable period of time. The most common
reasons are the containment of invasive species and the protection of all or
selected fish species at industrial installations such as hydroelectric stations and
the cooling water systems of thermal power stations. The use of electricity has
proven to be most popular in the prevention of upstream passage at hydropower
tailrace sites and also at river and canal sites selected as the last line of defence
against the spread of invasive species. At other locations electric barriers are
deployed to block and guide upstream migrants towards census facilities. In the
past the reliability and operational safety of electric fish barriers has been an
issue but these concerns have been overcome by advances in fisheries
technology associated with the demands of large installations. A significant
number of graduated field electric fish barriers have been installed in the USA
and other parts of Europe where electrode arrays are deployed on or in the river
bed. They present upstream migrants with higher voltage gradients as fish
progress into the field, eventually causing their downstream drift to safety. This
paper reviews the performance of several electric fish barriers in the USA and
Europe. Monitoring has shown that the graduated field fish barrier is effective in
preventing upstream migration past the barrier location.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Krieg, R., & Zenker, A. (2020)
A review of the use of physical barriers to stop the spread of non-indigenous crayfish species
Title: A review of the use of physical barriers to stop the spread of non-indigenous crayfish species
Authors: Krieg, R., & Zenker, A.
Journal: Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries
Year: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09606-y(0123456789().,-volV() 0123458697().,-volV)
Species or groups: White-clawed crayfish
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1037
Abstract: Invasive non-indigenous crayfish species
(NICS) are a global threat to local flora and fauna.
Total eradication of an entire population of invasive
NICS is a difficult task; several methods have been
tested and are still being used, with varying success.
Most methods reduce population size and control the
species within the targeted area but do not majorly
prevent further spread of NICS. However, construction
of crayfish barriers can stop the spread of NICS
and can therefore, be used to protect indigenous
crayfish species (ICS). There are currently very few
published scientific papers about this topic. This
review reflects current knowledge on how to stop
migration when NICS are established and provides
useful information for the construction of barriers. The
most important findings related to building a crayfish
barrier are: the need for a vertical wall with an
overhanging lip above the water surface; smooth
sections to prevent crayfish from walking or climbing
over the obstacle, combined with flow velocities of
0.65 m/s act as a barrier within the waterbody.
Additionally, modifications to existing structures,
bridges, culverts and dams reduce costs and increase
effectiveness in stopping upstream migration of NICS.
Barriers can negatively impact certain aquatic species,
mainly benthic and slow swimming fish by preventing
their migration and genetic exchange. However, they
can have positive impacts for ICS and other indigenous
organisms against the negative effects of NICS.
Local legislation should support barrier construction
to prevent the spread of invasive crayfish and other
aquatic invaders to protect ark sites for ICS.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Noatch, M.R., & Suski, C.D. (2012)
Non-physical barriers to deter fish movements
Title: Non-physical barriers to deter fish movements
Authors: Noatch, M.R., & Suski, C.D.
Journal: Environmental Reviews
Year: 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/A2012-001
Species or groups: Sea lamprey, Silver carp, Bighead carp, Grass carp
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/829
Abstract: Anthropogenic modifications to aquatic ecosystems have altered connecting pathways within, and in some cases,
between watersheds. Human structures, such as hydroelectric facilities, often impede fish migrations and may inflict heavy
mortality on fish that become impinged or entrained. Conversely, an increase in connectivity between two waterways (e.g.,
through the construction of shipping canals, increased boat traffic) often results in an elevated risk of invasive species introductions.
Non-physical barriers, which obstruct fish from an undesirable location without influencing the waterway, are one
management approach to protecting valuable fish stocks and deterring biological invasions. Because many methods of behavioral
deterrence have been employed against fish, there is a need to summarize and compare existing and developing
technologies. This review details the use and application of electrical, visual, acoustic, chemical, and hydrological deterrence
techniques that may be used to prevent fish movements. Site requirements are discussed, and a critical assessment of benefits
and limitations to each technique are given. Because no single method of fish deterrence is “one size fits all”, this review
to non-physical fish barrier technology will benefit managers and researchers attempting to develop a best-fit strategy
on a case-by-case basis.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Tummers, J.S., & Lucas, M.C. (2020)
Role of barriers in managing aquatic invasive species
Title: Role of barriers in managing aquatic invasive species
Authors: Tummers, J.S., & Lucas, M.C.
Journal: NA
Year: 2020
DOI: NA
Species or groups: Spinycheek crayfish, Smallmouth bass, Common carp
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1037
Abstract: Modification of river systems by humans, with the purpose of, for example, irrigation, electricity generation, navigation or flood control, severely fragments freshwater habitats and is widely acknowledged to affect the ecological integrity of river systems. However, with an increasing frequency of river system invasions by non-native species comes the need to control the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). Construction of barriers to intentionally fragment river habitats or the decision to not remove existing ones may be needed to control AIS when eradication is unfeasible, whereby harmful, non-native species should be prevented passage over the barrier while locally occurring biota should not be hindered in their free movement. Therefore this represents an increasingly significant aspect in the adaptive management of barriers in rivers, and should form part of the decision process for removing barriers, building new ones, or installing biota passes. Increasingly the concepts of ‘intentional fragmentation’, ‘management by isolation’ and ‘selective passage’ are being adopted in river catchments threatened by the spread of AIS. In rivers, plants and microorganisms generally spread passively with the flow or are carried by mobile organisms, whereas some animals are capable of upstream spread, control of which may be possible in some cases using barriers. Selective passage is based on the concept of ecological filters which act on biological traits similar to different parts of a niche space. In this report, a global review is presented of how barriers of different types (e.g. physical, physiological, behavioural) are used to control the spread of AIS, of which physical barriers are most pertinent to the AMBER project. In an evidence-based approach, barriers acting on a range of biological traits are discussed for their effectiveness in limiting the expansion of invasives in the freshwater environment while still allowing free movement by native biota. Based on a scoring system used for invasive species’ impact in Europe, invasive freshwater biota for each major taxonomic group are addressed and recommendations are given on how to manage those respective biota adequately using barriers. This report aims to contribute to raise awareness for exotic freshwater species with freshwater managers, and to help understand how to control the spread of such invasive animals while keeping wider ecosystem impacts to a minimum.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Zielinski, D.P., McLaughlin, R., Castro-Santos, T., Paudel, B., Hrodey, P., & Muir, A. (2019)
Alternative sea lamprey barrier technologies: History as a control tool
Title: Alternative sea lamprey barrier technologies: History as a control tool
Authors: Zielinski, D.P., McLaughlin, R., Castro-Santos, T., Paudel, B., Hrodey, P., & Muir, A.
Journal: Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2019.1625300
Species or groups: Sea lamprey
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/829
Abstract: Currently, application of lampricides and installation of low-head barriers are the only proven means of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control in the Great Lakes. While sea lamprey cannot climb or jump over low-head barriers, many desirable migratory species also cannot traverse barriers and are unintentionally blocked. Recently, there has been a push to reduce reliance on chemical controls as well as increase stream connectivity and flood conveyance. In response, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) continues to seek alternative methods of control. Great Lakes basin resource managers often request consideration of alternatives to both lampricide use and low-head barriers. Seasonal operation and alternative barrier designs (e.g. velocity barriers and electrical barriers) that incorporate additional features such as selective fish passage or flood conveyance are among the most commonly requested options. To date, alternative barrier technologies have been intermiitently successful in the sea lamprey control program directed by the GLFC, yet continue to be proposed as alternatives to conventional low-head barriers. This document provides a comprehensive review on the current state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of current and alternative barrier technologies and their historical use in the sea lamprey control program. This synthesis provides resource managers and sea lamprey control agents a reference and some tools to facilitate decision making around barriers that balance the critical need for invasive species control and fishery restoration.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
