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 2 – Type-specific mortality

WP1: Task 2 – Type-specific mortality

WP1: Task 3 – Site-specific 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

Compensate for remaining mortality

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

This project is funded by the European Union

Many partners contribute to the work

van.treeck@igb-berlin.de