Updating the consensus on fishway efficiency: A meta‐analysis

Henry Hershey

doi:10.1111/faf.12547

journal article Mar 15, 2021

Updating the consensus on fishway efficiency: A meta‐analysis

Henry Hershey

Fish and Fisheries Vol. 22 No. 4 pp. 735-748 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/faf.12547

Abstract

AbstractTo update the consensus on the effectiveness of fish passage mitigation structures or “fishways,” I conducted a meta‐analysis on the fish passage literature and synthesized attraction and passage efficiency estimates from 60 peer‐reviewed articles. One hundred unique species were studied at 75 unique fishways of various designs and sizes yielding 210 and 252 estimates of attraction and passage efficiency, respectively. Following Bunt et al. (River Research and Applications, 28, 2012, 457), the fishways were grouped into five types: nature‐like, denil, pool‐and‐weir, vertical slot or locks and lifts that were operated automatically. Generalized linear mixed effects models showed that fishway type was not a significant predictor of passage efficiency, although nature‐like fishways had significantly lower attraction efficiency than other types. Neither fishway slope, nor elevation change was significant predictors of attraction or passage efficiency. Models comparing efficiency between ecological guilds of fishes (pelagic or benthic and rheophilic or limnophilic) showed that attraction and passage efficiency were highest for pelagic rheophiles and lowest for limnophiles. Models comparing migratory guilds of fishes (diadromous, potamodromous, facultative or non‐migratory) showed that diadromous species outperformed other guilds, as expected. Fish that were captured inside or above fishways had significantly higher passage performance than fish that were naive to the fishway. Inconsistency in fishway evaluation methods was pervasive in the surveyed literature and made this meta‐analysis challenging. When designing studies of fishway evaluations, researchers should conform to best practices so that their results are more generalizable and their conclusions of wider scope.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

77

[1]

10.1007/978-94-007-1084-9_11

[2]

10.1002/nafm.10281

[3]

10.2307/2685469

[4]

How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial

Sara Balduzzi, Gerta Rücker, Guido Schwarzer

Evidence Based Mental Health 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117

[5]

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.105597

[6]

10.1016/j.fishres.2018.06.008

[7]

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.11.001

[8]

10.1577/t03-133.1

[9]

A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis

Michael Borenstein, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P.T. Higgins et al.

Research Synthesis Methods 10.1002/jrsm.12

[10]

10.1371/journal.pone.0065089

[11]

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.07.019

[12]

10.1111/fme.12260

[13]

Bravo‐Córdoba F. J. (2014)

[14]

10.1577/t05-223.1

[15]

10.1002/rra.1565

[16]

10.1002/rra.3095

[17]

10.1577/m05-138.1

[18]

Calles E. O. "The use of two nature‐like fishways by some fish species in the Swedish River Emån" Ecology of Freshwater Fish (2007)

[19]

Castro‐Santos T. "Fishway evaluations for better bioengineering: An integrative approach" Challenges for Diadromous Fishes in a Dynamic Global Environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium (2009)

[20]

10.1016/0165-7836(96)00514-0

[21]

10.1139/f07-065

[22]

10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6

[23]

Improving the reliability of fishway attraction and passage efficiency estimates to inform fishway engineering, science, and practice

Steven J Cooke, Scott G. Hinch

Ecological Engineering 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.06.005

[24]

10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.004

[25]

10.1080/00028487.2012.683469

[26]

Froese R. Pauly D.(2019).FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.www.fishbase.org(12/2019)

[27]

10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb02028.x

[28]

Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis

Jessica Gurevitch, Julia Koricheva, Shinichi Nakagawa et al.

Nature 10.1038/nature25753

[29]

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis

Julian P. T. Higgins, Simon G. Thompson

Statistics in Medicine 10.1002/sim.1186

[30]

10.1086/285529

[31]

Katopodis C. (1992)

[32]

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.07.004

[33]

10.1139/cjfas-2013-0164

[34]

10.1002/rra.3082

[35]

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.09.013

[36]

10.3390/w8010003

[37]

10.1007/s00227-006-0308-2

[38]

10.1002/tafs.10019

[39]

10.1002/rra.3176

[40]

10.1051/kmae/2002108

[41]

10.1051/kmae:1991009

[42]

Lipsey M. W. (2001)

[43]

10.1590/s1679-62252007000200006

[44]

10.1590/s1679-62252007000200013

[45]

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff et al.

PLoS Medicine 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

[46]

10.1577/1548-8675(1989)009<0060:eofawd>2.3.co;2

[47]

10.1007/s10228-015-0472-9

[48]

10.1002/rra.3215

[49]

10.1577/m05-015.1

[50]

10.1139/f04-147

Showing 50 of 77 references

Metrics

82

Citations

77

References

Details

Published: Mar 15, 2021
Vol/Issue: 22(4)
Pages: 735-748
License: View

Authors

H

Henry Hershey

Auburn University, School of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences Auburn AL USA

Cite This Article

Henry Hershey (2021). Updating the consensus on fishway efficiency: A meta‐analysis. Fish and Fisheries, 22(4), 735-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12547

Updating the consensus on fishway efficiency: A meta‐analysis

You May Also Like