4.6 Article

Leaky barriers: leaky enough for fish to pass?

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201843

关键词

natural flood management; porous and non-porous hydraulic structures leaky barrier; acoustic Doppler velocimetry; fish behaviour; flooding

资金

  1. Water Informatics Science and Engineering Centre for Doctoral Training (WISE CDT) from the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/L016214/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leaky barriers introduced as environmentally-friendly hydraulic structures in rivers aim to slow down flow, reduce flood peaks, and attenuate downstream flow. However, their impact on hydrodynamics and fish passage is not well understood.
Perceived as environmental-friendly hydraulic structures, leaky barriers used for natural flood management are introduced into rivers, potentially creating migration barriers for fish. Using sustainable, local materials to construct wooden barriers across river channels in upper catchments, these barriers aim to slow down the flow, reduce flood peaks and attenuate the flow reaching downstream communities. Yet little is known about their impact on hydrodynamics and fish passage. Here, we examined two model barrier designs under 100% and 80% bankfull flow conditions in an open channel flume. These barriers included a porous and a non-porous design, with the latter emulating the natural accumulation of brush, sediment and leaf material between logs over time. Flow visualization and velocity measurements recorded with acoustic Doppler velocimetry characterized the flow field upstream and downstream of the barriers. Our fish behavioural studies revealed that juvenile salmon (Salmo salar) movement between downstream and upstream sections of the flume was inhibited by barrier design rather than discharge, influencing upstream fish passage and their spatial preference, indicating the importance of barrier design criteria to facilitate fish movement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据