A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency
Identifieur interne : 001199 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001198; suivant : 001200A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency
Auteurs : Michael J. Noonan ; James W A. Grant ; Christopher D. JacksonSource :
- Fish and Fisheries [ 1467-2960 ] ; 2012-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
In an attempt to restore the connectivity of fragmented river habitats, a variety of passage facilities have been installed at river barriers. Despite the cost of building these structures, there has been no quantitative evaluation of their overall success at restoring fish passage. We reviewed articles from 1960 to 2011, extracted data from 65 papers on fish passage efficiency, size and species of fish, and fishway characteristics to determine the best predictors of fishway efficiency. Because data were scarce for fishes other than salmonids (order Salmoniformes), we combined data for all non‐salmonids for our analysis. On average, downstream passage efficiency was 68.5%, slightly higher than upstream passage efficiency of 41.7%, and neither differed across the geographical regions of study. Salmonids were more successful than non‐salmonids in passing upstream (61.7 vs. 21.1%) and downstream (74.6 vs. 39.6%) through fish passage facilities. Passage efficiency differed significantly between types of fishways; pool and weir, pool and slot and natural fishways had the highest efficiencies, whereas Denil and fish locks/elevators had the lowest. Upstream passage efficiency decreased significantly with fishway slope, but increased with fishway length, and water velocity. An information‐theoretic analysis indicated that the best predictors of fish passage efficiency were order of fish (i.e. salmonids > non‐salmonids), type of fishway and length of fishway. Overall, the low efficiency of passage facilities indicated that most need to be improved to sufficiently mitigate habitat fragmentation for the complete fish community across a range of environmental conditions.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title><author><name sortKey="Noonan, Michael J" sort="Noonan, Michael J" uniqKey="Noonan M" first="Michael J" last="Noonan">Michael J. Noonan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Grant, James W A" sort="Grant, James W A" uniqKey="Grant J" first="James W A" last="Grant">James W A. Grant</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jackson, Christopher D" sort="Jackson, Christopher D" uniqKey="Jackson C" first="Christopher D" last="Jackson">Christopher D. Jackson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001199</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001199</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title><author><name sortKey="Noonan, Michael J" sort="Noonan, Michael J" uniqKey="Noonan M" first="Michael J" last="Noonan">Michael J. Noonan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Grant, James W A" sort="Grant, James W A" uniqKey="Grant J" first="James W A" last="Grant">James W A. Grant</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jackson, Christopher D" sort="Jackson, Christopher D" uniqKey="Jackson C" first="Christopher D" last="Jackson">Christopher D. Jackson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Fish and Fisheries</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Fish Fish</title><idno type="ISSN">1467-2960</idno><idno type="eISSN">1467-2979</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-12">2012-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="450">450</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="464">464</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1467-2960</idno></series><idno type="istex">2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">FAF445</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1467-2960</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Conservation</term><term>dams</term><term>fishways</term><term>habitat fragmentation</term><term>migration</term><term>passage efficiency</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In an attempt to restore the connectivity of fragmented river habitats, a variety of passage facilities have been installed at river barriers. Despite the cost of building these structures, there has been no quantitative evaluation of their overall success at restoring fish passage. We reviewed articles from 1960 to 2011, extracted data from 65 papers on fish passage efficiency, size and species of fish, and fishway characteristics to determine the best predictors of fishway efficiency. Because data were scarce for fishes other than salmonids (order Salmoniformes), we combined data for all non‐salmonids for our analysis. On average, downstream passage efficiency was 68.5%, slightly higher than upstream passage efficiency of 41.7%, and neither differed across the geographical regions of study. Salmonids were more successful than non‐salmonids in passing upstream (61.7 vs. 21.1%) and downstream (74.6 vs. 39.6%) through fish passage facilities. Passage efficiency differed significantly between types of fishways; pool and weir, pool and slot and natural fishways had the highest efficiencies, whereas Denil and fish locks/elevators had the lowest. Upstream passage efficiency decreased significantly with fishway slope, but increased with fishway length, and water velocity. An information‐theoretic analysis indicated that the best predictors of fish passage efficiency were order of fish (i.e. salmonids > non‐salmonids), type of fishway and length of fishway. Overall, the low efficiency of passage facilities indicated that most need to be improved to sufficiently mitigate habitat fragmentation for the complete fish community across a range of environmental conditions.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Michael J Noonan</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>James W A Grant</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Christopher D Jackson</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Conservation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dams</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fishways</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>habitat fragmentation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>migration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>passage efficiency</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>FAF445</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>In an attempt to restore the connectivity of fragmented river habitats, a variety of passage facilities have been installed at river barriers. Despite the cost of building these structures, there has been no quantitative evaluation of their overall success at restoring fish passage. We reviewed articles from 1960 to 2011, extracted data from 65 papers on fish passage efficiency, size and species of fish, and fishway characteristics to determine the best predictors of fishway efficiency. Because data were scarce for fishes other than salmonids (order Salmoniformes), we combined data for all non‐salmonids for our analysis. On average, downstream passage efficiency was 68.5%, slightly higher than upstream passage efficiency of 41.7%, and neither differed across the geographical regions of study. Salmonids were more successful than non‐salmonids in passing upstream (61.7 vs. 21.1%) and downstream (74.6 vs. 39.6%) through fish passage facilities. Passage efficiency differed significantly between types of fishways; pool and weir, pool and slot and natural fishways had the highest efficiencies, whereas Denil and fish locks/elevators had the lowest. Upstream passage efficiency decreased significantly with fishway slope, but increased with fishway length, and water velocity. An information‐theoretic analysis indicated that the best predictors of fish passage efficiency were order of fish (i.e. salmonids > non‐salmonids), type of fishway and length of fishway. Overall, the low efficiency of passage facilities indicated that most need to be improved to sufficiently mitigate habitat fragmentation for the complete fish community across a range of environmental conditions.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.88</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 805.039 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1687</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7697</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>49675</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>15</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>240</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>13</volume><publisherId><json:string>FAF</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>15</total><last>464</last><first>450</first></pages><issn><json:string>1467-2960</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1467-2979</json:string></eissn><title>Fish and Fisheries</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1467-2979</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>applied sciences</json:string><json:string>agriculture, fisheries & forestry</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x</json:string></doi><id>2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01</id><score>0.02322587</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>Copyright © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</p></availability><date>2012</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Michael J</forename><surname>Noonan</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">James W A</forename><surname>Grant</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Christopher D</forename><surname>Jackson</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Fish and Fisheries</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Fish Fish</title><idno type="pISSN">1467-2960</idno><idno type="eISSN">1467-2979</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1467-2979</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-12"></date><biblScope unit="volume">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="450">450</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="464">464</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">FAF445</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2012</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>In an attempt to restore the connectivity of fragmented river habitats, a variety of passage facilities have been installed at river barriers. Despite the cost of building these structures, there has been no quantitative evaluation of their overall success at restoring fish passage. We reviewed articles from 1960 to 2011, extracted data from 65 papers on fish passage efficiency, size and species of fish, and fishway characteristics to determine the best predictors of fishway efficiency. Because data were scarce for fishes other than salmonids (order Salmoniformes), we combined data for all non‐salmonids for our analysis. On average, downstream passage efficiency was 68.5%, slightly higher than upstream passage efficiency of 41.7%, and neither differed across the geographical regions of study. Salmonids were more successful than non‐salmonids in passing upstream (61.7 vs. 21.1%) and downstream (74.6 vs. 39.6%) through fish passage facilities. Passage efficiency differed significantly between types of fishways; pool and weir, pool and slot and natural fishways had the highest efficiencies, whereas Denil and fish locks/elevators had the lowest. Upstream passage efficiency decreased significantly with fishway slope, but increased with fishway length, and water velocity. An information‐theoretic analysis indicated that the best predictors of fish passage efficiency were order of fish (i.e. salmonids > non‐salmonids), type of fishway and length of fishway. Overall, the low efficiency of passage facilities indicated that most need to be improved to sufficiently mitigate habitat fragmentation for the complete fish community across a range of environmental conditions.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>Conservation</term></item><item><term>dams</term></item><item><term>fishways</term></item><item><term>habitat fragmentation</term></item><item><term>migration</term></item><item><term>passage efficiency</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2012-12">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1467-2979</doi><issn type="print">1467-2960</issn><issn type="electronic">1467-2979</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="FAF"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="FISH FISHERIES">Fish and Fisheries</title><title type="short">Fish Fish</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12104"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/faf.2012.13.issue-4</doi><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="13">13</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-12">December 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="6" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="FAF445"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="15"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">ORIGINAL ARTICLES</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.1.9 mode:FullText" date="2012-10-15"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2012-10-16" type="xmlCorrected"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2011-11-02"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-11-02"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-10-17"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-25"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.3.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-02-25"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="450">450</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="464">464</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Michael J Noonan, Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada
Tel.: 514 848 2424 ext. 4027
Fax: 514 848 2424 ext. 2881
E‐mail: <email>m_noona@live.concordia.ca</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:FAF.FAF445.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Received 13 Jun 2011 Accepted 30 Sep 2011</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="6"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title><title type="shortAuthors"><i>M J Noonan et al.</i></title><title type="short">Effectiveness of fish passage facilities</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Michael J</givenNames><familyName>Noonan</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>James W A</givenNames><familyName>Grant</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Christopher D</givenNames><familyName>Jackson</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="aff-1-1" countryCode="CA"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">Conservation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">dams</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">fishways</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">habitat fragmentation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">migration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">passage efficiency</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>In an attempt to restore the connectivity of fragmented river habitats, a variety of passage facilities have been installed at river barriers. Despite the cost of building these structures, there has been no quantitative evaluation of their overall success at restoring fish passage. We reviewed articles from 1960 to 2011, extracted data from 65 papers on fish passage efficiency, size and species of fish, and fishway characteristics to determine the best predictors of fishway efficiency. Because data were scarce for fishes other than salmonids (order Salmoniformes), we combined data for all non‐salmonids for our analysis. On average, downstream passage efficiency was 68.5%, slightly higher than upstream passage efficiency of 41.7%, and neither differed across the geographical regions of study. Salmonids were more successful than non‐salmonids in passing upstream (61.7 vs. 21.1%) and downstream (74.6 vs. 39.6%) through fish passage facilities. Passage efficiency differed significantly between types of fishways; pool and weir, pool and slot and natural fishways had the highest efficiencies, whereas Denil and fish locks/elevators had the lowest. Upstream passage efficiency decreased significantly with fishway slope, but increased with fishway length, and water velocity. An information‐theoretic analysis indicated that the best predictors of fish passage efficiency were order of fish (i.e. salmonids > non‐salmonids), type of fishway and length of fishway. Overall, the low efficiency of passage facilities indicated that most need to be improved to sufficiently mitigate habitat fragmentation for the complete fish community across a range of environmental conditions.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Effectiveness of fish passage facilities</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Michael J</namePart><namePart type="family">Noonan</namePart><affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">James W A</namePart><namePart type="family">Grant</namePart><affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Christopher D</namePart><namePart type="family">Jackson</namePart><affiliation>Department of Biology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-12</dateIssued><edition>Received 13 Jun 2011 Accepted 30 Sep 2011</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">6</extent><extent unit="tables">3</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">In an attempt to restore the connectivity of fragmented river habitats, a variety of passage facilities have been installed at river barriers. Despite the cost of building these structures, there has been no quantitative evaluation of their overall success at restoring fish passage. We reviewed articles from 1960 to 2011, extracted data from 65 papers on fish passage efficiency, size and species of fish, and fishway characteristics to determine the best predictors of fishway efficiency. Because data were scarce for fishes other than salmonids (order Salmoniformes), we combined data for all non‐salmonids for our analysis. On average, downstream passage efficiency was 68.5%, slightly higher than upstream passage efficiency of 41.7%, and neither differed across the geographical regions of study. Salmonids were more successful than non‐salmonids in passing upstream (61.7 vs. 21.1%) and downstream (74.6 vs. 39.6%) through fish passage facilities. Passage efficiency differed significantly between types of fishways; pool and weir, pool and slot and natural fishways had the highest efficiencies, whereas Denil and fish locks/elevators had the lowest. Upstream passage efficiency decreased significantly with fishway slope, but increased with fishway length, and water velocity. An information‐theoretic analysis indicated that the best predictors of fish passage efficiency were order of fish (i.e. salmonids > non‐salmonids), type of fishway and length of fishway. Overall, the low efficiency of passage facilities indicated that most need to be improved to sufficiently mitigate habitat fragmentation for the complete fish community across a range of environmental conditions.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>dams</topic><topic>fishways</topic><topic>habitat fragmentation</topic><topic>migration</topic><topic>passage efficiency</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Fish and Fisheries</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Fish Fish</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1467-2960</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1467-2979</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1467-2979</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">FAF</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>13</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>450</start><end>464</end><total>15</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">FAF445</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Eau/explor/EsturgeonV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001199 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001199 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Eau
|area= EsturgeonV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:2CBCBAC1912699B075CAB1511CBB947D0601BD01
|texte= A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.27. |  |