Session C5: Downstream Migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): Movement Patterns and the Potential Impact of Environmental Factors

Transcription

1 University of Massachusetts - Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage 2015 Jun 23rd, 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM Session C5: Downstream Migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): Movement Patterns and the Potential Impact of Environmental Factors Florian Stein University of Potsdam; Technical University of Braunschweig; Karlstad University Peer Doering-Arjes Humbold-Universität zu Berlin Erik Fladung Institute of Inland Fisheries Potsdam- Sacrow Uwe Brämick Institute of Inland Fisheries in Potsdam-Sacrow Barry Bendal The Rivers Trust See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Hydraulic Engineering Commons Stein, Florian; Doering-Arjes, Peer; Fladung, Erik; Brämick, Uwe; Bendal, Barry; and Schroder, Boris, "Session C5: Downstream Migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): Movement Patterns and the Potential Impact of Environmental Factors" (2015). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the The Fish Passage Community at UMass Amherst at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.

2 Presenter Information Florian Stein, Peer Doering-Arjes, Erik Fladung, Uwe Brämick, Barry Bendal, and Boris Schroder This event is available at Amherst:

3 Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B

4 01/12 AIMS Obtain knowledge about: preferable environmental conditions and resulting migration patterns Management of endangered species achieve the EU targets (EC No 1100/2007)

5 02/12 METHODS: Study area & Telemetry system Groningen (Tour 3, Geesthacht) ~385km

6 03/12 METHODS: Data aggregation 399 eels detected at 28 receivers (7 MS) between 2007 & 2011 > 1.5 Mio Detections Model Response Extraction used as Arrival Departure Movement FIRST detect. of the same eel at the same MS within 24 h LAST detect. of the same eel at the same MS within 24 h Proxy Activity

7 04/12 METHODS: Analyses and Modelling MODEL Complete DATA Entire study period RESPONSE Movement activity Spring /Autumn 1 Jan 30 July 1 Aug 31 Dec Movement activity River sections Upper H, Mid H Lower H, Elbe Movement activity

8 04/12 METHODS: Analyses and Modelling MODEL DATA RESPONSE PREDICTORS Complete Entire study period Movement activity Moonlight [fraction] Sunshine [h D -1 ] Spring /Autumn 1 Jan 30 July 1 Aug 31 Dec Movement activity Discharge [m 3 s -1 ] Flow velocity [km -1 ] Water temperature [ C] River sections Upper H, Mid H Lower H, Elbe Movement activity Barometric pressure [hpa] Precipitation [mm D -1 ] Migration probability Migrant or Non-migrant? Success or failure? Distance [km] Holding period [D] Silver index

9 05/12 RESULTS: Migrant proportions Migrants: 28 % Non-Migrants: 55 % Not detected: 17 % 18% MIGRANTS Migrant proportions per river section 95% detected sequentially on at least two downstream MS Upper Havel R. Mid Havel R. Lower Havel R. Elbe R. 80% 17% or released into the Elbe and detected at the last MS

10 06/12 RESULTS: Migration types Release river section Upper Havel River MT1 MT2 MT3 Eels left study area within tagging migration period Eels left study area within next migration period Eels left study about one year after tagging Mid Havel River Lower Havel River Elbe River

11 07/12 Absolute Activity Frequency RESULTS: Diel periodicity of mig. activity Spring Summer Autumn Winter Period of increased mig. activity Arrival Departure Time of day [h]

12 Progression rate / flow velocity 08/12 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors RESULTS: Progression rates Spring Summer n=58 n=6 08/12 24h 12h 24h 8h Autumn Winter n=93 n=18 flow velocity 24h t pot.mig 24h 12h 24h 16h Adapted t pot.mig

13 Mean proportion of detected eels 09/12 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors RESULTS: Seasonal migration Period

14 10/12 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors RESULTS: Effects on migration probability Relationship Unimodal Positive Negative 0.2 % 20.5 % 17.1 % AUC=0.74 R²= % Parameters Distance to Sea Holding & Fish. Period Distance * Holding Silver index

15 11/12 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors RESULTS: Factors affecting eel migration Relationship Unimodal Positive Negative AUC =0.70 R² =0.07 Env. parameters Water Temp. Moonlight Flow velocity Discharge Precipitation Barom. Pressure AUC =0.95 R² =0.49 AUC =0.84 R² =0.22 AUC =0.81 R² =0.21

16 11/12 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors RESULTS: Factors affecting eel migration AUC =0.70 R² =0.07 Relationship Unimodal Positive Negative AUC =0.77 R² =0.14 Complete Env. parameters Water Temp. Moonlight Flow velocity Discharge Precipitation Barom. Pressure AUC =0.95 R² =0.49 AUC =0.84 R² =0.22 AUC =0.81 R² =0.21 AUC =0.72 R² =0.07 Spring AUC =0.82 R² =0.23 Autumn

17 12/12 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors CONCLUSIONS Distinct diel and seasonal migration pattern Increased activity under nocturnal and new moon conditions (strategy to minimize predation risk?) Migration probability increases by shortened Distance from the Sea and shortened holding periods (Handling effect) STEIN et al Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors

18 12/12 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors CONCLUSIONS Stepwise migration: low progression rates (stopovers) and migration periods exceeding one mig. season Spring & Upstream location > Water temperature only Autumn & Downstream locations > Water temperature + additional parameters Not-detected (17 %) + Non-migrants (55 %): Mortality & Reversal to earlier non-migratory stage STEIN et al Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors

19 STEIN F, DOERING-ARJES P, FLADUNG E, BRÄMICK U, BENDALL B, SCHRÖDER B Downstream migration of the European Eel (A. anguilla): movement patterns and the potential impact of environmental factors ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The study was funded by: The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment (Berlin), the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment of the German Federal State of Sachsen Anhalt, the Ministry for Rural Development, the Environment and Consumer Protection of the German Federal State of Brandenburg, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), the Potsdam Graduate School We thank: Janek Simon and Frank Weichler (Institute of Inland Fisheries Potsdam-Sacrow), Jens Puchmüller (Fischereiamt Berlin), Wilfried Wiechmann (German Federal Institute of Hydrology), Michael Nobis (Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL), the Environmental Modelling working group at the Universität Potsdam, Andreas Kühl, Sven Ahlendorf, Jörg Kwiatkowski and Gernot Quaschny

20 Variable groups Variable specification Variable names Number of variables Sunshine duation [h D -1 ] Sunshine 1 Fraction of the moon illuminated [0..1] Moonlight 1 Flow velocity [kmd -1 ] v, v dif1, v dif2, v dif3, v dif4, v dif5, v dif6, v dif7 8 Hydrological and climate predictors Water temperature variables Discharge [m³/s] Precipitation [mm/day] Barometric pressure [hpa] Water temperature [ C] Q, Q dif1, Q dif2, Q dif3, Q dif4, Q dif5, Q dif6, Q dif7 8 P, P cum1, P cum2, P cum3, P cum4, P cum5, P cum6, P cum7 8 Baro, Baro dif1, Baro dif2, Baro dif3, Baro dif4, Baro dif5, Baro dif6, Baro dif7 8 T water, T water.dif1, T water.dif2, T water.dif3, T water.dif4, T water.dif5, T water.dif6,t water.dif7 8

21 We generated variables for cumulative precipitation (covering the preceding 7 days up through the present) as well as the differences between the present and the preceding 7 days for all hydrological and climate predictors. These additional variables were added to the data set as independent potential predictors. Variable selection one variable of every variable group backward stepwise selection based on AIC (Akaike Information Criterion)

22 External Factors Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) e-4 *** SI [III-V] Fishing/holding [days] * 17.1 Distance [km] e-06 *** 62.2 Fishing/holding * Distance Model performance R² N = 0.21 AUC = 0.74 Auch diese Folien sollten lesbar sein und ansprechend formatiert

23 Complete Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) < 2e-16 *** T water [ C] < 2e-16 *** T² water [ C] < 2e-16 *** 81.4 P cum7 [mm D -1 ] e-4 *** 10.5 Moonlight [0..1] e-05 *** 8.1 Model performance R² N = 0.14 AUC = 0.77 Autumn Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) < 2e-16 *** T water [ C] < 2e-16 *** T² water [ C] < 2e-16 *** 62.3 P cum3 [mm S -1 ] e-07 *** 20.7 Moonlight [0..1] e-08 *** 17.0 Model performance R² N = 0.23 AUC = 0.82

24 Spring Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) < 2e-16 *** T water [ C] e-12 *** T² water [ C] e-10 *** - Model performance R² N = 0.07 AUC = 0.72

25 Upper Havel Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) < 2e-16 *** T water [ C] e-08 *** T² water [ C] e-09 *** - Model performance R² N = 0.07 AUC = 0.70 Mid Havel Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) e-07 *** T water [ C] e-11 *** T² water [ C] e-13 *** 73.1 D [m³ S -1 ] e-4 *** 11.9 Moonlight [0..1] e-05 *** 14.5 Model performance R² N = 0.21 AUC = 0.81

26 Model performance R² = 0.49 AUC = 0.95 Lower Havel Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) e-15 *** T water [ C] e-09 *** T² water [ C] e-09 *** 80.3 Baro dif7 [hpa] e-04 *** 19.7 Model performance R² N = 0.22 AUC = 0.84 Elbe River Model Coefficients Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(> z ) Independent effect [%] (Intercept) e-15 *** T water [ C] e-12 *** T² water [ C] e-12 *** 48.3 P cum7 [mm D -1 ] e-15 *** 47.1 v [km D -1 ] e-05 *** 4.6