4.4 Article

Connectivity, migration and recruitment in a catadromous fish

期刊

MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 11, 页码 1733-1745

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/MF17388

关键词

acoustic telemetry; Cox's proportional hazards model; diadromy; drought; fish passage; generalised additive mixed effects models; Murray-Darling Basin; navigation lock; Pseudaphritis; tupong

资金

  1. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, DEWNR
  2. Murray-Darling Basin Authority (The Living Murray Program)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the influence of river hydrology and connectivity on the migration and recruitment of diadromous fishes is fundamental for species management and conservation. We investigated the downstream catadromous spawning migration of adult female congolli (Pseudaphritis urvillii) using acoustic telemetry, and subsequent juvenile recruitment, in the lower reaches of the River Murray, Australia, in 2009-2011. The years 2009 and 2010 were characterised by diminished freshwater flow, closure of tidal barrages, and disconnection of freshwater and estuarine habitats; however, a navigation lock was operated to facilitate downstream fish passage in 2010. In both years, >70% of individuals tagged upstream undertook downstream migrations, in association with day-of-the-year (June July) and moonphase (full), and accumulated upstream of the tidal barrages. In 2009, fish were unable to pass the barrages and remained upstream, but in 2010, an estimated >15 000 individuals passed through the navigation lock, including 40% of individuals tagged upstream. These transitioned rapidly (<24 h) through the estuary and into the ocean. In association, abundances of upstream migrant juveniles in spring summer 2010-2011 were up to 180 times greater than in spring summer 2009-2010. Our study illustrates the potential impact of tidal barriers on migrations and population dynamics of catadromous fish, and the importance of understanding species-specific migration ecology.

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

4.4
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