7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effects of run-of-river hydroelectric power schemes on invertebrate community composition in temperate streams and rivers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Run-of-river (ROR) hydroelectric power (HEP) schemes are often presumed to be less ecologically damaging than large-scale storage HEP schemes. However, there is currently limited scientific evidence on their ecological impact. The aim of this article is to investigate the effects of ROR HEP schemes on communities of invertebrates in temperate streams and rivers, using a multi-site Before-After, Control-Impact (BACI) study design. The study makes use of routine environmental surveillance data collected as part of long-term national and international monitoring programmes at 22 systematically-selected ROR HEP schemes and 22 systematically-selected paired control sites. Five widely-used family-level invertebrate metrics (richness, evenness, LIFE, E-PSI, WHPT) were analysed using a linear mixed effects model. The analyses showed that there was a statistically significant effect ( p<0.05) of ROR HEP construction and operation on the evenness of the invertebrate community. However, no statistically significant effects were detected on the four other metrics of community composition. The implications of these findings are discussed in this article and recommendations are made for best-practice study design for future invertebrate community impact studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time.

          Ecological conservation monitoring programmes abound at various organisational and spatial levels from species to ecosystem. Many of them suffer, however, from the lack of details of goal and hypothesis formulation, survey design, data quality and statistical power at the start. As a result, most programmes are likely to fail to reach the necessary standard of being capable of rejecting a false null hypothesis with reasonable power. Results from inadequate monitoring are misleading for their information quality and are dangerous because they create the illusion that something useful has been done. We propose that conservation agencies and those funding monitoring work should require the demonstration of adequate power at the outset of any new monitoring scheme.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of Criticism of Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing on Statistical Reporting Practices in Conservation Biology

            Over the last decade, criticisms of null-hypothesis significance testing have grown dramatically, and several alternative practices, such as confidence intervals, information theoretic, and Bayesian methods, have been advocated. Have these calls for change had an impact on the statistical reporting practices in conservation biology? In 2000 and 2001, 92% of sampled articles in Conservation Biology and Biological Conservation reported results of null-hypothesis tests. In 2005 this figure dropped to 78%. There were corresponding increases in the use of confidence intervals, information theoretic, and Bayesian techniques. Of those articles reporting null-hypothesis testing--which still easily constitute the majority--very few report statistical power (8%) and many misinterpret statistical nonsignificance as evidence for no effect (63%). Overall, results of our survey show some improvements in statistical practice, but further efforts are clearly required to move the discipline toward improved practices.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Effects of Run-of-River Hydroelectric Power Schemes on Fish Community Composition in Temperate Streams and Rivers

              The potential environmental impacts of large-scale storage hydroelectric power (HEP) schemes have been well-documented in the literature. In Europe, awareness of these potential impacts and limited opportunities for politically-acceptable medium- to large-scale schemes, have caused attention to focus on smaller-scale HEP schemes, particularly run-of-river (ROR) schemes, to contribute to meeting renewable energy targets. Run-of-river HEP schemes are often presumed to be less environmentally damaging than large-scale storage HEP schemes. However, there is currently a lack of peer-reviewed studies on their physical and ecological impact. The aim of this article was to investigate the effects of ROR HEP schemes on communities of fish in temperate streams and rivers, using a Before-After, Control-Impact (BACI) study design. The study makes use of routine environmental surveillance data collected as part of long-term national and international monitoring programmes at 23 systematically-selected ROR HEP schemes and 23 systematically-selected paired control sites. Six area-normalised metrics of fish community composition were analysed using a linear mixed effects model (number of species, number of fish, number of Atlantic salmon—Salmo salar, number of >1 year old Atlantic salmon, number of brown trout—Salmo trutta, and number of >1 year old brown trout). The analyses showed that there was a statistically significant effect (p<0.05) of ROR HEP construction and operation on the number of species. However, no statistically significant effects were detected on the other five metrics of community composition. The implications of these findings are discussed in this article and recommendations are made for best-practice study design for future fish community impact studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                3 February 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 2
                : e0171634
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Aquatic Research Centre, School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Precima Inc., Toronto, Canada
                [3 ]Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom
                University of Fribourg, SWITZERLAND
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: This research was co-funded by the Natural Environment Research Council ( http://www.nerc.ac.uk/) and the Environment Agency ( https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency) under grant reference NE/M019810/1. Only GSB received the funding for this work. The Environment Agency had a role in the original collection of the routine surveillance monitoring data used in this study, though it was not collected specifically for the purposes of this study. The study was designed by GSB and it was his decision to publish the work. HGO (an employee of the Environment Agency funding body) did contribute towards the preparation of the manuscript. JCG is employed by Precima Inc. ( https://www.precima.com/). The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [JCG], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This commercial affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials(as detailed online in our guide for authors http://www.PLOSone.org/static/editorial.action#competing). The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

                • Conceptualization: GSB HGO.

                • Data curation: GSB MDT.

                • Formal analysis: GSB JCG NGB MDT.

                • Funding acquisition: GSB.

                • Investigation: GSB HGO.

                • Methodology: GSB JCG.

                • Project administration: GSB HGO.

                • Resources: GSB HGO.

                • Software: GSB JCG.

                • Visualization: GSB.

                • Writing – original draft: GSB.

                • Writing – review & editing: GSB NGB MDT JCG HGO.

                ‡ This author led this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1935-9040
                Article
                PONE-D-16-39155
                10.1371/journal.pone.0171634
                5291416
                28158282
                0721f467-9ac0-42a3-9ab2-a396d4c2b6f7
                © 2017 Bilotta et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 September 2016
                : 11 January 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 1, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000270, Natural Environment Research Council;
                Award ID: NE/M019810/1
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Environment Agency
                Award ID: NE/M019810/1
                Award Recipient :
                This research was co-funded by the Natural Environment Research Council ( http://www.nerc.ac.uk/) and the Environment Agency ( https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency) under grant reference NE/M019810/1. Only GSB received the funding for this work. The Environment Agency had a role in the original collection of the routine surveillance monitoring data used in this study, though it was not collected specifically for the purposes of this study. The study was designed by GSB and it was his decision to publish the work. HGO (an employee of the Environment Agency funding body) did contribute towards the preparation of the manuscript. JCG is employed by Precima Incorporated. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [JCG], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the 'author contributions' section.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Earth Sciences
                Marine and Aquatic Sciences
                Bodies of Water
                Rivers
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Aquatic Environments
                Freshwater Environments
                Rivers
                Earth Sciences
                Marine and Aquatic Sciences
                Aquatic Environments
                Freshwater Environments
                Rivers
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Confidence Intervals
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Community Structure
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Community Structure
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Community Ecology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecological Metrics
                Species Diversity
                Shannon Index
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecological Metrics
                Species Diversity
                Shannon Index
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Freshwater Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Freshwater Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Limnology
                Freshwater Ecology
                Earth Sciences
                Marine and Aquatic Sciences
                Limnology
                Freshwater Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Habitats
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article