1 / 16

Aquatic Biodiversity Under Road Bridges: Conservation Hot-Spots

This study focuses on the conservation potential of aquatic habitats under road bridges as hot-spots for native crayfish and fish species. It highlights the underrepresentation of hydrological and hydrobiological research in the planning and design of linear infrastructure.

bamar
Download Presentation

Aquatic Biodiversity Under Road Bridges: Conservation Hot-Spots

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stream sections under road bridges as conservation hot-spots of native crayfish and fish species Weiperth András1, Gál Blanka1,2, Farkas János3, Gelencsér Géza4,5, Puky Miklós1† 1MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Danube Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary 2Doctoral School of Environmental Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 3Department of Systematic Zoology and Ecology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 4Vox Vallis Development Association - Koppányvölgy Naturpark, Törökkoppány, Hungary 5Doctoral School of Environmental Sciences, Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary

  2. Focus on the negative effects of linear infrastructures • Main results of most of the studies • Researches focus on: • fragmentation, • road kills, • invasion by exotic species, • effect of air, noise and chemical pollution on behaviour of different taxons, • effect of mitigation measures, • effect of maintenance, • etc…

  3. Little attention to the effect of linear infrasructure on aquatic habitats • The hydrological and hydrobiologycal researches are underrepresented in the most cases in comparison to the terrestrial researches in the planning and design of the linear infrastructure • The problems come from more sources: • lack of knowledge of the historical data, • lack of knowledge of the habitats and species richness, behaviour of aquatic animals, etc., • short research program (in most cases max. 1 year long), • underfinancing, • lack of communication between experts, • first and not least the researches / experts have few information about the role of aquatic habitats under and around bridges

  4. Sampling area HUNGARY 1: Somogyacsa (S1), 2: Gerézdpuszta (G), 3: Somogydöröcske (S2), 4: Szorosad (Sz), 5: Törökkoppány (T), 6. Nagykónyi (N), 7: Régöly (R) Seven bridges area of the Koppány-stream were researched between 2014-2015. Each sampling area is a section consisting the neighbouring natural upstream and downstream from each bridge as well. S1 N S2 T R G Sz

  5. Why the areas of road bridges in a human modified landscape are interesting?

  6. Sampling areas Apart from the wastewater load there are intensive anthropogenic effects on the catchment area, most of all the diffuse contamination as the consequence of the intensive crop production, which imposes a considerable risk on the natural values of the stream and its tributaries.

  7. Sampling method • electrofishing (Typ: DEKA 3000 Lord) • 3 seasons: May, August, October / year between 2014-2015 • 150m long sampling sites (3x50m sampling section) • sampling section were characterized by 11 environmental variables • distance from the bank, • current velocity, • aquatic and terrestrial plant cover • woody debris, • coverage of shading trees, • water depth, • sediment composition: rocks, boulders, pebbles, sand-mud, • clay • Statistic: SYN-TAX 2000 road Flow direction 1. 2. 3.

  8. Results 1: Crayfish One native protected crayfish species [noble crayfish (Astacus astacus Linnaues, 1758)]was presented by samplings. All of the 137 individuals were caught under the bridges, where the current velocity and sediment composition were optimal for them. road Flow direction 1. 2. 3.

  9. Results 2: Crayfish 2014 2015 S1: Somogyacsa G: Gerézdpuszta S2: Somogydöröcske Sz: Szorosad T: Törökkoppány N: Nagykónyi R: Régöly

  10. Results 3: Fishes A total of 3571 individuals of 29 fish species were caught, with 2031 (57%) individuals of 23 (80%) species being juveniles. Lepomis gibbosus Scardinius erythrophthalmus Carassius gibelio Perca fluviatilis Neogobius fluviatilis Esox lucius

  11. Results 4: The most abundant fish species A total of 3571 individuals were caught, with 1031 (29%) was the TMG. Pseudorasbora parva

  12. Results 5: Seasonality in 2014-2015 The non-native and native reophil and eurytop species were represented equally in each section, but in the extrem arid summer (2015), in the low water level period the abundance of each fish species were higher under the bridges as the neighbouring natural sections. 2014 2015 S1: Somogyacsa, G: Gerézdpuszta S2: Somogydöröcske, Sz: Szorosad T: Törökkoppány, N: Nagykónyi, R: Régöly Pseudorasbora parva

  13. The protected reophil cyprinid fish species (Alburnoides bipunctatus, Cobitis elongatoides, Gobio gobio komplex, Romanogobio vladykovi) were caught in the middle and upper section of Koppány stream only in the sampling sites at bridges, because the current velocity and the sediment composition were optimal at different water levels at these sections. The protected Misgurnus fossilis were caught on the natural upstream section of the bridges of S2 and Sz sampling sites. Results 6: The protected fish species in Koppány stream Alburnoides bipunctatus Cobitis elongatoides Gobio gobio komplex Misgurnus fossilis Romanogobio vladykovi

  14. Results 7: Effect of different water level 2015 2014 Reophil: ▲ Eurytop: Limnotic: ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 1= distance from the bank, 2= water depth, 3= current velocity, 4= mud-sand, 5= pebbles, 6= rocks, boulders, 7= clay, 8= woody debris, 9= aquatic macrophytes, 10= terrestrial plants, 11= shading trees Abbr: Abramis brama, albi: Alburnoides bipunctatus, alal: Alburnus alburnus, asas: Aspius aspius, blbj: Blicca bjoerkna, cagi: Carassius gibelio, coel: Cobitis elongatoides, cyca: Cyprinus carpio, eslo: Esox lucius,gogo: Gobio gobio komplex, legi: Lepomis gibbosus, nefl: Neogobius fluviatilis,pefl: Perca fluviatilis, pspa: Pseudorasbora parva, rham: Rhodeus amarus, rovl: Romanogobio vladykovi, ruru: Rutilus rutilus, salu: Sander lucioperca, scer: Scardinius erythrophthalmus, sqce: Squalius cephalus

  15. Conclusions The natural and semi-natural habitats are important to preserve several aquatic species in a human modified landscape. In the environment changed by the stream regulation, agriculture and forestry (sediment transport, spatial and temporal changing of floods, lost of floodplain forest, etc.) some artificial habitats will represent refugees for several taxon. Aquatic habitats under bridges in a modified stream have key role in conservation of native reophil species composition. The pressure of agriculture and the spread of non-native fishes in all habitats in Koppány stream affect all native fauna component. In the future the isolation and local extinction of protected species is a real possibility and the different experts must cooperate to protect the species and their habitats in the drainage area of Koppány.

  16. Thank you for your attention! In memoriam Dr. Miklós Puky (1961-2015)

More Related