Download 1. dia

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
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…
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
Sampling area
HUNGARY
Seven bridges area of the
Koppány-stream were
researched between 20142015.
Each sampling area is a
section consisting the
neighbouring natural upstream
and downstream from each
bridge as well.
1: Somogyacsa (S1), 2: Gerézdpuszta (G), 3:
Somogydöröcske (S2), 4: Szorosad (Sz), 5: Törökkoppány
(T), 6. Nagykónyi (N), 7: Régöly (R)
S1
S2
G
T
N
R
Sz
Why the areas of road bridges in a human
modified landscape are interesting?
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.
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
Flow direction
1.
road
2.
3.
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.
Results 2: Crayfish
Number of individulas
18
16
2014
Autumn
Summer
Spring
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Number of individuals
S1
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
G
S2
T
N
R
Sampling sites
2015
S1
Sz
Autumn
Summer
Spring
G
S2
Sz
Sampling sites
T
N
R
S1: Somogyacsa
G: Gerézdpuszta
S2: Somogydöröcske
Sz: Szorosad
T: Törökkoppány
N: Nagykónyi
R: Régöly
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
Results 4: The most abundant fish species
A total of 3571 individuals were caught, with 1031 (29%) was the TMG.
Pseudorasbora parva
Results 5: Seasonality in 2014-2015
Spring
Number of individuals
250
Summer
Autumn
2014
200
150
100
50
0
1
2
3
1
S1
2
3
1
G
Number of individuals
3
1
S2
2
3
1
Sz
2
3
1
T
2
3
1
N
2
3
R
sitesAutumn
SpringSampling
Summer
350
300
2
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.
2015
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
2
S1
3
1
2
G
3
1
2
S2
3
1
2
Sz
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
T
N
Pseudorasbora parva
Sampling sites
1
2
R
3
S1: Somogyacsa, G: Gerézdpuszta
S2: Somogydöröcske, Sz: Szorosad
T: Törökkoppány, N: Nagykónyi, R:
Régöly
Results 6: The protected fish species in
Koppány stream
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.
Alburnoides bipunctatus
Cobitis elongatoides
Gobio gobio komplex
Misgurnus
fossilis
Romanogobio vladykovi
8
4
2014
2014
2015
Reophil: ▲
Eurytop:
Limnotic: ◊
3
rhse
asas
5
2
alal
9
abbr
711
1
cagi
ruru
pspa
scer
10
0
◊
mifo
eslu cyca
4
-1 ◊
2
pefl
legi
11
4
6 sqce
1
rovl
3
coel
gogo
albi
salu nefl
2015
3
asas 36
nefl
pspa
8legicoel
sqce
eslu
1
scer
mifo ◊ 4
gogo
rhse
cyca alal
◊
salu
ruru
0
2 rovl
9 7
pefl
-1
albi
blbj
1
10
2
Axis 2
Axis 2
Results 7: Effect of different water level
-2
cagi
abbr
blbj
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Axis 1
2
3
4
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Axis 1
5
1
2
3
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
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.
Thank you for your attention!
In memoriam
Dr. Miklós Puky
(1961-2015)