Attraction

Pelagic zone

Biology

Fish migration

Philosophy

Geography

Ecology

Weir

Linguistics

Fishery

Facultative

Cartography

Fish <Actinopterygii>

Fish and Fisheries

To update the consensus on the effectiveness of fish passage mitigation structures or “fishways,” I conducted a meta‐analysis on the fish passage literature and synthesized attraction and passage efficiency estimates from 60 peer‐reviewed articles. One hundred unique species were studied at 75 unique fishways of various designs and sizes yielding 210 and 252 estimates of attraction and passage efficiency, respectively. Following Bunt et al. ( River Research and Applications , 28, 2012, 457), the fishways were grouped into five types: nature‐like, denil, pool‐and‐weir, vertical slot or locks and lifts that were operated automatically. Generalized linear mixed effects models showed that fishway type was not a significant predictor of passage efficiency, although nature‐like fishways had significantly lower attraction efficiency than other types. Neither fishway slope, nor elevation change was significant predictors of attraction or passage efficiency. Models comparing efficiency between ecological guilds of fishes (pelagic or benthic and rheophilic or limnophilic) showed that attraction and passage efficiency were highest for pelagic rheophiles and lowest for limnophiles. Models comparing migratory guilds of fishes (diadromous, potamodromous, facultative or non‐migratory) showed that diadromous species outperformed other guilds, as expected. Fish that were captured inside or above fishways had significantly higher passage performance than fish that were naive to the fishway. Inconsistency in fishway evaluation methods was pervasive in the surveyed literature and made this meta‐analysis challenging. When designing studies of fishway evaluations, researchers should conform to best practices so that their results are more generalizable and their conclusions of wider scope.

Updating the consensus on fishway efficiency: A meta‐analysis