ArticlePloS one2023
Wastewater plumes can act as non-physical barriers for migrating silver eel.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-physical barriers for migrating fish, such as effluent plumes discharged by sewage treatment plants (WWTPs), are hardly considered, and field studies on this topic are very scarce. The encounter with these plumes however may evoke behavioural responses in fish and could delay or (partially) block the migration. In this study, the behavioural responses of 40 acoustically-tagged silver eel (Anguilla anguilla) were monitored in situ, when confronting a WWTP effluent plume during their downstream migration in the canal Eems, the Netherlands. Their behavioural responses and the potential blocking effect of the plume were assessed using a 2D and 3D telemetry design displayed in the waterway, and matched to a modelled and calibrated WWTP effluent plume. When confronted with the WWTP effluent plume during their downstream migration, 22 of the silver eels (59%) showed an avoidance response, varying from lateral diverting to multiple turning in the vicinity of the effluent plume. Nineteen out of these 22 (86%) eventually passed the study site. No silver eel showed attraction to the plume. Delays in migration were from several hours up to several days. Due to the strong variation in discharged volumes and flow velocity of the receiving canal, the WWTP plume did not always flow over the full width of the canal. As a result, numerous migratory windows, where silver eels could pass the WWTP while avoiding direct contact with the plume, remained available in time. When discharge points cannot be avoided, reduced or restricted to areas that are not preferred as fish migration routes, discharge points should be designed such, that the chance is limited that a waterway is (temporarily) impacted over its full width.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.