Next Article in Journal
Reconstruction of Hydrometeorological Data Using Dendrochronology and Machine Learning Approaches to Bias-Correct Climate Models in Northern Tien Shan, Kyrgyzstan
Next Article in Special Issue
Brown Trout Upstream Passage Performance for a Fishway with Water Drops between Pools beyond Fish Passage Design Recommendations
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic Analysis in Surface Water Area and Its Driving Factors in Northeast China from 1988 to 2020
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Test of a Screw-Style Fish Lift for Introducing Migratory Fish into a Selective Fish Passage Device

1
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Traverse City, MI 49684, USA
2
U. S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Hammond Bay Biological Station, Millersburg, MI 49759, USA
3
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marquette Biological Station, Marquette, MI 49855, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(15), 2298; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152298
Submission received: 29 April 2022 / Revised: 14 July 2022 / Accepted: 22 July 2022 / Published: 24 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances and Experiences in Fishway Design and Assessment)

Abstract

:
Barriers are an effective mechanism for managing invasive species, such as sea lamprey in the Laurentian Great Lakes but are detrimental because they limit the migration of desirable, native species. Fish passage technologies that selectively pass desirable species while blocking undesirable species are needed. Optical sorting tools, combined with newly developed computer learning algorithms, could be used to identify invasive species from high-resolution imagery and potentially isolate them from an assortment of the Great Lakes fishes. Many existing barriers lack fishways, and optical sorting may require fish to be dewatered for image capture. The Archimedes screw, a device originating from 234 BCE, offers the potential to continuously lift fish and water over low-head barriers or into an optical sorting device. To test the efficacy of an Archimedes screw and fish lifting to capture and pass Great Lakes fishes, we built a field-scale prototype and installed it at the Cheboygan Dam, Michigan in the USA in 2021. The fish lift safely transported 704 fish (688 of which were suckers (Catostomidae)) in 11 days. The passage of the suckers through the fish lift increased with the water temperature and attraction flow. There were no observed injuries in the transported fish or mortalities in a subset of suckers held post-transport.

1. Introduction

The Great Lakes’ restoration action plans have called for the removal of barriers or the development of bypass methods to reconnect the Laurentian Great Lakes (hereafter the Great Lakes) fish to tributaries [1]. At the same time, these action plans call for the prevention of the spread of invasive species [1]. One of the benefits of removing dams is the increased passage of migratory species, but this action may also allow the passage of invasive species [2], diseases, and even contaminants into otherwise protected watersheds. The conflicting management actions surrounding the barriers lead to the connectivity conundrum [3]. Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus (Linnaeus, 1758)) control in the Great Lakes is just one invasive species whose control is dependent on the barriers to migration. In total, 494 lowermost barriers, that is the first barrier between a tributary and its receiving water, prevent adult sea lamprey from accessing spawning habitats in tributaries to all five of the Great Lakes and eliminate the need for a lampricide treatment upstream of these dams [4]. However, one of the impacts of these barriers is the blockage of most native fish species migrating from the Great Lakes, which makes the barriers a major impediment to restoring the habitat and migratory of fish communities [5,6]. Fish passage technologies that selectively allow the passage of desirable species while blocking undesirable species are needed to address the connectivity conundrum surrounding the barriers [3,7,8].
Currently, the only proven method to selectively pass and block fishes is through manual trap-and-sort. While effective at preventing the movement of undesirable fishes, such as the sea lamprey, a number of desirable fish can pass through the manual trap-and-sort and vary widely (e.g., 7–88%) [9], and the technique can be time-consuming, and it can be detrimental to fish health. Thus, there is a need to develop automated sorting methods that minimize human intervention and the handling of fish. Recently, an image library of the Great Lakes fish (6246 images) was collected using an optical scanner (Whooshh FishLTM Recognition scanner, Whooshh Innovations Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) and used to train a convolutional neural network [10]. The algorithm identified individual fish species with ~95% accuracy and correctly identified sea lamprey from all other species with >99% accuracy [10]. Although the sorting of fish based on the species’ level identification with an optical scanner has not yet been implemented, the same technology is currently used to determine the size of the fish, which then drives the operation of the sorting chute doors, guiding the fish to appropriately sized transport tubes [11]. Therefore, a step towards species-level sorting using an optical scanner is not out of reach. The scanner required the fish to be removed from the water and passed through the scanner, single file, on a wetted ramp to collect consistent and high-resolution images. While other imaging tools exist that do not require fish dewatering, accurate species identification can be hindered by high turbidity [12] or the presence of multiple fish [13]. The volitional entry of highly motivated and mobile fish, such as Pacific salmonids into optical scanners that require fish to be dewatered, can be achieved using short technical fishway sections (e.g., Alaska Steeppass) with a false weir [11]. However, technical fishways are not always designed for a non-salmonid passage and can be much less effective at attracting and passing non-salmonids [14,15,16]. Therefore, a solution for collecting and lifting fish from the water is necessary to further develop an optical sorting tool for non-salmonids.
Archimedean screws, as devices first conceived for raising and transferring water, offer a means to continuously transport fish out of the water and into an optical sorting tool. They use a rotating helical blade to lift water continuously (i.e., pump) or extract energy from the water (i.e., turbine) [17]. Other mechanical fish lifts (e.g., elevators, locks, or Hidrostal pumps) have the means to transport fish out of the water [18] but can delay or prevent fish passage, as they only move fish at discrete times. In addition to providing continuous transport, Archimedes screw turbines are commonly used to provide a generally safer alternative to conventional turbines for downstream passage [19,20], although fish mortality has been reported to be 17–19% for downstream migrating eel [21]. Alternatively, high survival has been demonstrated during upstream passage trials for a variety of fishes. McNabb et al. [22] found that 93–98% of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum, 1972)) survived their upstream passage through a 3 m diameter by a 11.5 m long Archimedes screw lift. Another study by Vriese [23] found no mortalities passing nine European freshwater species (N = 99) upstream in a pilot test of a 70 cm diameter screw. Although these findings of low mortality support the further advancement of Archimedes screws to lift fish, this application of Archimedes screws has not been widely investigated. One key knowledge gap is an understanding of the downstream entrance hydraulic conditions of this style of fish lift and how they impact fish capture. Further investigations into these phenomena would help clarify the potential utility of Archimedes screw fish lifts as a tool for advancing selective passage objectives and contending with the connectivity conundrum surrounding the barriers in the Great Lakes and elsewhere.
We designed a field-scale Archimedes screw fish lift (ASFL) and deployed it in a sea lamprey crowding structure in a Great Lakes tributary that is frequently inundated with large numbers of native migratory fish and invasive sea lamprey. The objectives of this pilot study were to (1) characterize the hydraulic conditions at the downstream entrance of an ASFL, (2) investigate their relationship with fish capture and eventual transport, and (3) document survival of native fishes transported by the ASFL. We hypothesized that the hydraulic conditions at the downstream entrance of an ASFL influences fish capture. We predicted that fish capture in a field-scale prototype ASFL would be increased during treatments with an added small jet of attraction flow, compared to treatments without added attraction flow.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The ASFL was tested at the Cheboygan Lock and Dam on the Cheboygan River, MI, in the USA during the period of 25 April–6 May 2021. The mean spring river discharge is 19 m3/s. The Cheboygan Lock and Dam, located approximately 2.5 km upstream of the mouth in Lake Huron, is comprised of a large earthen embankment, wood, and steel sheet pile spillway with six gates, a non-functional fishway, and an integral sea lamprey trap. The trap complex features four pot-style sea lamprey traps that can be removed via steel slots and are connected to a large pre-trap area that crowds fish near the trap entrances (Figure 1).
The Archimedes screw is comprised of one or more helical surfaces or blades around a central shaft and surrounded by a fixed or rotating outer cylinder. While the screw rotates, water and fish are entrained in the bucket, the volume formed between adjacent flights of the helical surface and constrained by the outer cylinder [24], and transported upstream. The prototype ASFL used in the study was custom fabricated out of stainless steel (Moran Ironworks, Onaway, MI, USA). The ASFL has a single helical blade and a rotating outer cylinder (the blade and outer cylinder were continuously welded together). The ASFL was rotated by an AC gearmotor (Dayton 4ZJ51, Lake Forest, IL, USA), and the rotation speed was controlled using a variable frequency drive (Schneider Electric ATV12H037F1, Rueil-Malmaison, FR), drawing 0.28 kW/h. The geometry of the screw and critical dimensions are provided in Figure 2 and Table 1. An attraction flow of 200 L/min was provided by a submersible pump (Grundfos Unilift AP12 1HP, Brookshire, TX, USA) and two symmetric Schedule 80 PVC pipes (average inner diameter of 3.75 cm) attached to the support beam at the ASFL entrance and aimed at a 45-degree angle towards the centerline of the ASFL (Figure 3). The steel frame supporting the entrance of the ASFL was set within a stoplog slot at the northwest corner of the sea lamprey trap (in place of Trap D, Figure 1c). Steel wire mesh on the supporting frame was used to ensure fish could not bypass the ASFL. Fish transported by the ASFL were deposited into a floating enclosure immediately upstream of the ASFL.

2.2. Hydraulics

The velocity fields at the entrance of the ASFL were measured using an acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV) (Vectrino Plus—NotrekUSA, Annapolis, MD, USA). Velocity measurements were taken in front of the ASFL entrance with and without attraction flow along horizontal planes at 30 cm (top of the ASFL) and 80 cm (bottom of the ASFL). For each horizontal plane, measurements were taken at 16.5, 33, and 49.5 cm along the x-axis and 12.7, 19.0, 38.1, 57.1, and 76.2 cm along the y-axis. A total of 60 points were sampled. Velocity measurements were taken at a frequency of 50 Hz over a 120 s duration. Velocity data were filtered and despiked following the recommendations of Wahl [25] using a custom MATLAB (R2021b, Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) script. These measurements were used to quantify the time-averaged velocities, flow patterns, fluctuating velocities, and turbulent kinetic energy. Velocity fluctuations in each direction ( u , v , w ) are the difference between the instantaneous velocity ( u , v , w ) and time-averaged velocity ( u ¯ , v ¯ , w ¯ ) .
u = u u ¯ v = v v ¯ w = w w ¯ ,
Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is the mean kinetic energy per unit mass associated with turbulent structures in the flow and is calculated by:
TKE = 1 2 ( u 2 ¯ + v 2 ¯ + w 2 ¯ ) ,
where the overbar indicates the time-averaged value.

2.3. Experimental Procedure

The ASFL was operated for consecutive 24 h trials between 25 April and 6 May 2021, with attraction flow turned on or off at 12:00 p.m. on alternating days. Fish caught in the upstream floating enclosure at the end of each trial were counted, identified, and inspected for wounds. All fish were measured for total length. When more than 20 fish of the same species were captured in the trap, only 20 individuals of that species were randomly measured. Water temperature was measured daily at the time of trap check. As the most prevalent species transported by the ASFL, 10 suckers (Catostomidae) were held for mortality monitoring at the U.S. Geological Survey Hammond Bay Biological Station for 3 weeks post transport through the ASFL. Suckers were visually inspected, daily via a side viewing window on the aquaria and again during handling at the end of the holding period. Finally, fish captured in the pot-style sea lamprey traps during the experimental period were counted and identified to species or higher taxonomic levels to further characterize the fish community available for capture by the ASFL during the experimental trials.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The analysis of the number of fishes transported by the ASFL was analyzed using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM). GLMM analysis was only completed for suckers as no other species had more than four captures. The number of suckers transported by the ASFL was analyzed using the mean daily water temperature and attraction flow (on/off) as the fixed effects and the day as a random effect. The linear regression and normality assumptions were explored using Pearson model residuals. The histogram of the model residuals was normally distributed at about zero, and a plot of normalized residuals against the fitted values did not indicate a systematic dependence of the variance on the fitted values. Examining the residual lag-plots did not reveal signs of the possible non-independence of observations from the unmodeled autocorrelated processes [26]. We further considered reduced models with a single fixed effect, either by the attraction flow or water temperature. To determine which model was most well supported by the data, an information theoretic approach was performed using Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), where the model with the lowest AIC value was the best model. The data were analyzed using the fitglme function in MATLAB.

3. Results

3.1. Hydraulics

The flow topology differed between conditions with and without attraction flow (Figure 4). Without attraction flow, the flow pattern on the right side of the ASLF near the surface (30 cm depth) is predominately towards the ASFL, whereas with the attraction flow present, flow is directed away from the ASFL. Flow near the bottom of the ASFL (80 cm depth) is less impacted by the attraction flow, and areas of flow towards the ASFL entrance are indicative of water rushing into the empty ASFL bucket. Similar patterns in turbulence were also observed relative to attraction flow presence (Figure 5). The only notable difference in TKE values is near the surface with attraction flow on, where TKE increases three-fold compared to the no attraction flow case.

3.2. Fish Passage

A total of 704 fish, 688 of which were suckers, were transported through the ASFL (Table 2). The temperature steadily increased throughout the test period (Figure 6). While the number of suckers transported by the ASFL increased throughout the test period, more were transported when the attraction flow was on (101 ± 66 [mean ± SD]) versus off (30 ± 40). The model most supported by the data contained the temperature and attraction flow as the covariates and day as a random factor (Table 3). Both the attraction flow and temperature were positively associated with the daily number of suckers transported by the ASFL (Table 4). All 10 fish held for visual monitoring appeared in good condition 3-weeks post transport with no bruising, abrasions, hemorrhaging, or mortalities observed.
Non-sucker fish species transported by the ASFL included four game fishes native to the Great Lakes, rainbow trout, and invasive sea lamprey (Table 2). Several fish species known to be in the pre-trap crowding structure during the ASFL trials (based on fishes identified to species captured in the sea lamprey pot-style traps) were not transported by the ASFL. In order of most to least abundant, these included the emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides (Rafinesque, 1818)), walleye (Sander vitreus (Mitchill, 1818)), round goby (Neogobius metanostomus (Pallas, 1814)), troutperch (Percopis omiscomaycus (Walbaum, 1792)), common shiner (Luxilis cornutus (Mitchill, 1817)), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus (Rafinesque, 1820)), brown trout (Salmo trutta (Linnaeus, 1758)), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax (Mitchill, 1814)).

4. Discussion

The evaluation of the capture and transport of fishes through a prototype of the Archimedes Screw Fish Lift showed that a mixture of migratory Great Lakes fish could be successfully transported with no observed injury or mortality. The increase in sucker capture and transport when an additional attraction flow was provided also highlights the need for further investigations into how hydraulic conditions influence ASFL capture and encounter rates. Overall, this pilot-level study demonstrates that the ASFL has the potential to capture and transport Great Lakes migratory fish over small vertical differentials or into an optical sorting and fish passage tool.
The hydraulic conditions at the entrance of the prototype ASFL impacted the capture and subsequent transport of the sucker as the capture-increased attraction flow was present. While changes to the flow topology near the ASFL were minimal with the addition of 200 L/min attraction flow, they had a significant impact on fish capture. One possible explanation for the effect is the additional flow helped to reduce the extent and magnitude of reverse flow fields formed when water rushes into the empty bucket. Since fish migrating upstream exhibit strong rheotactic responses to flow [27], reverse flow fields may disorient or otherwise inhibit upstream movement. The fact the presence of attraction flow still increased the capture of suckers emphasizes that unmodified entrance conditions at the ASFL may not be sufficient to attract and capture significant portions of fish. Further investigations that employ fine-scale tracking of fish movements could help clarify hydraulic conditions favorable for fish capture in an ASFL. A key outstanding uncertainty in the future use of the prototype ASFL is whether fish would volitionally enter or would be captured with water filling the bucket.
Testing the efficacy of the ASFL as a standalone means for transporting Great Lakes migratory fishes over small vertical differentials would require manipulations of hydraulic conditions hypothesized to influence both ASFL capture and encounter. While our study provided useful insight toward the future deployment of an ASFL in a fish passage scenario with fishes congregated in a confined space, there is substantial uncertainty regarding how an ASFL could perform outside of a confined space and whether both encounter and capture rates can be enhanced with a more distinguishable attraction flow. In a more open configuration, large manipulations in attraction flow would likely be required to achieve a measurable effect on ASFL encounter and capture rate. Fishway entrance design guidelines suggest that flows used to attract fish toward fishway entrances should be approximately 5% of the overall river discharge and located and oriented to maximize the influence of the attraction flow hydraulic cue (parallel to flow when competing flows are low and perpendicular to flow when competing flows are high) [26]. Furthermore, turbulence enhanced attraction flow, which was found to guide sea lamprey movement in an open stream, [27] may be a useful technique for increasing ASFL encounter and capture rates and warrants further investigation.
Testing the ASFL with a balanced mixture of fishes representing diverse fish communities in the Great Lakes rivers and streams could provide useful insight into how efficacy may vary among species. Our current experimental design did not allow us to quantify the number of fish available to capture by the ASFL and, thereby, untangle the respective roles of the ASFL capture efficacy and the number of fish available for capture on the observed capture rate for each species. However, resource managers considering ASFL as a tool for contending with the connectivity conundrum could benefit from an understanding of how its efficacy may vary among species. Further work that quantifies capture and encounter rates directly by tracking the fate of tagged individuals and/or conducting trials with a known number of individuals in an enclosed setting could help build this understanding.
Our pilot-level study provides a valuable step towards understanding how the ASFL could be used in upstream passage scenarios, a promising yet understudied application of this technology. While more extensive testing is still required, the results of this study suggest that an ASFL with additional attraction flow could potentially be a viable solution to capture and transport fish into an optical sorting device that requires fish to be out of the water for inspection and image recognition.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.P.Z., S.M., and S.L.; methodology, D.P.Z., S.M., and S.L.; formal analysis, D.P.Z. and S.M.; data curation, D.P.Z. and S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.P.Z.; writing—review and editing, D.P.Z., S.M., and S.L.; project administration, S.M.; funding acquisition, S.M. and S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this contribution came from the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Science Support (SSP) & Quick Response Program (QRP).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Experimental protocols involving the handling of fishes were carried out in accordance with United States federal guidelines for care and use of animals and were approved by the American Fisheries Society through the “Use of Fishes in Research Committee, 2014”.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is also contribution seven of FishPass. FishPass is the capstone to the 20-year restoration of the Boardman (Ottaway) River, Traverse City, Michigan. The mission of FishPass is to provide an up- and down-stream passage of desirable fishes while simultaneously blocking or removing undesirable fishes, thereby addressing the connectivity conundrum. We are grateful to the primary project partners: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. We also extend our sincerest thanks to our primary partner, the City of Traverse City. Without the city’s support and the vision of the city commission, FishPass would not have been possible. Riley Waterman from the United States Geological Survey ran the day-to-day operation of the ASFL trials. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. GLRI (Great Lakes Restoration Initiative). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III. 2019. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/glri-action-plan-3-201910-30pp.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  2. McLaughlin, R.L.; Smyth, E.R.; Castro-Santos, T.; Jones, M.L.; Koops, M.A.; Pratt, T.C.; Vélez-Espino, L.A. Unintended consequences and trade-offs of fish passage. Fish Fish. 2013, 14, 580–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zielinski, D.P.; McLaughlin, R.L.; Pratt, T.C.; Goodwin, R.A.; Muir, A.M. Single-stream recycling inspires selective fish passage solutions for the connectivity conundrum in aquatic ecosystems. BioScience 2020, 70, 871–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hrodey, P.J.; Lewandoski, S.A.; Sullivan, W.P.; Barber, J.M.; Mann, K.A.; Paudel, B.; Symbal, M.J. Evolution of the Sea Lamprey Control Barrier Program: The importance of lowermost barriers. J. Great Lakes Res. 2021, 47, S285–S296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mandrak, N.E.; Jones, M.L.; McLaughlin, R.L. Evaluation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission interim policy on barrier placement. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. 2003, 76. [Google Scholar]
  6. Januchowski-Hartley, S.R.; McIntyre, P.B.; Diebel, M.; Doran, P.J.; Infante, D.M.; Joseph, C.; Allan, J.D. Restoring aquatic ecosystem connectivity requires expanding inventories of both dams and road crossings. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rahel, F.J.; McLaughlin, R.L. Selective fragmentation and the management of fish movement across anthropogenic barriers. Ecol. Appl. 2018, 28, 2066–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. McLaughlin, R.L.; Hallett, A.; Pratt, T.C.; O’Connor, L.M.; McDonald, D.G. Research to Guide Use of Barriers, Traps, and Fishways to Control Sea Lamprey. J. Great Lakes Res. 2007, 33, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pratt, T.C.; O’Connor, L.M.; Hallett, A.G.; McLaughlin, R.L.; Katopodis, C.; Hayes, D.B.; Bergstedt, R.A. Balancing aquatic habitat fragmentation and control of invasive species: Enhancing selective fish passage at sea lamprey control barriers. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2009, 138, 652–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eickholt, J.; Kelly, D.; Bryan, J.; Miehls, S.; Zielinski, D.P. Advancements towards selective barrier passage by automatic species identification: Applications of deep convolutional neural networks on images of dewatered fish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2020, 77, 2804–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Garavelli, L.; Linley, T.J.; Bellgraph, B.J.; Rhode, B.M.; Janak, J.M.; Colotelo, A.H. Evaluation of passage and sorting of adult Pacific salmonids through a novel fish passage technology. Fish. Res. 2019, 212, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hawkins, P.R.; Hortle, K.G.; Phommanivong, S.; Singsua, Y. Underwater video monitoring of fish passage in the Mekong River at Sadam Channel, Khone Falls, Laos. River Res. Appl. 2017, 34, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Allken, V.; Rosen, S.; Handegard, N.L.; Malde, K. A deep learning-based method to identify and count pelagic and mesopelagic fishes from trawl camera images. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2012, 78, 3780–3792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mallen-Cooper, M.; Brand, D.A. Non-salmonids in a salmonid fishway: What do 50 years of data tell us about past and future fish passage? Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2007, 14, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Noonan, M.J.; Grant, J.W.A.; Jackson, C.D. A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency. Fish Fish. 2012, 13, 450–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bajer, P.; Adapting Stream Barriers to Remove Common Carp. Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources. 2020; Final Report. Available online: https://www.lccmr.mn.gov/projects/2017-index.html#201706d (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  17. Koetsier, T.; Blauwendraat, H. The Archimedean screw-pump: A note on its invention and the development of the theory. In International Symposium on History of Machines and Mechanisms; Ceccarelli, M., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  18. Larinier, M. Upstream and downstream fish passage experience in France. In Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses; Jungwirth, M., Schmutz, S., Weiss, S., Eds.; Oxford: Malden, MA, USA, 1998; pp. 127–145. [Google Scholar]
  19. Havn, T.B.; Sæther, S.A.; Thorstad, E.B.; Teichert, M.A.K.; Heermann, L.; Diserud, O.H.; Borcherding, J.; Tambets, M.; Økland, F. Downstream migration of Atlantic salmon smolts past a low head hydropower station equipped with Archimedes screw and Francis turbines. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 105, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Piper, A.T.; Rosewarne, P.J.; Wright, R.M.; Kemp, P.S. The impact of an Archimedes screw hydropower turbine on fish migration in a lowland river. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 118, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Buysse, D.; Mouton, A.M.; Stevens, M.; Van den Neucker, T.; Coeck, J. Mortality of European eel after downstream migration through two types of pumping stations. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2014, 21, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McNabb, C.D.; Liston, C.R.; Borthwick, S.M. Passage of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and other Fish Species through Archimedes Lifts and a Hidrostal Pump at Red Bluff, California; Passage of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and other Fish Species through Archimedes Lifts and a Hidrostal Pump at Red Bluff, California. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2003, 132, 326–334. [Google Scholar]
  23. Vriese, F.T.; Research into the Fish-Friendly Screw Pumps. FishFlow Innovations. 2009. Available online: https://www.aquaticcontrol.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2009-Screw-Pump-research-Paper.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  24. Lyons, M.; Simmons, S.; Fisher, M.; Williams, J.S.; Lubitz, W.D. Experimental investigation of Archimedes screw pump. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wahl, T. Analyzing ADV Data Using WinADV. In Proceedings of the 2000 Joint Conference on Water Resource Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management, Reston, VA, USA, 30 July–2 August 2000. [Google Scholar]
  26. Silva, A.T.; Hatry, C.; Thiem, J.D.; Gutowsky, L.F.G.; Hatin, D.; Zhu, D.Z.; Dawson, J.W.; Katopodis, C.; Cooke, S.J. Behaviour and locomotor activity of a migratory catostomid during fishway passage. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0123051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Castro-Santos, T.; Haro, A. Fish guidance and passage at barriers. In Fish Locomotion: An Eco-Ethological Perspective; Domenici, P., Kapoor, B.G., Eds.; Science Publishers: Enfield, NH, USA, 2010; pp. 62–89. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. (A) Location of the Cheboygan dam (star) in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan, USA. (B) Cheboygan Dam and sea lamprey trap are located in the red rectangle. (C) sea lamprey trap depicting the pre-trap crowding structure with collection pot style traps positioned along the south (Traps A and B) and east (Traps C and D) walls, attractant water inflow, decommissioned fishway, and the barrier spillway. The ASFL was installed in Trap D.
Figure 1. (A) Location of the Cheboygan dam (star) in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan, USA. (B) Cheboygan Dam and sea lamprey trap are located in the red rectangle. (C) sea lamprey trap depicting the pre-trap crowding structure with collection pot style traps positioned along the south (Traps A and B) and east (Traps C and D) walls, attractant water inflow, decommissioned fishway, and the barrier spillway. The ASFL was installed in Trap D.
Water 14 02298 g001
Figure 2. ASFL geometry and 3-dimenssional rendering (inset). Note, the ASFL entrance was submerged by at least 50% but never fully submerged during the testing period.
Figure 2. ASFL geometry and 3-dimenssional rendering (inset). Note, the ASFL entrance was submerged by at least 50% but never fully submerged during the testing period.
Water 14 02298 g002
Figure 3. Location and orientation of attraction flow nozzles at the entrance of the ASFL.
Figure 3. Location and orientation of attraction flow nozzles at the entrance of the ASFL.
Water 14 02298 g003
Figure 4. Velocity magnitude contour with velocity vectors measured in front of the ASFL without attraction flow at a depth of (a) 30 cm and (c) 80 cm and with attraction flow at a depth of (b) 30 cm and (d) 80 cm. The y–axis origin is the entrance of the ASFL, centered at x = 45 cm. Attraction flow nozzles are located at y = 0, x = 20 and 70 cm. Note, the orientation is the same as Figure 3.
Figure 4. Velocity magnitude contour with velocity vectors measured in front of the ASFL without attraction flow at a depth of (a) 30 cm and (c) 80 cm and with attraction flow at a depth of (b) 30 cm and (d) 80 cm. The y–axis origin is the entrance of the ASFL, centered at x = 45 cm. Attraction flow nozzles are located at y = 0, x = 20 and 70 cm. Note, the orientation is the same as Figure 3.
Water 14 02298 g004
Figure 5. Turbulent kinetic energy contour with velocity vectors measured in front of the ASFL without attraction flow at a depth of (a) 30 cm and (c) 80 cm and with attraction flow at a depth of (b) 30 cm and (d) 80 cm. The y–axis origin is the entrance of the ASFL, centered at x = 45 cm. Attraction flow nozzles are located at y = 0, x = 20 and 70 cm. Note, the orientation is the same as Figure 3.
Figure 5. Turbulent kinetic energy contour with velocity vectors measured in front of the ASFL without attraction flow at a depth of (a) 30 cm and (c) 80 cm and with attraction flow at a depth of (b) 30 cm and (d) 80 cm. The y–axis origin is the entrance of the ASFL, centered at x = 45 cm. Attraction flow nozzles are located at y = 0, x = 20 and 70 cm. Note, the orientation is the same as Figure 3.
Water 14 02298 g005
Figure 6. Plot of daily average water temperature and number of suckers transported by the ASFL. Line indicates water temperature, bars indicate number of suckers transported by the ASFL, and rectangles along the x–axis indicate whether the attraction flow was on (black) or off (white).
Figure 6. Plot of daily average water temperature and number of suckers transported by the ASFL. Line indicates water temperature, bars indicate number of suckers transported by the ASFL, and rectangles along the x–axis indicate whether the attraction flow was on (black) or off (white).
Water 14 02298 g006
Table 1. Dimensions and characteristics of the ASFL depicted in Figure 2.
Table 1. Dimensions and characteristics of the ASFL depicted in Figure 2.
DimensionPrototype ASFLVariable
Outside diameter (mm)762O.D.
Inner diameter (mm)101I.D.
Length (m)3.05L
Vertical lift (m)1.50H
Angle of inclination (degrees)27β
Bucket length (mm)762S
Bucket volume (liters)50
Motor torque (N·m)115
Rotation (rpm)12
Table 2. Total count and average and maximum length of fish transported by the ASFL during the entire test period. Note, only 169 (25%) of the suckers caught were measured for total length.
Table 2. Total count and average and maximum length of fish transported by the ASFL during the entire test period. Note, only 169 (25%) of the suckers caught were measured for total length.
SpeciesScientific NameNo.
Passed
Ave. Length
(mm)
Max Length
(mm)
northern pikeEssox lucius (Linnaeus, 1758)3577635
rock bassAmbloplites rupestris (Rafinesque, 1817)4178218
rainbow troutOncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)2257410
sea lampreyPetromyzon marinus (Linnaeus, 1758)3475482
smallmouth bassMicropterus dolomieu (Lacépède, 1802)1352352
yellow perchPerca flavescens (Mitchill, 1814)3208224
suckersCatostomidae688451534
Table 3. List of model and AIC scores for Generalized Linear Mixed Model of suckers lifted by the ASFL. Model variables with fixed effects include average water temperature (Temp °C) and attraction flow treatment (Attract), while day was modelled as a random effect.
Table 3. List of model and AIC scores for Generalized Linear Mixed Model of suckers lifted by the ASFL. Model variables with fixed effects include average water temperature (Temp °C) and attraction flow treatment (Attract), while day was modelled as a random effect.
ModelAICΔAIC
Temp + Attract + (Day)120.76-
Attract + (Day)124.373.61
Temp + (Day)125.454.69
Table 4. Fixed effects from the top Generalized Linear Mixed Model to explain the number of suckers transported by the ASFL.
Table 4. Fixed effects from the top Generalized Linear Mixed Model to explain the number of suckers transported by the ASFL.
Model TermCoefficientSEdftp-Value
Intercept−101.5051.108−1.990.08
Water temp.16.466.0982.700.03
Attraction flow68.3722.5383.040.02
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zielinski, D.P.; Miehls, S.; Lewandoski, S. Test of a Screw-Style Fish Lift for Introducing Migratory Fish into a Selective Fish Passage Device. Water 2022, 14, 2298. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152298

AMA Style

Zielinski DP, Miehls S, Lewandoski S. Test of a Screw-Style Fish Lift for Introducing Migratory Fish into a Selective Fish Passage Device. Water. 2022; 14(15):2298. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152298

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zielinski, Daniel P., Scott Miehls, and Sean Lewandoski. 2022. "Test of a Screw-Style Fish Lift for Introducing Migratory Fish into a Selective Fish Passage Device" Water 14, no. 15: 2298. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152298

APA Style

Zielinski, D. P., Miehls, S., & Lewandoski, S. (2022). Test of a Screw-Style Fish Lift for Introducing Migratory Fish into a Selective Fish Passage Device. Water, 14(15), 2298. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152298

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop