Modify operation of underwater turbines

  • Overall effectiveness category Evidence not assessed

  • Number of studies: 2

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying the operation of underwater turbines on anguillid eel populations in inland habitats. One study was in the USA and the other in Germany. 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) 

 

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) 

  • Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA reported that American eel mortality rates were lower when turbines were shut down at night than during normal operations. 

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) 

  • Use (1 study): One study in Germany found that over half of migrating European eels passed safely through a turbine when it was lifted, but one third still passed when it was lowered. 

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study in 20072010 at five hydropower stations along a river in Virginia and West Virginia, USA (Eyler et al. 2016) reported that shutting down turbines at night led to reduced mortality rates of migrating American eels Anguilla rostrata. Overall mortality rates of American eels migrating downstream past dams at five power stations were lower during periods when turbines were shutdown (07%) than during normal turbine operations (638%), although Results are not based on tests of statistical significance. Similar numbers of eels passed dams while turbines were shutdown (1735 eels/dam) and during normal operations (1652 eels/dam). From 15 September to 15 December 20072010, turbines at five hydropower stations (34 turbines/station) were shut down from 18:00 to 06:00 h and all water diverted to the dam spillway. Normal operations were resumed at all other times. In SeptemberDecember 20072009, a total of 145 eels (average length 85 cm) were captured by electrofishing in the Shenandoah River upstream of each hydropower station. Captured eels were fitted with radio tags and released. Tagged eels were tracked passing each dam from September 2007 to August 2010. 

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study in 20152016 in a river in southern Germany (Økland et al. 2017) found that lifting a turbine at a power station allowed more than half of migrating European silver eels Anguilla anguilla to pass safely, although a third of eels still passed through the turbine when it was lowered. Thirty-four of 66 tagged eels (52%) passed through the section containing the turbine while the turbine was lifted. Twenty-four eels (36%) passed through the turbine when it was lowered. Data on turbine operation was not available when the remaining eight eels (12%) passed the turbine. A further 36 tagged eels passed the power station via other routes (24 eels over the dam or via flood gates, nine eels via a side stream, three eels via a fishway). In 2015, a total of 136 silver eels (65101 cm length) were captured in the river Kinzig, fitted with radio tags, and released 10 km upstream of the power station. Stationary receivers were placed upstream and downstream of a movable ‘Kaplan’ bulb turbineat the power station. Tagged eels were recorded passing the power station from October 2015 to May 2016 when the turbine was lifted (on 12 occasions for an average of 2.3 days, total 35 days) and lowered (the remainder of the time). 

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Cutts V., Berthinussen A., Reynolds S.A., Clarhäll A., Land M., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2024) Eel Conservation in Inland Habitats: Global evidence for the effects of actions to conserve anguillid eels. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Eel Conservation in Inland Habitats

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Eel Conservation in Inland Habitats
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 22

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the Evidence Champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust