Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Research about Parana River

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Parana River.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Bidirectional connectivity via fish ladders in a large Neotropical river: Response to a comment

In a recent article, we described fitting electronic tags to the fish Prochilodus lineatus to document how a fishway connected aquatic habitats downstream and upstream of a major dam. Moreover, given that tagged fish remained upstream or downstream for periods extending months and years before returning to the fishway, and that observed patterns of passage were consistent with seasonal migratory cycles, and building on existing literature, we speculated that the fishway allows fish access to spawning habitats upstream and feeding habitats downstream. Our interpretation of the movement data resulted in several comments from Pelicice, Pompeu, and Agostinho (2020) and they outline various reasons by which, in their opinion, some of our conclusions may be mistaken. Their critique is threefold. First, they argue that the percentage of fish attracted into the fishway is too low to consider the fishway an effective link between the reservoir and the river downstream. We contend that without estimates of population size it is impossible to judge if 28% passage is “limited”; conceivably, the absolute number of fish passed may still be enough to maintain a viable population. Second, they assert that because receivers were located only in the fishway it is unknown if fish that used the fishway remained near the dam, or if they continued their migration. We counter with a brief literature review that documents P. lineatus migrating through reservoirs and spawning in tributaries. Third, they advocate for a broader conservation perspective and for additional research. We agree and, in the article, had already expressed this view that fishways are only a temporary fix and that we support their use only as an element of a broader environmental management package. We also agree with the need for more research but argue that procrastinating on conservation action may not be wise because we do not know if the research will be done, how long it will take, or what the cost may be of waiting.

Parana River

Migratory movements of pacu, Piaractus mesopotamicus , in the highly impounded Paraná River

A mark-recapture study was conducted in 1997–2005 to investigate movements of stocked pacu, Piaractus mesopotamicus , in the Paraná River Basin of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. Fish raised in cages within the Itaipu Reservoir and in ponds were tagged externally (n = 2976) and released in the Itaipu Reservoir (53.2%) and bays of its major tributaries (46.8%). In total, 367 fish (12.3%) were recaptured. In all, 91% of the pacu moved away from the release site; upstream movements were more extensive than downstream movements. Pacu traveled upstream a maximum of 422 km (average of 41.3 km) at a maximum rate of 26.4 km day −1 (av. 0.8). Downstream movements were limited in terms of number of individuals and distance moved. Fish released during the wet season moved farther than those released during the dry season, and feeding rather than spawning might have been the compelling reason for movement. Although fish passed downstream through dams, none of the marked fish were detected to have moved upstream through the passage facilities. Pacu showed movement patterns not radically different from those of other neotropical migratory species, but their migratory movements may not be as extensive as those of other large migratory species in the basin.

Parana River