Bright spots for inland fish and fisheries to guide future hydropower development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydropower production is one of the greatest threats to fluvial ecosystems and freshwater biodiversity. Now that we have entered the Anthropocene, there is an opportunity to reflect on what might constitute a ‘sustainable’ Anthropocene in the context of hydropower and riverine fish populations. Considering elements of existing practices that promote favorable social-ecological outcomes (i.e., ‘bright spots’) is timely given that there are plans to expand hydropower capacity in previously undammed rivers, intensify dam development in some of the world's largest river systems, and re-license existing facilities. We approach this from a pragmatic perspective: for the foreseeable future, hydropower will likely remain an important source of renewable electricity. To offer support for moving toward a more ‘sustainable’ Anthropocene, we provide syntheses of best practices during the siting, design, construction, operation, and compensation phases of hydropower development to minimize impacts on inland fish. For each phase, we offer positive examples (or what might be considered ‘bright spots’) pertaining to some of the approaches described within our syntheses, acknowledging that these projects may not be viewed as without ecological and (or) societal detriment by all stakeholders. Our findings underscore the importance of protecting critical habitat and free-flowing river reaches through careful site selection and basin-scale planning, infrastructure designs that minimize reservoir effects and facilitate safe passage of fish, construction of hydropower plants using best practices that minimize long-term damage, operating guidelines that mimic natural flow conditions, and compensation that is lasting, effective, inclusive, and locally relevant. Learning from these ‘bright spots’ may require engagement of diverse stakeholders, professionals, and governments at scales that extend well beyond a given site, river, or even basin. Indeed, environmental planning that integrates hydropower development into broader discussions of conserving regional biodiversity and ecosystem services will be of utmost importance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".