Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fish‐Passage Facilities as Ecological Traps in Large Neotropical Rivers

Open access
PELICICE, FERNANDO MAYER, AGOSTINHO, ANGELO ANTONIO·2008·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: At present most of the large rivers of South America are impounded. Management plans historically have relied on the construction of fish passages, specifically ladders, to mitigate the impact of these waterway blockages on fisheries and biodiversity. Nevertheless, the design of these facilities is not ecologically sound and they are not monitored continually. Consequently, the real role of South American fish passages in fisheries and biodiversity management is unclear and the results of some studies suggest that ladders are problematic in fish conservation. We examined the characteristics and negative aspects of fish passages within a larger context and considered the notion that these facilities are ecological traps in some Brazilian impoundments. Four conditions are required to characterize a fish passage as an ecological trap: (1) attractive forces leading fish to ascend the passage; (2) unidirectional migratory movements (upstream); (3) the environment above the passage has poor conditions for fish recruitment (e.g., the absence of spawning grounds and nursery areas); and (4) the environment below the passage has a proper structure for recruitment. When these conditions exist individuals move to poor‐quality habitats, fitness is reduced, and populations are threatened. To exemplify this situation we analyzed two case studies in the upper Paraná River basin, Brazil, in which the four conditions were met and migratory fish populations were declining. If passages work as ecological traps, regional fisheries will be in danger of collapse and conservation policies toward biodiversity will become more difficult and ineffective. The situation demands the closing of the passage in conjunction with alternative management actions to preserve system functionality, especially the conservation of critical habitats downstream and the restoration of damaged habitats in the region.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00849.x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 294

Metadata

Authors
PELICICE, F. M., & AGOSTINHO, A. A.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-12-07
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
180-188
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2159846469
Cited by
294
References
20
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fish‐Passage Facilities as Ecological Traps in Large Neotropical Rivers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00849.x
The paper
PELICICE, F. M., & AGOSTINHO, A. A. (2008). Fish‐Passage Facilities as Ecological Traps in Large Neotropical Rivers. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00849.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.