Skip to main content

Table 3 Species and number of individuals (n) at the end of exposure per sampling site and time point, as well as their mean size (cm), mean weight (g) and total lipid content (% dry weight)

From: Fish health in the Nidda as an indicator for ecosystem integrity: a case study for Central European small streams in densely populated areas

 

Site

Species

Time

Mortality (%)

n

Size (cm)  ±  SD

Weight (g)  ±  SD

Total lipid (% dw)

CF monitoring

HC1

O. mykiss

Feb 16

0

20

20.18 ± 2.21

82.69 ± 26.32

HC2

O. mykiss

Apr 16

0

20

22.53 ± 1.96

111.56 ± 22.56

20.90

N1

O. mykiss

Apr 16

15.8a

16

19.40 ± 2.01

71.15 ± 18.16

20.60

N2

O. mykiss

Apr 16

10.0

18

20.80 ± 16.98

81.54 ± 16.98

18.10

N3

O. mykiss

Apr 16

10.0

18

21.46 ± 1.22

91.91 ± 13.47

17.30

N6

O. mykiss

Apr 16

30.0

14

20.40 ± 11.24

76.61 ± 11.24

19.90

FF monitoring

N1

S. trutta f. fario

Jun 16

10

14.35 ± 5.25

32.58 ± 5.25

11.00

N1

S. trutta f. fario

Sep 16

10

20.82 ± 2.13

93.31 ± 33.41

13.00

N2

S. trutta f. fario

Sep 16

9

19.31 ± 7.70

96.45 ± 79.15

11.20

N2

L. cephalus

Jun 16

9

17.78 ± 10.31

121.35 ± 137.375

6.97

N6

L. cephalus

Jun 16

10

13.93 ± 3.76

33.79 ± 21.15

10.81

N6

L. cephalus

Sep 16

12

14.56 ± 5.47

41.49 ± 41.73

7.64

N1

B. barbatula

Jun 16

10

10.76 ± 1.11

9.59 ± 2.67

11.48

N1

B. barbatula

Sep 16

10

10.30 ± 1.18

8.50 ± 2.46

13.19

N2

B. barbatula

Jun 16

10

9.15 ± 0.53

5.64 ± 0.65

N2

B. barbatula

Sep 16

10

8.80 ± 0.63

4.95 ± 1.05

9.05

N3

B. barbatula

Jun 16

10

9.54 ± 1.07

5.98 ± 1.95

6.72

N3

B. barbatula

Sep 16

10

8.90 ± 0.94

5.04 ± 1.81

14.19

N6

B. barbatula

Jun 16

10

8.95 ± 1.18

5.28 ± 2.26

7.05

N6

B. barbatula

Sep 16

10

8.74 ± 0.96

4.42 ± 1.82

13.71

  1. CF monitoring with caged fish; FF monitoring with field-captured fish
  2. aA single individual escaped from its cage, thus, was not included in mortality calculation. Cages were stocked with 20 individuals each, at the beginning