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

Environmental Sciences Europe

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)

	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	15.8^a	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

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