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