Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 239–252 | Cite as

Escape from the North Sea: the possibilities for pikeperch (Sander lucioperca L. 1758) to re-enter the Rhine and Meuse estuary via the Haringvlietdam, as revealed by telemetry

  • N. W. P. BrevéEmail author
  • H. Vis
  • A. W. Breukelaar


The Haringvlietdam tidal barrier was erected in 1971 between the North Sea and the estuary of Rivers Rhine and Meuse (i.e. Lake Haringvliet). The mega structure safeguards the Dutch lowlands against flooding but also hampers fish migrations. Moreover, the sluices wash out on average 1000–2000 kg of freshwater fish per day. Previous studies showed that these fish die, but we suggested that under certain conditions salt tolerant fish like pikeperch can survive and re-enter the estuary. Fifty pikeperch (Sander lucioperca L. 1758) of over 42 cm LT were surgically implanted with VEMCO acoustic transmitters and 17 with transponders for the NEDAP Trail system®. The pikeperch were released in four batches at the seaside of the Haringvlietdam between January 18 and March 17, 2017. The pikeperch displayed searching behaviour at the sluices but were unable to swim against the strong currents. Nevertheless, two pikeperch re-entered Lake Haringvliet via the nearby ship-lock and nine used the fish-culverts that are integrated in pillars of the Haringvlietdam. It was concluded that at river discharges less than 2000 m3/s (which occurs 50% of the time) the chances of re-entrance are slim but increase with higher discharges causing lowered salinities behind the Haringvlietdam. Based upon the results we conclude that many fish could have been saved the past 45 years by optimizing the management of the ship-lock and fish-culverts and by decreasing the flow velocities in the discharge-sluices. We recommend implementing these options in the planned new management of the Haringvlietdam.


Estuary Meuse River NEDAP Trail system® Pikeperch Rhine River VEMCO™ acoustic system 



The authors wish to thank the Nationale Postcode Loterij for supplying the funding (Droomfonds) for the study. Our thanks go out to Raf Baens and Jan Reubens for their advice on the construction of the Vemco system. We thank Anieke van Leeuwen for her helpful and constructive comments.


  1. Aarts TWPM, Breukelaar AW (2017) Migration patterns and home range of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca, Linnaeus, 1758) in Dutch river systems. J Appl Ichthyol 33(5):907–913. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmadnezhad M, Oryan S, Bahmani M, Sayad Bourani M (2014) Osmoregulatory capabilities of Zander (Sander lucioperca) fingerlings in different salinities of the Caspian Sea. Iran J Fish Sci 13(2):247–261 Google Scholar
  3. Backiel T and Zawisza J (1968) Synopsis of biological data on the bream Abramis brama (Linnaeus, 1758). FAO Fisheries synopsis no. 36. RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. Backx JGM (1987) Verlies van zoetwatervis uit het Haringvliet door het spuien via de Haringvlietsluizen naar zee. R/NEDE/RIVO/DLO/87–04/ / backGoogle Scholar
  5. Bainbridge R (1958) The speed of swimming of fish as related to size and to the frequency and amplitude of the tail beat. J Exp Biol 35(1):109–133 Google Scholar
  6. Beamish FWH (1978) Swimming capacity. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ (eds) Fish physiology. Academic Press, New York, pp 101–187. Google Scholar
  7. Bij de Vaate A, Breukelaar AW (2001) De migratie van zeeforel in Nederland. Rijksinstituut voor Integraal Zoetwaterbeheer & Afvalwaterbehandeling, rapport nr. 2001.046. ISBN 9036954037Google Scholar
  8. Bij de Vaate A, Breukelaar AW, Vriese T, De Laak G, Dijkers C (2003) Sea trout migration in the Rhine delta. J Fish Biol 63(4):892–908. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Billard R (1997) Les poissons d'eau douce des rivières de France. Identification, inventaire et répartition des 83 espèces. Lausanne, Delachaux & Niestlé, 192pGoogle Scholar
  10. Breukelaar AW, Bij de Vaate A & Fockens KTW (1998) Inland migration study of sea trout (Salmo trutta) into the rivers Rhine and Meuse (The Netherlands), based on inductive coupling radio telemetry. Advances in Invertebrates and Fish Telemetry, 29–33.
  11. Brown JA, Moore WM, Quabius ES (2001) Physiological effects of saline waters on zander. J Fish Biol 59:1544–1555. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bult TP, Dekker W (2007) Experimental field study on the migratory behaviour of glass eels (Anguilla anguilla) at the interface of fresh and salt water. ICES J Mar Sci 64:1396–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colavecchia M, Katopodis C, Goosney R, Scruton DA, McKinley RS (1998) Measurement of burst swimming performance in wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) using digital telemetry. Regul Rivers Res. Manag 14:41–51.<41::AID-RRR475>3.0.CO;2-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gobin M (1989) Le sandre (Stizostedion lucioperca). Biologie – Pathologie Psychophysiologie – applications a sa peche. These pour le Diplome d’Etat de Docteur Veterinair. Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de NantesGoogle Scholar
  15. Jepsen N (2003) Long-term retention of surgically implanted radio transmitters in pikeperch. J Fish Biol 63(1):260–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jepsen, N., Schreck, C., Clements, S., & Thorstad, E. B. (2005). A brief discussion on the 2% tag/bodymass rule of thumb. Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications, 255–259Google Scholar
  17. Kemper JH (1997) Sonar-onderzoek naar visbewegingen, onder invloed van het openstellen van de Haringvlietsluizen in 1997. Organisatie ter Verbetering van de Binnenvisserij, Nieuwegein. OVB-Onderzoeksrapport RWSZH/OVB 1997–07. 23pGoogle Scholar
  18. Keskinen T, Pääkkönen JPJ, Lilja J, Marjomäki TJ, Karjalainen J (2005) Homing behaviour of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) following experimental transplantation. Boreal Environ Res 10:119–124 ISSN 1239-6095Google Scholar
  19. Klein Breteler JGP & de Laak GAJ (2003) Lengte - gewicht relaties Nederlandse vissoorten. Deelrapport I, versie 2. OVB, NieuwegeinGoogle Scholar
  20. Koed A (2001) Long-term effect of radio-tagging on the swimming performance of pikeperch. J Fish Biol 58(6):1753–1756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koed, A., Balleby, K., & Mejlhede, P. (2002). Migratory behaviour of adult pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) in a lowland river. Hydrobiologia 483: 175.
  22. Kottelat M, Freyhof J (2007) Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat, Cornol and Freyhof, Berlin, p 646 SBN: 978–2–8399-0298-4Google Scholar
  23. Laffaille P, Caraguel JM, Legault A (2007) Temporal patterns in the upstream migration of European glass eels (Anguilla anguilla) at the Couesnon estuarine dam. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 73:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larinier M (2001) Environmental issues, dams and fish migration. FAO Fish Tech Pap 419:45–89Google Scholar
  25. Lehtonen H, Hansson S, & Winkler H (1996) Biology and exploitation of pikeperch, Stizostedion lucioperca (L.), in the Baltic Sea area. In Annales Zoologici Fennici (pp. 525–535). Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board. ISSN 0003-45552X5Google Scholar
  26. Lucas MC (1989) Effects of implanted dummy transmitters on mortality, growth and tissue reaction in rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. J Fish Biol 35(4):577–587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paalvast P (2016) Monitoringsplan ecologie project Kierbesluit.
  28. Paalvast P, Ledema M, Ohm M & Posthoorn R (1998) MER Beheer Haringvlietsluizen. Over de grens van zoet en zout. Deelrapport ecologie en landschap RIZA rapport 98.051. ISBN 90-369-5205-0Google Scholar
  29. Peake SJ (2008) Swimming performance and behaviour of fish species endemic to Newfoundland and Labrador: a literature review for the purpose of establishing design and water velocity criteria for fishways and culverts. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. ISSN: 1488-5387Google Scholar
  30. Peake S, McKinley RS, Scruton DA (2000) Swimming performance of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Can J Zool 78(9):1686–1690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rolls RJ (2011) The role of life-history and location of barriers to migration in the spatial distribution and conservation of fish assemblages in a coastal river system. Biol Conserv 144(1):339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. RWS (1984) Bedieningsprogramma Haringvlietsluizen (LPH ‘84). Rijkswaterstaat, directie benedenrivieren, maart 1984Google Scholar
  33. Schaap LA (1981) Zoet- en zoutwatervissen in een water: Het Noordzeekanaal. Visserij 34(1981):359–366Google Scholar
  34. Stakėnas S, Copp GH, Scott DM (2009) Tagging effects on three non-native fish species in England (Lepomis gibbosus, Pseudorasbora parva, Sander lucioperca) and of native Salmo trutta. Ecol Freshw Fish 18:167–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thiel R, Sepúlveda A, Kafemann R, Nellen W (1995) Environmental factors as forces structuring the fish community of the Elbe estuary. J Fish Biol 46:47–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tudorache C, Viaene P, Blust R, Vereecken H, De Boeck G (2008) A comparison of swimming capacity and energy use in seven European freshwater fish species. Ecol Freshw Fish 17(2):284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Leeuwen F, Jacobs P & Storm K (2004) Haringvlietsluizen op een Kier. Effecten op de gebruiksfuncties. Stuurgroep Realisatie de Kier. Project-Monitoringsplan Kier organisatie Realisatie de Kier. In opdracht van Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat en Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en VoedselkwaliteitGoogle Scholar
  38. Videler JJ (1993) Fish swimming. Vol. 10. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  39. Wardle CS, Videler JJ (1980) How do fish break the speed limit? Nature 284(5755):445–447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winter JD (1983) Underwater biotelemetry. In: Nielsen LA, Johnsen JD (eds) Fisheries Techniques. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, pp 371–395Google Scholar

Electronic references

  1. Besluit Beheer Haringvlietsluizen, 2004, Staatscourant. 2004, nr. 249. Valid from 22-12-2009 till now. Downloaded 20 October 2016:
  2. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0007–0050. Downloaded 20th September 2017:
  3. Deltawet (1985) Downloaded 20th September 2017
  4. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy" or, in short, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). Official Journal (OJ L 327). Downloaded 20th September 2017 (consolidated version),
  5. IKSR 2018 Bericht Nr. 247. „Masterplan Wanderfische Rhein 2018″ -eine Aktualisierung des Masterplans 2009- Downloaded 18th August 2018
  6. Scheepvaartverkeerswet 2015. Downloaded 20th September 2017.
  7. Visserijwet (1963) Dutch fisheries law. Downloaded 20th September 2017:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Koninklijke Sportvisserij Nederland (Royal Dutch Anglers Alliance)BilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.VisAdvies BVNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) The Implementing Body of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water ManagementRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations