Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION and loss of biodiversity (1, 30, 32). Frequent flow reversals and changes
Flow variability is widely recognized as a primary driver of biotic and in flood timing driven by energy demand can disorient fauna, which
causing significant hydrological changes and, if so, in what ways and duration of high and low pulses. Event extremes affect river morphology
why? The goals of this work are thus (i) to quantify dam-induced HA and physical habitat conditions, availability of floodplain habitats, soil
across the Brazilian Legal Amazon (Fig. 1), (ii) to identify environ- moisture and anaerobic stress in plants, magnitude of channel-floodplain
mental and management variables that predict the observed magnitude nutrient exchange, distribution of plant communities, spawning cues
of hydrological alteration to inform future dam siting and operation, for migratory fish, and compatibility with aquatic organism life cycles,
and (iii) to quantify the cumulative effects of multiple dams on a river, among others (6). The remaining parameters focus on the magnitude of
where applicable. By advancing these goals, we aim to support the average flow (group 1; average monthly flows) and the rate of change of
establishment of holistic environmental flows methods suitable for water conditions (group 5; rise/fall rate and number of reversals).
the region. Monthly flows influence the reliability of water supplies for terrestrial
Given the large spatial and temporal scales of analysis and the animals and habitat availability for aquatic organisms, whereas the rate
limited availability of hydrological and biological data in the region, of change of flow can affect spawning cues and the trapping of organ-
we used a broadly applicable environmental flows method to quantify isms on islands or within floodplain lakes (Table 1).
the type and magnitude of HA induced by Amazon dams and to iden- Using a pre-/post-analysis such as IHA to quantify HA in the ab-
tify the influence of environmental and management predictor variables sence of an experimental control requires assumptions about the length
on the observed alteration. The Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration of record (LOR) needed to characterize the hydrologic regime. Previous
(IHA) method (1) uses pre- and post-dam construction flow data studies suggested using >20 years of pre- and post-impact data (54);
(Fig. 2A) to calculate 33 ecologically relevant parameters across five however, this guidance was developed for temperate systems and would
“groups” that describe primary facets of the flow regime: magnitude,
Amazon Basin
Francisco
Large dams analyzed Basin
Small d ams analyzed
Other large dams
Other small dams
IHA streamflow stations Tocantins
LOR streamflow stations Araguaia Basin
Major rivers
Study area (Brazilian Legal Amazon)
Fig. 1. Map of the study area, which encompasses the Brazilian Legal Amazon, the Tocantins/Araguaia basin, and parts of the Paraná and North Atlantic basins,
illustrating the distribution of existing small and large dams and highlighting those used in this study. Large dams are referred to as UHEs and have a production capacity
of ≥30 MW; small dams are PCHs and have a production capacity of 1 to 30 MW. Streamflow stations used in the LOR analysis and to calculate IHA are also shown. Note that only
major rivers are depicted.
A
2500 Predam Construction/ Postdam
reservoir fill
Flow (m3 s–1) 2000
1500
1000
500
0
B 60
Yearly high pulses (predam)
50
High pulse count
20
10
RESULTS Dam-induced HA
LOR analysis Figure 5 synthesizes the overall magnitude and type of dam-induced
Results from the LOR analysis (Figs. 2 and 3 and table S3) served as a HA for individual dams across the Brazilian Amazon. All dams were
guideline for record length requirements when identifying flow gauging observed to affect the hydrologic regime; however, the magnitude and
stations to use in the IHA analysis. This approach also allowed us to type of impact varied greatly by dam and station. Mean HA across all
characterize the statistical uncertainty associated with the application dams/stations was 30%, but the most impactful dam (Balbina) had a
of shorter record lengths when data were limited (tables S4 to S6). In mean HA of >100% (Fig. 5A). The dams with the highest HA values
contrast to Richter et al. (54), we found that fewer than 20 years of data were mostly large UHEs (usina hidrelétricas; defined as having produc-
could be used to yield statistically significant IHA results for a number tion of ≥30 MW); however, some smaller PCHs (pequenas centrais
of rivers across the Amazon. Figure 3 illustrates the results of the LOR hidrelétricas; defined as having a production between 1 and 30 MW)
approach for two stations with different flow regimes. The Seringal had equivalent or larger impacts, illustrating that dam size and pro-
Fortaleza station (Fig. 3A) is located on the Rio Purus in the west central duction capacity are not the only drivers of hydrologic impact. Across
Amazon lowlands, and the Aruanã station (Fig. 3B) is located on the Rio dams, the most marked shifts in flow regime occurred in HA parameter
Araguaia in the south central Cerrado. Due to consistent intra- and in- groups 4 and 5 (Fig. 5B), which correspond to the frequency/duration
terannual flow variation at the Seringal Fortaleza station over the period and frequency/rate of change of high- and low-water conditions
of record (57), only 2 years of data are needed to be within 10% of the (Table 1; see Discussion). Scaling HA by published installed electric-
long-term mean annual flow maximum with 90% confidence; 7 years ity production capacity (Fig. 5C) paints a potentially divergent pic-
are required to be within 5% of the mean (vertical dashed lines). In con- ture of the “most” and “least” impactful dams (note the log scale on
trast, achieving similar statistical confidence for the Aruanã station, which the y axis). While Balbina remains the “worst” large dam (UHE) in our
experiences more interannual flow variation (57), would require 15 and data set, this analysis highlights the outsized impact of small dams
30 years of data to be within 10 and 5%, respectively, of the long-term (PCHs) relative to their production potential.
mean with 90% confidence, demonstrating the wide range of hydrologic In general, hydrologic regimes were more affected downstream of
regimes (and data requirements) across the region. dams than upstream of reservoirs (Fig. 6A). Although the two avail-
Across the entire LOR data set, we found that record lengths between able gauging stations located directly within reservoir footprints
1 and 28 years would be required to be within 10% of the long-term mean (Estrada BR-163 and Porto Nacional; table S3) were highly affected
annual flow maximum with 90% confidence (table S3). We found that (mean overall HA, 75%), stations further upstream were primarily
two closely linked environmental variables were well correlated with the affected by backwater effects and were less altered than stations
required LOR: mean river flow and station elevation (Fig. 4, A and B). In downstream. We also found that overall HA caused by the first dam
general, large rivers flowing through lowland forests required shorter to be built on a river did not significantly increase with the construc-
record lengths to characterize the flow regime because their discharge, tion of one or more additional dams (Fig. 6B); however, cumulative
while varying greatly over the year, is relatively predictable from year to effects were significant for HA parameter groups 4 and 5 (frequency/
year. Smaller rivers in the highlands required longer records because of the duration and frequency/rate of change of high- and low-water
higher intra- and interannual variability driven by variability in precipita- conditions; Table 1). Detailed descriptions of each dam/station combi-
tion. Geographic location may also help to predict the required length of nation, including hydrographs for all LOR and IHA flow stations, are
record, as suggested by the clustering of geographic locations in Fig. 4. given by Timpe (57).
Table 1. Summary of hydrologic parameters used in IHA and their ecological influences. Adapted from IHA Manual V7 (28).
IHA statistics group Regime characteristics Ecosystem influences
Group 1: Magnitude Mean or median value for Habitat availability for aquatic organisms
of monthly water each calendar month Soil moisture availability for plants
conditions (12 indices) Availability of water for terrestrial animals
Availability of food/cover for furbearing mammals
Reliability of water supplies for terrestrial animals
Access by predators to nesting sites
Water temperature, oxygen levels, and
photosynthesis in water column
Group 2: Magnitude and Annual minima, 1-day means Balance of competitive, ruderal, and stress-tolerant organisms
duration of annual Annual minima, 3-day means Creation of sites for plant colonization
extreme water conditions Annual minima, 7-day means Structuring of aquatic ecosystems by abiotic versus biotic factors
(12 indices) Annual minima, 30-day means Structuring of river channel morphology and physical habitat conditions
Annual minima, 90-day means Soil moisture stress in plants
Annual maxima, 1-day means Dehydration in animals
Annual maxima, 3-day means Anaerobic stress in plants
Annual maxima, 7-day means Volume of nutrient exchanges between rivers and floodplains
Annual maxima, 30-day means Duration of stressful conditions such as low oxygen and
Group 3: Timing of Julian date of each annual, Compatibility with life cycles of organisms
annual extreme 1-day maximum Predictability/avoidability of stress for organisms
water conditions Julian date of each annual, Access to special habitats during reproduction or to avoid predation
(2 indices) 1-day minimum Spawning cues for migratory fish
Evolution of life history strategies and behavioral mechanisms
Group 4: Frequency and duration Number of low pulses within each water year Frequency and magnitude of soil moisture stress for plants
of high and low pulses Mean or median duration of low pulses (days) Frequency and duration of anaerobic stress for plants
(4 indices) Number of high pulses within each water year Availability of floodplain habitats for aquatic organisms
Mean or median duration of high pulses (days) Nutrient and organic matter exchanges between river and floodplain
Soil mineral availability
Access for waterbirds to feeding, resting, and reproduction sites
Bed load transport, channel sediment textures, and
duration of substrate disturbance (high pulses)
Group 5: Rate and Rise rates: Mean or median of all positive Drought stress on plants (falling levels)
frequency of water differences between consecutive Entrapment of organisms on islands and floodplains
condition changes daily values (rising levels)
(3 indices) Fall rates: Mean or median of all negative Desiccation stress on low-mobility stream
differences between consecutive edge organisms
daily values
Number of hydrologic reversals
A 12,000 B 7000
Mean
5% of mean
Annual max. flow (m3 s – 1)
9000
3000
8000 2000
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Number of years Number of years
Fig. 3. Sample LOR results for Seringal Fortaleza (A) and Aruanã (B) stations. Solid black horizontal lines represent the long-term mean annual maximum flow for each station.
Dashed black and gray horizontal lines represent 5 and 10% of the long-term mean, respectively. Solid green, red, and blue curves represent the 85, 90, and 95% confidence
intervals (CIs). Dashed vertical lines indicate the number of years of data required to characterize the annual maximum flow within 5 and 10% of the long-term mean with 90%
confidence. LOR results illustrate that widely varying hydrologic regimes yield different LOR requirements to provide similar statistical inference (see text).
A B
20
0
B 250
Group 1 (12 parameters)
200 Group 2 (12 parameters)
Group 3 (2 parameters)
Mean HA (%)
50
0
C
10
Scaled HA (% per MW)
0.1
0.01
0.001
)
)
)
)
)
LA (D)
)
)
)
)
LA (U)
U)
TU D)
)
CL (D)
)
)
)
)
SL (D)
IT- D)
)
)
)
)
)
)
(D
(D
SM F (D
GU A (D
SM (D
(U
SM (D
MA A (D
(D
GU (U
(U
(U
(U
(U
(U
(U
(U
(U
(U
(U
L(
(
-JA
-JA
A
L
-IT
T
IT
CM
N
C
E
E
-F
-P
-P
-F
-F
S
-M
-X
-P
-P
-L
-F
-C
-D
-F
-T
-S
-C
-A
-T
-M
-R
-
-
CN
SM
SD
TU
CN
MA
TU
TU
CN
CL
TU
TU
RB
TU
BA
Fig. 5. Summary of the overall magnitude (A) and type (B) of dam-induced HA observed across all dams and stations (see table S4 for dam/station naming
conventions; U and D indicate upstream and downstream, respectively). Bars with the same color represent multiple stations affected by the same dam. (C) Scaling
HA by electricity production capacity shows hydrologic impact (%) per megawatt, illustrating outsized impact of small dams (unfilled bars) and relative efficiency of
particular dams, for example, Tucuruí (TU) versus Lajeado (LA), on the Tocantins River.
120 200
Downstream ** Individual dams *
***
100
Upstream Multiple dams
150
Mean HA (%)
Mean HA (%)
80
*
** *
60 100
40
50
20
0 0
Overall Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Overall Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Fig. 6. (A) Stations were generally more affected downstream of dams than upstream of reservoirs. (B) Cumulative impacts of multiple dams increased impacts only for
parameter groups 4 and 5. P values were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test.
While each dam-station pair in this study offers a unique case study ficult to draw robust conclusions about upstream versus downstream
in HA driven by differences in environmental and management varia- impacts of a specific dam.
bles (57), several general trends stood out among IHA results. First, al- When compared with regional IHA analyses from temperate and
though all elements of the flow regime were affected by dam construction arid zones (30, 31, 74), our results suggest general similarities between
and operation in the Amazon, the largest changes are associated with dam-induced hydrological alteration across climates (for example, re-
elements of the flow regime related to the frequency, duration, and rate duced peak flows and increased base flows and flow reversals), although
of change of high- and low-water conditions (IHA parameter groups 4 some differences are apparent. For example, as noted above, we observed
and 5; Table 1) (Figs. 5B and 6A). High values of HA in these parameter relatively small changes in mean monthly flows (group 1 parameters) be-
groups are indicative of dam operation for energy production (that is, cause dams in the Amazon are built primarily for hydropower, with mi-
peaking operations). These results point to a substantial impact of nor abstraction for domestic or agricultural supply. Changes in the timing
Amazonian dams on flood pulse dynamics, which play an important of extreme events were also relatively low in our data set, because strongly
role in structuring river and floodplain geomorphology and biodiversity seasonal rainfall in the Amazon is the primary driver of intra-annual flow
in tropical rivers (11). Dam-induced alterations in the flood pulse affect variation, even in these dammed systems. In contrast, Magilligan and
riverine sediment transport and the exchange of nutrients, organic Nislow (30) and Pyron and Neumann (74) observed significant reduc-
matter, and plant/animal propagules between the river and floodplain tions in monthly flows in temperate and arid regions due primarily to
(6). Impacts on sediment transport are particularly alarming considering agricultural abstraction, which also caused extreme shifts in the timing
the large number of planned dams within the Andean Amazon, where of flow maxima and minima in some dammed rivers. The magnitude of
to or greater than large systems per unit of power generation capacity from a small data set, these findings imply that multiple dams may mag-
(80–83). The high relative impact of these small dams on the hydro- nify the hydrological impacts to critical aspects of the flood pulse that
logic regime is troubling, given plans for the construction of hundreds of are central to the ecological health of lowland tropical rivers (27). Further
similar systems in the Amazon in the coming decades (40), coupled studies are needed to elucidate the potential influences of differing dam
with minimal environmental licensing requirements for most dams sizes, types, and geoclimatic regions on the accumulation of impacts from
with a production capacity of <10 MW (16). Currently, there are plans multiple dams.
to build >400 small hydropower plants within Brazil, many of which
will fall within the Brazilian Legal Amazon (84). The impacts of small Predictors of dam-induced HA
dams are similar in kind to those of large dams (for example, hydrologic Reservoir area and volume and dam elevation were consistently signif-
regie alteration, water quality degradation, habitat conversion, and sub- icant predictors of the observed HA (Fig. 7). Even without taking dam
sequent social-ecological effects) (85), and previous analyses have as- type or operational rules into account, these simple bivariate relation-
sumed that the magnitude of these impacts scales with dam size, ships allow us to make general predictions about the strongest drivers of
discounting small dam impacts as “minimal” (86). Despite the widely dam-induced HA across the Brazilian Amazon. In general, we found
accepted view that small-scale hydropower is a potential source of “clean” that lowland dams with large reservoirs affect the hydrologic regime
or “green” energy (87), there is growing evidence that the environmental more than higher elevation dams with smaller reservoirs. This is exem-
impacts of small dams have been vastly underestimated (83, 87), es- plified by comparing the two highest HA dams in our data set: Balbina,
pecially at the potential scale of their application. Of particular con- built on the Uatumã River in the northern Amazonian lowlands [32 m
univariate regression; however, multivariate regression on a larger data set Additionally, while the LOR analysis approach is useful for assessing
may further elucidate the threshold of upstream/downstream distances HA in the Amazon and other poorly gauged basins, it does have several
beyond which the hydrologic effects of dams become negligible. methodological caveats. First, the long-term means for the parameter
values are only estimates of the true mean, given record lengths (23
Study limitations and application to 45 years) relative to multidecadal and longer time-scale climate var-
This study has several limitations. First, IHA is a simple analytical tool iability (102, 103). Thus, the LOR and IHA approaches implicitly as-
that relies only on observed flow data to make predictions about sume climate and land use stationarity (104). Second, we only applied
potential ecohydrological impacts to river-floodplain systems. Although the LOR analysis to one IHA parameter, annual 1-day maximum flow,
the method’s simplicity allows rapid calculation of HA across broad and thus do not characterize the statistics of all 33 metrics of hydrologic
spatiotemporal scales, it lacks site-specific calibration in the prediction variability at all stations; pursuing this approach is computationally fea-
of impacts to hydrogeomorphology, floodplain characteristics, sedi- sible but unlikely to provide a more robust estimate of required record
ment transport, and other ecological functions. Our application of lengths. Nevertheless, the LOR analysis presented here improved the
IHA across diverse river basins with widely varying physiographic char- quality of our IHA analysis by providing (i) a better understanding of
acteristics (hydrologic regime, geology and morphometry of the drainage natural system variability, (ii) guidance for the minimum LOR required
basin, land use types, sediment yield, morphodynamics, sediment to perform IHA, and (iii) a quantitative measure of uncertainty around
transport, floodplain form, etc.) means that similar magnitudes of HA the statistical significance of hydrologic impacts. The method is transfer-
may have different relative impacts. However, because impacts are quan- able to other systems and may help to provide support for IHA and other
difficult in areas where there is a shortage of continuous data, hindering nual flow variations driven by climate variability. Huh et al. (114)
communities and governments in these regions from taking appropriate concluded that 20 to 30 years of data are required on either side of an
and sustainable decisions (112). impact to characterize changes in flow variability in southeastern
(United States) rivers, and Richter et al. (54) suggested a minimum of
20 years based on three U.S. streams with varying hydrology. Other U.S.
METHODS studies have found that 10 to >40 years of data are required to detect
Study area streamflow trends (114, 115). Given this uncertainty, additional work
This study focuses on existing hydroelectric dams within the Brazilian was needed to robustly define the LOR required to detect statistically
Legal Amazon and the Tocantins/Araguaia basin (Fig. 1). The “Legal significant changes in hydrologic regime due to dam construction
Amazon” covers 5217 km2 (61% of Brazil’s territory) and fully encom- and to assess whether guidance derived in temperate and arid systems
passes seven states (Amazonas, Pará, Acre, Amapá, Roraima, Rondônia, applied in the Amazon.
and Tocantins), along with portions of two others (Maranhão and Mato To do so, we modified the analysis of Richter et al. (54) to develop
Grosso). Hydrologically, the Legal Amazon includes the entire Amazon guidance for the LOR required to characterize streamflow variability
basin and parts of the Tocantins/Araguaia, Paraná, Parnaíba, and within specific statistical bounds and applied it to data sets from 34 stream-
northeast Atlantic basins. We included the entire Tocantins/Araguaia flow stations within the study area (table S3). Stations were chosen to
basin in our assessment because of the large number of hydroelectric represent watersheds with the least anthropogenic impact and longest
dams in the watershed. Information on dams in the study is summa- record lengths and were distributed across regions, elevations, and flow
parameter and then averaged by parameter groups (Table 1) and across one streamflow station, only the station closest to the dam was used,
all parameters. except when analyzing the effect of distance, when we used all stations.
19. C. Fu, J. Wu, J. Chen, Q. Wu, G. Lei, Freshwater fish biodiversity in the Yangtze 46. Z. Yang, Y. Yan, Q. Liu, Assessment of the flow regime alterations in the Lower Yellow
River basin of China: Patterns, threats and conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 12, 1649–1685 River, China. Eco. Inform. 10, 56–64 (2012).
(2003). 47. V. G. Pinto, C. B. d. M. Ribeiro, D. D. da Silva, Vazão ecológica e o arcabouço legal
20. F. K. Ligon, W. E. Dietrich, W. J. Trush, Downstream ecological effects of dams. BioScience brasileiro (Instream flow and the Brazilian legal framework). Rev. Bras. Geogr. Fís. 9,
45, 183–192 (1995). 91–109 (2016).
21. A. A. Agostinho, F. M. Pelicice, L. C. Gomes, Dams and the fish fauna of the Neotropical 48. W. Collischonn, S. G. Agra, G. K. Freitas, G. R. Priante, R. Tassi, C. F. Souza, Em busca do
region: Impacts and management related to diversity and fisheries. Braz. J. Biol. 68, hidrograma ecológico. XVI Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos 16, 20–24 (2005).
1119–1132 (2008). 49. P. V. C. J. Santos, A. C. Da Cunha, Outorga de recursos hídricos e vazão ambiental
22. P. M. Fearnside, S. Pueyo, Greenhouse-gas emissions from tropical dams. Nat. Clim. no Brasil: Perspectivas metodológicas frente ao desenvolvimento do setor hidrelétrico
Change 2, 382–384 (2012). na Amazônia. Rev. Bras. Recur. Hídricos 18, 81–95 (2013).
23. M. A. dos Santos, L. P. Rosa, B. Sikar, E. Sikar, E. O. dos Santos, Gross greenhouse gas 50. D. M. d. O. Galvão, “Subsídios à determinação de vazões ambientais em cursos d’água
fluxes from hydro-power reservoir compared to thermo-power plants. Energy Policy 34, não regulados: O caso do Ribeirão Pipiripau (DF/GO),” thesis, Universidade de Brasília
481–488 (2006). (2008).
24. F. M. Pelicice, P. S. Pompeu, A. A. Agostinho, Large reservoirs as ecological barriers to 51. J. G. Tundisi, T. M. Tundisi, Integrating ecohydrology, water management, and
downstream movements of Neotropical migratory fish. Fish Fish. 16, 697–715 (2015). watershed economy: Case studies from Brazil. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 16, 83–91
25. A. A. Agostinho, L. C. Gomes, S. Veríssimo, E. K. Okada, Flood regime, dam regulation (2016).
and fish in the Upper Paraná River: Effects on assemblage attributes, reproduction 52. A. D. Benetti, A. E. Lanna, M. S. Cobalchini, Current practices for establishing
and recruitment. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 14, 11–19 (2004). environmental flows in Brazil. River Res. Appl. 20, 427–444 (2004).
26. G. Klaver, B. van Os, P. Negrel, E. Petelet-Giraud, Influence of hydropower dams on 53. S. D. Gaines, M. W. Denny, The largest, smallest, highest, lowest, longest, and shortest:
the composition of the suspended and riverbank sediments in the Danube. Environ. Pollut. Extremes in ecology. Ecology 74, 1677–1692 (1993).
148, 718–728 (2007). 54. B. Richter, J. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, D. Braun, How much water does a river need?
74. M. Pyron, K. Neumann, Hydrologic alterations in the Wabash River watershed, USA. River 100. A. C. Lees, C. A. Peres, P. M. Fearnside, M. Schneider, J. A. S. Zuanon, Hydropower and
Res. Appl. 24, 1175–1184 (2008). the future of Amazonian biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 451–466 (2016).
75. P. M. Davies, R. J. Naiman, D. M. Warfe, N. E. Pettit, A. H. Arthington, S. E. Bunn, Flow–ecology 101. P. M. Fearnside, Impacts of Brazil’s Madeira River dams: Unlearned lessons for
relationships: Closing the loop on effective environmental flows. Mar. Freshwater Res. 65, hydroelectric development in Amazonia. Environ. Sci. Policy 38, 164–172 (2014).
133–141 (2013). 102. T. Zhou, D. Gong, J. Li, B. Li, Detecting and understanding the multi-decadal variability of
76. P. Dugan, M. M. Dey, V. V. Sugunan, Fisheries and water productivity in tropical river the East Asian Summer Monsoon: Recent progress and state of affairs. Meteorol. Z.
basins: Enhancing food security and livelihoods by managing water for fish. Agric. Water 18, 455–467 (2009).
Manage. 80, 262–275 (2006). 103. D. Labat, J. Ronchail, J. L. Guyot, Recent advances in wavelet analyses: Part 2—Amazon,
77. J. Salo, R. Kalliola, I. Häkkinen, Y. Mäkinen, P. Niemelä, M. Puhakka, P. D. Coley, River Parana, Orinoco and Congo discharges time scale variability. J. Hydrol. 314, 289–311
dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowland forest. Nature 322, 254–258 (1986). (2005).
78. D. J. Hoeinghaus, A. A. Agostinho, L. C. Gomes, F. M. Pelicice, E. K. Okada, J. D. Latini, 104. P. C. D. Milly, J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch, Z. W. Kundzewicz,
E. A. L. Kashiwaqui, K. O. Winemiller, Effects of river impoundment on ecosystem D. P. Lettenmaier, R. J. Stouffer, Stationarity is dead: Whither water management?
services of large tropical rivers: Embodied energy and market value of artisanal fisheries. Science 319, 573–574 (2008).
Conserv. Biol. 23, 1222–1231 (2009). 105. C. S. Agostinho, A. A. Agostinho, F. Pelicice, D. A. de Almeida, E. E. Marques, Selectivity of fish
79. P. M. Fearnside, Environmental impacts of Brazil’s Tucuruí dam: Unlearned lessons for ladders: A bottleneck in Neotropical fish movement. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 5, 205–213 (2007).
hydroelectric development in Amazonia. Environ. Manage. 27, 377–396 (2001). 106. A. A. Agostinho, C. S. Agostinho, F. M. Pelicice, E. E. Marques, Fish ladders: Safe fish
80. F. de Miranda Ribeiro, G. A. da Silva, Life-cycle inventory for hydroelectric generation: A passage or hotspot for predation? Neotrop. Ichthyol. 10, 687–696 (2012).
Brazilian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 44–54 (2010). 107. R. E. Reis, J. S. Albert, F. Di Dario, M. M. Mincarone, P. Petry, L. A. Rocha, Fish biodiversity
81. A. Pascale, T. Urmee, A. Moore, Life cycle assessment of a community hydroelectric and conservation in South America. J. Fish Biol. 89, 12–47 (2016).
power system in rural Thailand. Renew. Energy 36, 2799–2808 (2011). 108. P. H. Brown, D. Tullos, B. Tilt, D. Magee, A. T. Wolf, Modeling the costs and benefits of
82. Varun, R. Prakash, I. K. Bhat, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions estimation for small dam construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Environ. Manage. 90,
SUPPLEMENTARY http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2017/10/30/3.11.e1700611.DC1
MATERIALS
REFERENCES This article cites 102 articles, 7 of which you can access for free
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1700611#BIBL
PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions
Science Advances (ISSN 2375-2548) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New
York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American
Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title Science Advances is a
registered trademark of AAAS.