| Literature DB >> 36032945 |
Xiaolong Chen1, Xuan Che1, Xingguo Liu1, Lin Zhu1, Changfeng Tian1, Xinfeng Li1.
Abstract
The hydrodynamic conditions of rivers affect fish habitats by influencing parameters such as river bottom topography. Ecological restoration projects change the water morphological characteristics of rivers. Here, water flow characteristics of the upper Yangtze River before and after the construction of a restoration project were analyzed using the computational fluid dynamics simulation method. The longitudinal diversion dam could divide the river into two flow velocity zones, and the outer flow is similar to the original river with a flow velocity of 0.75 m/s. However, flow velocity on the inner side of the river was about 0.25 m/s, forming a larger buffer area. The eddy became more diversified and stable, with a high eddy viscosity coefficient and less fluctuations, at 9 Pa·s; this was conducive to fish aggregation and spawning. At different depths, large gradient differences were observed between the inner and outer sides of the longitudinal diversion dam, and the turbulent current and upward flow of the inner side were obvious; this was more favorable to the aggregation of different fish species. The longitudinal dam body was under a pressure of about 200.2 Pa at the same flow rate; this was significantly lower than the pressure on the transverse dam body. The field flow test and fish survey data showed that the error rate of the simulation using the RNG turbulent model was less than 10% compared with actual mapping. After the restoration of fish habitats by the longitudinal diversion dam, the number of fish species in the area increased from 40 to 49; The density of fish in the water increased from 71.40 fish per 1,000 m2 before the project to 315.70 fish per 1,000 m2 after the project. These results can provide a reference for the rapid assessment of water morphology and fish habitat restoration in the future.Entities:
Keywords: Diversion dam; Fish habitat; Flow pattern simulation; Restoration project; Water morphological characteristics
Year: 2022 PMID: 36032945 PMCID: PMC9415368 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 3.061
Figure 1Schematic diagram of grid division: (A) no dam; (B) transverse dam; (C) longitudinal dam.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of section position under three different states.
Figure 3Velocity of the flow field under different conditions.
Figure 4Turbulent viscosity of different models.
(A) Cross-section of no dam; (B) cross-section of transverse dam; (C) cross-section of longitudinal dam; (D) longitudinal section of no dam; (E) longitudinal section of transverse dam; (F) longitudinal section of longitudinal dam. The x-axis of (A), (B), and (C) represent the location of the river channel, “0” is the middle of the river channel, negative value represents the inside of the river channel, and positive value represents the outside of the river channel.
Figure 5Velocity distribution of different models.
(A) Cross-section of no dam; (B) Cross-section of transverse dam; (C) Cross-section of longitudinal dam; (D) Longitudinal section of no dam; (E) Longitudinal section of transverse dam; (F) Longitudinal section of longitudinal dam; The x-axis of (A), (B), and (C) represent the location of the river channel, “0” is the middle of the river channel, negative value represents the inside of the river channel, and positive value represents the outside of the river channel.
Figure 6Velocity distribution along the depth direction of each section of different models.
(A) Cross-section of no dam; (B) Cross-section of transverse dam; (C) Cross-section of longitudinal dam; (D) Longitudinal section of no dam; (E) Longitudinal section of transverse dam; (F) Longitudinal section of longitudinal dam; “depth direction” indicates the direction below the water surface. “Depth position (m)” indicates the Depth below the water surface.
Figure 7Pressure distribution on the dams: (A) transverse dam; (B) longitudinal dam.
Figure 8The flow velocity vector diagram.
Comparison of average simulated speed and test data.
| Test line | Simulated value/(m·s−1) | Test value/(m·s−1) | Error analysis of flow velocities/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 4.00 |
| Line 2 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 7.69 |
| Line 3 | 0.28 | 0.26 | 7.14 |
| Line 4 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 9.09 |
Figure 9Comparison of fishes before and after project implementation.
Fish survey data before and after project implementation.
| Type | Before the project | After the project |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Acipenseridae | ||
| (1) | ◊ | |
| 2 Cobitidac | ||
| (2) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (3) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 3 Cyprinidae | ||
| (4) Z | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (5) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (6) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (7) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (8) | ◊ | |
| (9) | ◊ | |
| (10) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (11) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (12) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (13) | ◊ | |
| (14) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (15) | ◊ | |
| (16) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (17) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (18) | ◊ | |
| (19) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (20) | ◊ | |
| (21) | ◊ | |
| (22) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (23) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (24) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (25) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (26) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (27) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (28) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (29) | ◊ | |
| (30) | ◊ | |
| (31) | ⦾ | |
| (32) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (33) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (34) | ◊ | |
| 4 Silurdae | ||
| (35) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (36) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 5 Bagridae | ||
| (37) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (38) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (39) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (40) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (41) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (42) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (43) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 6 Amblycipitidae | ||
| (44) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 7 Ictaluridae | ||
| (45) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 8 Synbranchidae | ||
| (46) | ⦾ | |
| 9 Serranidae | ||
| (47) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| (48) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 10 Gobiidae | ||
| (49) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 11 Channidae | ||
| (50) | ⦾ | ◊ |
| 12 Odontobutidae | ||
| (51) | ⦾ | ◊ |