In a recent article, we described fitting electronic tags to the fish Prochilodus lineatus to document how a fishway connected aquatic habitats downstream and upstream of a major dam. Moreover, given that tagged fish remained upstream or downstream for periods extending months and years before returning to the fishway, and that observed patterns of passage were consistent with seasonal migratory cycles, and building on existing literature, we speculated that the fishway allows fish access to spawning habitats upstream and feeding habitats downstream. Our interpretation of the movement data resulted in several comments from Pelicice, Pompeu, and Agostinho (2020) and they outline various reasons by which, in their opinion, some of our conclusions may be mistaken. Their critique is threefold. First, they argue that the percentage of fish attracted into the fishway is too low to consider the fishway an effective link between the reservoir and the river downstream. We contend that without estimates of population size it is impossible to judge if 28% passage is “limited”; conceivably, the absolute number of fish passed may still be enough to maintain a viable population. Second, they assert that because receivers were located only in the fishway it is unknown if fish that used the fishway remained near the dam, or if they continued their migration. We counter with a brief literature review that documents P. lineatus migrating through reservoirs and spawning in tributaries. Third, they advocate for a broader conservation perspective and for additional research. We agree and, in the article, had already expressed this view that fishways are only a temporary fix and that we support their use only as an element of a broader environmental management package. We also agree with the need for more research but argue that procrastinating on conservation action may not be wise because we do not know if the research will be done, how long it will take, or what the cost may be of waiting.

中文翻译：

---

在一条新热带大河中通过鱼梯实现双向连接：回应评论

在最近的一篇文章中，我们描述了将电子标签安装到鱼Prochilodus lineatus上的方法记录一条鱼道如何连接大型水坝下游和上游的水生生境。此外，鉴于带标签的鱼在返回鱼道之前会在上游和下游停留数月和数年，并且观察到的传播方式与季节性迁徙周期一致，并且根据现有文献，我们推测鱼道允许鱼进入在上游产卵，在下游产卵。我们对运动数据的解释导致了Pelicice，Pompeu和Agostinho（2020）的一些评论，他们概述了各种原因，在他们看来，我们的某些结论可能是错误的。他们的批评是三重的。第一，他们认为，被吸引到鱼道中的鱼所占的比例太低，因此无法认为鱼道是水库和下游河流之间的有效联系。我们认为，如果没有人口规模的估计，就无法判断28％的通过率是否“有限”。可以想象，通过的鱼类绝对数量可能仍然足以维持种群的生存。其次，他们断言，由于接收者仅位于鱼道中，因此，使用鱼道的鱼是否仍留在大坝附近或它们是否继续迁移尚不清楚。我们以简要的文献综述作为对策 他们断言，由于接收者仅位于鱼道中，因此，使用鱼道的鱼是否仍留在大坝附近或它们是否继续迁移尚不清楚。我们以简要的文献综述作为对策 他们断言，由于接收者仅位于鱼道中，因此，使用鱼道的鱼是否仍留在大坝附近或它们是否继续迁移尚不清楚。我们以简要的文献综述作为对策P. lineatus通过水库迁移并在支流中产卵。第三，他们主张扩大保护范围，并进行更多研究。我们同意，并且在文章中已经表达了这种观点，即鱼道只是一个临时解决办法，我们仅将其用作更广泛的环境管理计划的一部分。我们也同意需要进行更多的研究，但认为拖延保护行动可能并不明智，因为我们不知道这项研究是否会完成，需要多长时间或等待的费用。