• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Barbel populations and severe flooding

Anthony Pearson

Anthony Pearson

Senior Member
The north west and Yorkshire are currently seeing record levels in many rivers and it had me wondering what peoples views are on the argument that the fish all get washed downstream? I've heard this said about a number of rivers of varying sizes and if this is the case there should be plenty of anecdotal evidence from those who fish their respective rivers on a regular basis. Am I facing the prospect of a lean season if I stick to my usual stretches or should I be dropping a considerable distance downstream? Or, are you of the opinion that the fish are capable of holding their own ground when the river is over its banks?

BTW we're are not talking of the records being broken by a few centimetres...try half a metre in some places!
 
Half a metre may not do to much damage, but if the rivers end up in the fields for an extended period then floods can have (IMHO) have a devastating effect on barbel populations. The Teme suffered 2 floods in 2007 with an extra 5.5 - 6m on, and many believe that this is one of the major factors is the destruction of barbel stocks on this particular river. Yes, barbel can 'hold station' during severe increases in flow rate...but not indefinitely. I suspect some fish will take the 'least line of resistance' and be 'pushed' downstream, some may end up stranded in fields, and spawning beds may be destroyed by siltation. Also, available natural nutrition may be severely reduced for a fair while whilst agrochemicals/slurry etc may be washed into the river. But I guess its possible, just possible, that new potential spawning beds may be created. Answered may come from the Phd study (on the decline of barbel stocks in the Teme) being presently conducted by Bournemouth University. But, I don't think severe floods do many/any rivers much good, to say the least.
Guess its 'finger-crossing time' Anthony, and hope that any flooding is minimal..and brief.
ATVB
Terry.
 
In my humble opinion, whilst I accept that severe flooding alters the characteristics of a river which can be detrimental to the barbels environment, I personally doubt floods affects mature barbel stocks, I dont think there is any fish more capable than a barbel to live in such a harsh environment to be honest, I think before the barbel would be washed away, the Roach, Chub, Dace, Pike and Perch would go first, back in the 90's the NRA did flow metered tests on the river Severn at Severn Stoke, Mike Burdon (RIP) then the R&C secretary of the barbel society got involved in this and the findings where surprising, even when the river burst its banks and was 5 mtrs up, the first 18" of water from the bottom of the river upwards were calm and steady, and where other cyprynid species explored the new areas of bank, ditches, side streams, fields and often got stranded, the barbel stayed in the main flow of the river, but it is possible with the Teme that the barbel decided to up and leave during those floods and live their lives out in the Severn, after all, thats how the barbel got there, it was only the colonisation instincts of the Severn barbel that stocked the Teme, these instincts can induce the barbel to to move up or downstream as their habits dictate, the other thing to take on board, when the EA rescued fish at Upton on Severn from the flooded fields and ditches a couple of years ago,, they were mainly big Carp and bream they rescued, my understanding is that no barbel had to be rescued, despite Upton having a good barbel population. I think most fish tuck themselves away in times of flood, even the most smallest drop off on the bed of the river can create an area of calm, but it would be foolish to assume that these types of floods have no effect on barbel or any other fish populations, I think what would be vulnerable would be the fry of the particular year of any species.
 
I have no doubt that the severe flooding of around 8 years or so ago led to a marked reduction of barbel stocks on the Kennet. However the key aspect then was that it occurred at spawning time when the fish were in a very weakened state.

The barbel I have caught in the past week in a bank high Wye have been in tip top condition.

It will certainly be interesting to see how catch rates are affected once the rivers settle.
 
The Wye is a special case, you could catch them anywhere in a flood, Rivers such as the Teme, and Ribble, very different.
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
In my humble opinion, whilst I accept that severe flooding alters the characteristics of a river which can be detrimental to the barbels environment, I personally doubt floods affects mature barbel stocks, I dont think there is any fish more capable than a barbel to live in such a harsh environment to be honest, I think before the barbel would be washed away, the Roach, Chub, Dace, Pike and Perch would go first, back in the 90's the NRA did flow metered tests on the river Severn at Severn Stoke, Mike Burdon (RIP) then the R&C secretary of the barbel society got involved in this and the findings where surprising, even when the river burst its banks and was 5 mtrs up, the first 18" of water from the bottom of the river upwards were calm and steady, and where other cyprynid species explored the new areas of bank, ditches, side streams, fields and often got stranded, the barbel stayed in the main flow of the river, but it is possible with the Teme that the barbel decided to up and leave during those floods and live their lives out in the Severn, after all, thats how the barbel got there, it was only the colonisation instincts of the Severn barbel that stoked the Teme, these instincts can induce the barbel to to move up or downstream as their habits dictate, the other thing to take on board, when the EA rescued fish at Upton on Severn from the flooded fields and ditches a couple of years ago,, they were mainly big Carp and bream they rescued, my understanding is that no barbel had to be rescued, despite Upton having a good barbel population. I think most fish tuck themselves away in times of flood, even the most smallest drop off on the bed of the river can create an area of calm, but it would be foolish to assume that these types of floods have no effect on barbel or any other fish populations, I think what would be vulnerable would be the fry of the particular year of any species.
Click to expand...

Yes Lol that was very much how the 2007 floods played out on the Severn, the devastation that ensued after the flood still haunts me. Seeing all the gravel washed down to settle on the flood plain, and the sea birds gorging on dead fish on Tewkesbury Ham.
That was when the Teme really changed..
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
In my humble opinion, whilst I accept that severe flooding alters the characteristics of a river which can be detrimental to the barbels environment, I personally doubt floods affects mature barbel stocks, I dont think there is any fish more capable than a barbel to live in such a harsh environment to be honest, I think before the barbel would be washed away, the Roach, Chub, Dace, Pike and Perch would go first, back in the 90's the NRA did flow metered tests on the river Severn at Severn Stoke, Mike Burdon (RIP) then the R&C secretary of the barbel society got involved in this and the findings where surprising, even when the river burst its banks and was 5 mtrs up, the first 18" of water from the bottom of the river upwards were calm and steady, and where other cyprynid species explored the new areas of bank, ditches, side streams, fields and often got stranded, the barbel stayed in the main flow of the river, but it is possible with the Teme that the barbel decided to up and leave during those floods and live their lives out in the Severn, after all, thats how the barbel got there, it was only the colonisation instincts of the Severn barbel that stoked the Teme, these instincts can induce the barbel to to move up or downstream as their habits dictate, the other thing to take on board, when the EA rescued fish at Upton on Severn from the flooded fields and ditches a couple of years ago,, they were mainly big Carp and bream they rescued, my understanding is that no barbel had to be rescued, despite Upton having a good barbel population. I think most fish tuck themselves away in times of flood, even the most smallest drop off on the bed of the river can create an area of calm, but it would be foolish to assume that these types of floods have no effect on barbel or any other fish populations, I think what would be vulnerable would be the fry of the particular year of any species.
Click to expand...

Agree with that Lawrence.
Mature Barbel are well adapted to withstand severe floods, but would likely fare less well on some of the small rivers. There is some evidence of very large barbel moving upstream in times of flood, rather like salmon. This could just be a case of instinctively taking advantage of a chance to negotiate some of the larger man made structures that have impeded them in normal conditions.
When the Wey flooded the fields and was making it's way towards the carpark some 1/4 of a mile from the main channel, I would put on the waders and make for a favourite spot that nearly always produced. Using a landing net pole to check the depth in front of me as I carefully waded to an island of slightly higher ground where I knew the fish always holed up, under what in normal times would be the riverbank . It felt surreal to be standing in a huge 'lake' alongside a raging torrent, but boy did it produce some fish!
Very dodgy though, and foolhardy!
As Graham mentioned, Spring flooding has the potential to do more damage,wiping out spawn or fry and in some cases shifting tons of gravel just at the wrong time.
Years of engineering work have increased the velocity of water in the channels in a misguided attempt to get rid of it asap. Flooded fields and water meadows were a natural phenomena which enriched the rivers and lessened the impact on its inhabitants and the bank structure. When a river was in flood it stayed in flood for some time and receded slowly, allowing many fish who had found refuge in flooded fields to return to the river. I note that the river at the bottom of my garden can take 48 hours for the level to peak, but only 6 to 8 hours to return to normal ,...more of a drain than a river!
 
Some good points there, and I suppose it is relevant as to when the flood comes as in the time of year to the damage being done, even on the lower Severn which I have fished for 30 years for barbel, its amazing how swims change with large volumes of water pushing through and its a good point what Dave has said on how barbel move upstream even in the strongest flows and swim over weirs like Powick weir on the Teme, or Shrewsbury weir on the Severn, the very fact that these weirs get breached indicates a significant volume of water coming over, however the barbel have proven they have little problem getting passed them despite the somewhat aggressive nature of the flow, I have observed barbel in fast deep and clear water on the Teme, and it always amazed me when close to the bottom they rarely needed any effort to hold station, but when they wanted to move they just seemed to " let go" and used the force of the current to allow them to maneuver at will, a bit like a buzzard use's the warm air columns to hover and fly without flapping a wing, it is all to do with the barbels shape I am sure and a mathematician (which I am not) could give us an equation that would explain it all......?
 
Graham Elliott said:
I have no doubt that the severe flooding of around 8 years or so ago led to a marked reduction of barbel stocks on the Kennet. However the key aspect then was that it occurred at spawning time when the fish were in a very weakened state.

The barbel I have caught in the past week in a bank high Wye have been in tip top condition.

It will certainly be interesting to see how catch rates are affected once the rivers settle.
Click to expand...

Re. Teme...from my notes, the first of the two mega-floods (+5m) of 2007 occurred in the last 2 weeks of June, and the level didn't recede to less than +1m until 08/07/07. I think the timing of that particular flood made a great impact on barbel stocks (2nd flood of 2007, +6m, occurred during last week in July)
 
I agree entirely with what you are saying Terry.

In the case of the Kennet it mainly chalk based. I had never seen it flood to anywhere that extent in 30 years.

It may have been a case of fat southern softies suffering more than many true spate river fish.
 
In terms of barbel , I don't think they have any problems in severe floods .When the flood waters recede on the Yorkshire Ouse and other northern spate rivers , the fish that always seems to get left behind in the fields are bream , sometimes pike and even the odd salmon . I have never seen a stranded barbel
 
Same here Mike, its easy to blame the mysterious disappearance of barbel from once prolific barbel rivers on "the floods" if you look the rivers of Europe where barbel thrive, and bear in mind these rivers are of the species origin, they make our rivers look quite benign, no, I am happy that mature barbel in our rivers, are well suited to the most powerful of river currents our environment can throw at them.
 
It would be interesting to get a view from Dave Mason or Rob Swindells.

Didn't they say their stretch was devoid of fish after the floods.
Did it recover?
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
Same here Mike, its easy to blame the mysterious disappearance of barbel from once prolific barbel rivers on "the floods" if you look the rivers of Europe where barbel thrive, and bear in mind these rivers are of the species origin, they make our rivers look quite benign, no, I am happy that mature barbel in our rivers, are well suited to the most powerful of river currents our environment can throw at them.
Click to expand...

Though in the barbel's make up you could agree that it has the tools to deal with very fast water, it might be ultimately what they have been used to that will provide them with a least desired level of comfort. Thus, if our climate gave us a Hampshire Avon that were 3 times larger than now the barbel would have evolved to have dealt with it.
I think minimally there is something to be said for being forcibly moved to another location, however close, having a marked unsettling effect on them.
 
Surely, the position is we do not really know on most rivers as we have rarely experienced extreme floods such as a Q100 flood ie the one that occurs every 100 years as we have not been measuring flood heights for long enough never mind what impact they have on freshwater life. There are exceptions to this and the Teme and Kennet may be such cases and because of the extreme range of these and timing flooding may be the cause of fish decline. The Thames floods of not so long ago were seen as extreme but where I lived the water had been recorded higher back in the late 1800s and of course we have no idea what impact it had on fish stocks if any. It could also be that fish have adapted in spate rivers not so much in terms of size or shape although the former may be affected in terms of food supply versus energy expended to survive in such rivers, but how to cope or I may be giving them too much intelligence. Also river geology, hydraulics etc must play a part in terms of how much erosion etc takes place and so what is left of, and how quickly, any habitat can recover. It seems to me to be very complex and one which the government's announcement today is not going to help - more flood defences means more water in the river channel and not where it should go ie on the flood plains, but I think we have been here before.
 
Good observations there Paul, I actually believe that it was the so called "flood defence" chain saw gangs of the then NRA that started the demise of the Teme in the mid 90's, we are not talking about sympathetic pruning here, you had to be there to see the devastation that was done, unsupervised, unknowing, no plan, other than to rip out, drag out, cut down, straighten anything that was perceived to have a possibility of holding flood waters back, the theory in those days was get rid of the extra water asap, the 2007 floods were a part legacy of that philosophy of canalising of rivers, now they want to revert it back to what it was.......unbelievable, in my opinion that was the start of the demise of the Teme as a barbel fishery and coupled with other factors, the result of sheer vandalism.
 
Lawrence, I think the same can be said of many rivers...in those days the 'chain saw massacre' vandalism was rampant everywhere. However, I think it wrong to blame the EA without separating the guys at the sharp end from those at the thick end...I really think that their is very little real connection between them, beyond the fact that one lot give the orders, while the other lot have no option but to carry them out.

I know there are many foot soldiers in the EA who care a great deal about the environment and were as devastated as we were by the flood prevention teams destructive acts of madness at that time. You will also undoubtedly know or have heard of certain individuals who go way beyond their official remit, spend many hours of their own time in working towards improving the health of the environment, such is their passion.

The point is, the EA 'thick end' give advice to all and sundry when it comes to 'best practice' methodology for works of any kind involving water. Every river trust, in fact all bodies of well (or not so well) meaning folk are guided at least in part by them. They are perceived as the font of all knowledge by virtually everyone dealing with water and the environment as a whole.

The major problem there is that although they are what is termed 'A non-departmental public body'....they are in fact funded in the great part by DEFRA....which means that we are all being advised by an entity that is essentially answerable to the government. In other words, to civil servants that have an agenda which is concerned only with 'best practice' for them...even if that policy is wildly at odds with what is best for the environment. They are at the mercy of the government of the day. In my opinion, that is why what is considered 'best practice' today is often the exact opposite of what was 'best practice' yesterday.

There are many anomalies which illustrate the truth of much of the above. For instance, why would a body charged with safeguarding the environment support these ludicrous 'river powered turbine generators'? It is known that they almost invariably produce such a measly amount of electricity that they may well NEVER cover the massive cost of purchase and installation...and they do damage to the environment just by being installed, and apparently continue to do so throughout their existence. They have been poorly thought through and the fish screens by and large do not prevent the 'minced fish' syndrome. Bizarrely, they also reduce the 'kinetic energy' of the river, using some of that up to drive the turbine.

I say bizarrely, because when one then considers the fact that the major reason given for removing weirs, including the Powick weir, is that they 'reduce the energy of the river'....then the EA may consider that they have some explaining to do?

Lord help us mate.

Cheers, Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top