<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Justin R. Smerud</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>John Tix</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Susan M. Schleis</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Kim T. Fredricks</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Richard A. Erickson</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Jon Amberg</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>William S. Morrow</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Carolyn M. Koebel</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Elizabeth A. Murphy</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Chad Vishy</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>K. Douglas Blodgett</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Aaron R. Cupp</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2018</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Construction of a water management structure (WMS) in the levee surrounding The Nature Conservancy’s Emiquon Preserve (Havana, Illinois, USA) created a new hydrological connection and potential aquatic invasive species pathway between the Illinois River and a large conservation wetland complex. Site managers need a control tool that deters the upstream passage of non-native fishes into the wetland lakes, but does not interfere with normal gate operation and water discharge. This short field study evaluated carbon dioxide (CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;) injected into water as a non-obstructive method to reduce fish abundance near the WMS culverts. We quantified relative fish abundance using underwater sonar with and without injection of CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;into culverts during three discharge events: no flow (0 m&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;/s), restricted flow (0.9 m&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;/s), and unrestricted flow (3.2 m&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;/s). Overall, CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;reached or exceeded our target concentration of 100 mg/L during no flow and restricted flow, and fish abundance was 70–95% lower at culvert entrances relative to untreated control days. The target CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;level was not reached during unrestricted flow and fish abundance was not reduced during CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;injection. Atmospheric CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;concentrations were inconsequential and unaffected by CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;treatments throughout testing. Results from this initial field study provide several considerations for CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;span class="style1"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;as a fish deterrent in natural environments.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3391/mbi.2018.9.3.12</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>REABIC</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Field evaluation of carbon dioxide as a fish deterrent at a water management structure along the Illinois River</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>