Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S1364032121001271
Manuscript_d43e354a39fbe43a278b26c03a2b272a

Ecological Impacts of Run-of-River Hydropower Plants—Current Status and

Future Prospects on the Brink of Energy Transition

Alban Kuriqi1*, António N. Pinheiro1, Alvaro Sordo-Ward2, María D. Bejarano3, Luis Garrote2
1
CERIS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal.
e-mail: [email protected]; Mob: +351 918014510
2
Departamento de Ingeniería Civil: Hidráulica, Energía y Medio Ambiente, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
28040, Madrid, Spain
3
Departamento de Sistemas y Recursos Naturales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain

Abstract
The general perception of small run-of-river hydropower plants as renewable energy sources
with little or no environmental impacts has led to a global proliferation of this hydropower
technology. However, such hydropower schemes may alter the natural flow regime and impair
the fluvial ecosystem at different trophic levels. This paper presents a global-scale analysis of
the major ecological impacts of three main small run-of-river hydropower types: dam-toe,
diversion weir, and pondage schemes. This review's main objective is to provide an extensive
overview of how changing the natural flow regime due to hydropower operation may affect
various aspects of the fluvial ecosystem. Ultimately, it will inform decision-makers in water
resources and ecosystem conservation for better planning and management. This review
analyses data on ecological impacts from 33 countries in five regions, considering the last forty
years' most relevant publications, a total of 146 peer-reviewed publications. The analysis was
focused on impacts in biota, water quality, hydrologic alteration, and geomorphology. The
results show, notably, the diversion weir and the pondage hydropower schemes are less eco-
friendly; the opposite was concluded for the dam-toe hydropower scheme. Although there
was conflicting information from different countries and sources, the most common impacts
are: water depletion downstream of the diversion, water quality deterioration, loss of
longitudinal connectivity, habitat degradation, and simplification of the biota community
composition. A set of potential non-structural and structural mitigation measures was
recommended to mitigate several ecological impacts such as connectivity loss, fish injuries,
and aquatic habitat degradation. Among mitigation measures, environmental flows are
fundamental for fluvial ecosystem conservation. The main research gaps and some of the
pressing future research needs were highlighted, as well. Finally, interdisciplinary research
progress involving different stakeholders is crucial to harmonize conflicting interests and
enable the sustainable development of small run-of-river hydropower plants.

Keywords: Energy policy; Environmental impacts; Hydropower policy; Mitigation measures;

Renewable energy; Sustainable development.

*
Corresponding author. e-mail address: [email protected] (Alban Kuriqi)
1
© 2021 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
Word count
9365 (including abstract)

Abbreviations
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO Dissolved Oxygen
e-flows Environmental flows, [m3s-1]
EFM Environmental Flow Method
EU European Union
FDC Flow Duration Curve, [m3s-1]
MAF Mean Annual Flow, [m3s-1]
PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
% Qmean-Daily Percentage of Daily mean flow, [m3s-1]
Q75, Q95 Percentiles exceedance of flow duration curve, [m3s-1]
QX% Percentiles of Flow Duration Curve
RoR Run-of-River hydropower plant
SHP Small Hydropower Plant
WFD Water Framework Directive
WoS Web of Science

Highlights
• Eco-friendliness of run-of-river hydropower plants is questionable when it is
intensively developed.
• Periodic water depletion degrades fluvial habitats and reduces connectivity.
• Environmental flows remain overlooked in run-of-river hydropower plants.
• Pondage hydropower scheme induces the highest ecological impacts.
• Run-of-river hydropower plants do not always have a direct impact on fluvial
ecosystems.

2
1. Introduction
Fluvial ecosystems possess a great capacity in providing food and shelter for fishes and many
other aquatic species and offer a broad range of ecosystem services that directly affect human
well-being. As such, the natural flow regime plays a fundamental role by being the main driving
force for many biological processes and guaranteeing the aquatic habitat's long-term
ecological vitality [1]. Inadequate water resource exploitation might profoundly impair the
integrity of the fluvial ecosystems [2, 3]. Different single or multipurpose anthropogenic
structures, such as weirs and/or dams, alter the natural flow regime during a specific season,
e.g., irrigation or flood control dams, or over the year in case of water supply dams, which are
vital for human well-being and regulation-based hydropower plants [3]. The latter also
provides numerous social and economic benefits; it plays an essential role in the economy's
decarbonization [4]. Globally, the hydropower industry meets nearly 17% of the world’s
electricity demands [5]. The regulation-based hydropower plants constitute the largest share,
i.e., nearly 55%, and Small Hydropower Plants (SHPs) about 7% among all conventional
renewable energy sources [6]. In developed countries, most prospects for medium- to large -
scale economically viable hydropower schemes have already been exploited [5, 7], the
remainder being considered either environmentally undesirable [3] or economically
unfavorable [8]. While there is a great potential for developing regulation-based hydropower
in developing countries; nevertheless, economic and political instability prevents the
development of such hydropower schemes at the desired rate [9]. While it is well documented
that regulation-based hydropower plants cause profound alteration of the natural flow regime
and impair the fluvial ecosystems to a considerable degree [3, 10]. In contrast, although one
of the oldest power generation technologies, studies on ecological impacts caused by SHPs are
sporadically and disproportionately distributed worldwide compared to the regulation-based
hydropower plants [11].
In the last decades, public perception turned towards SHPs as sustainable energy sources
[12]. SHPs are also attractive to investors because of less licensing bureaucracy requirements
and the opportunity for decentralized operation and management. These facilities have
aroused high interest in developing such hydropower schemes, particularly those of the Run-
of-River (RoR) type [13, 14]. Climate change emergency is another factor that catalyzes the
global boom of SHPs in recent decades. On the brink of such dynamic developments, many
countries have set ambitious targets for increasing the renewable energy share, e.g., the
European Union (EU) aimed at increasing by 20% the renewable energy production by the end
of 2020 and anticipates to continue increasing until at least 2050 [15]. Small RoR hydropower
plants are among the most affordable renewable energy sources that can be developed in
many low-income countries because of the low construction and maintenance costs and short
construction time [6, 16]. In this regard, the RoR types of SHPs projects receive considerable
amounts of government funding’s and subsidies. The contribution of SHPs to global power
production is continually increasing, as most countries have so far exploited less than 50% of
their potential capacity [6, 17]. Continuous proliferation of small RoR hydropower is likely to
further intensify the conflicts among Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely, between
3
SDG 7, i.e., ‘’affordable and clean energy’’, and SDG 14, i.e., ‘’life below water’’ [18, 19].
Consequently, the increasing environmental requirements make the development and
management of such hydropower schemes challenging; on the other side, such requirements
are crucial for fluvial ecosystem conservation [20]. In many developed countries, well-
established legislation and directives, e.g., in EU, Water Framework Directive (WFD)
2000/60/EC [21], requires that planning, development, and operation of such hydropower
schemes guarantee a ‘’good’’ ecological status of the river under exploitation [20, 22].
Moreover, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) urges that biodiversity loss and
climate change must be handled with the same urgency and close coordination [23]. In this
regard, one must bear in mind that biodiversity conservation measures are as necessary as
climate change mitigation measures and should be included in all projects. Still, in many
transitions and developing countries, prevalent corruption and lack of appropriate
environmental legislation have led to unsustainable development of all types of SHPs in
general [7, 24, 25]. Past environmental legislation and existing ones in most transition
countries require the environmental impact assessment related mainly to the landscape's
impacts [11]. In contrast, the same attention is not devoted to the impacts on the river itself
and the associated terrestrial ecosystems [26, 27]. Weak legislation and other inadequate
water resources management practices [24, 25, 28] encourages hydropower developers to
ignore essential instruments, e.g., adequate environmental flows (e-flows) setting and/or fish
pass implementation, to sustain ‘’good’’ ecological status of the fluvial ecosystems [26, 29].
Studies on ecological impacts of small RoR hydropower plants suggest that the ecological
impacts of such schemes per megawatt of power produced, in some cases may be
disproportionally higher than those of regulation-based hydropower plants [7, 14, 30] or all
other renewable sources if impacted aquatic species were considered simultaneously [31].
Moreover, many small RoR hydropower plants are constructed in high elevations areas and/or
regions characterized by fragile biodiversity, which can exacerbate the fluvial ecosystem
conditions even more [27]. Previous review papers on the ecological impacts of small RoR
hydropower focus mainly on the downstream impacts at regional or basin-scale [11, 29, 32],
environmental legislation limitations [33, 34], downstream impacts on habitat conditions and
macroinvertebrates [35], development policy of SHPs and social impacts at regional scale [14,
16, 36], impacts on specific fish species [37], basin-scale ecological and evolutionary impacts
of SHPs [38], and effectiveness of the fish passes [39].
Notably, there is no previous review about upstream ecological impacts and the extent of the
downstream impacts, which are likely essential, particularly when assessing potential
cumulative impacts of multiple/cascade small RoR hydropower plants. Furthermore, there is
no review linking multiple upstream-downstream ecological impacts explicitly related to
different types of small RoR hydropower plants to the best of the authors' knowledge.
Therefore, there is an immediate need to improve further the current understanding of the
impacts induced by such hydropower schemes to provide practical and sustainable solutions.
This review synthesizes and offers an overarching overview of the up-to-date findings
concerning the different upstream–downstream ecological impacts induced by small RoR

4
hydropower plants in fluvial ecosystems. It gives recommendations and possible strategies
about effective mitigation measures and also highlights future research needs.
Specifically, the objectives of this review are: (i) to comprehend the global trends, at temporal
and geographical scale, of studies concerning the ecological impacts of the small RoR
hydropower plants, (ii) to reveal the most common upstream–downstream ecological impacts
with regards to three main RoR hydropower plants type, (iii) to highlight the most altered
biophysical parameters of the fluvial ecosystem due to the small RoR hydropower plants
operation, (iv) to distinguish the current state-of-the-art mitigation measures, and finally, (v)
to provide recommendations on future research needs considering the current knowledge
gaps. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the methodological approach used
in selecting and reviewing the literature; Section 3 shows and discusses the main findings on
the global trend of literature related to different ecological impacts and the small RoR
hydropower plants classification; Section 4 presents a synopsis of recommendations on the
potential mitigation measures; Section 5 highlights the future research needs; finally, Section
6 concludes the major outcomes of this review.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Literature search approach and analysis

The systematic literature search/review was conducted following the PRISMA guideline [40].
The literature search/review consists of two core tasks: publications collection and content
analysis. Fig. 1 shows the main steps and protocols in conducting the systematic review in this
study. The first step involves the integrative literature search and collection, including different
types of publications. The Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar were selected as
leading search platforms. The search string ‘’TITLE-ABS-KEY’’ was adjusted according to each
platform search protocol, using the following search terms:
“small-scale hydropower,” “small hydroelectric,” “run-of-river hydropower,” “diversion
hydropower,” “kinetic hydropower,” “pondage hydropower,” and “dam-toe hydropower”
combined with: “ecological impacts,” “hydromorphology,” “water quality,” “fish,”
“macroinvertebrates,” “riparian vegetation,” “geomorphology,” “river connectivity,” “flow
alteration,” “hydrologic alteration,” “hydropeaking,” and “habitat degradation.”
The literature search was limited to the relevant subject areas, i.e., environmental science,
water resources, environmental engineering, environmental studies, limnology, biodiversity
conservation, and geosciences multidisciplinary. The time frame of the literature search was
set based on literature availability. In this regard, the first studies on the ecological impacts
induced by small RoR hydropower plants appeared in 1981. This review was extended to
literature published from 1981 to December 2019. The second step consists of identifying the
relevant literature out of the 1335 collected publications based on title screening. In the third
step, the duplicated and unrelated records were removed. The remaining publications, n=787,
were further screened based on the pre-defined criteria.

5
 Step 1. Selection of Search Database Step 2. Literature Identification
Web of
Science WoS (n=347)
• Language:English Pre-defined
(WoS) Scopus (n=454)
• WoS: (Included) Articles, keywords
Google Scholar (n=534)
proceedings
database
Search

• Scopus: (Included) Articles, Literature

Scopus finding
proceedings
• Google Scholar: (Included) Records obtained
Articles, proceedings, Master and Timespan
through database
Google 1981-2019
PhD theses, technical reports search(n=1335)
Shoolar

Step 3. Literature Selection

Rcords after
Screening duplicates removed • Indexed journals.
(n=787) • Scope of the journal inlcudes: environment, ecology, water,
geomorphology, limnology, ecohydraulics, ecohydrology, sustainability,
Selection and energy.
Eligibility
criteria • Papers dealing explicitly with fluvial ecosystem impacts were included.
Snowballing • Master and PhD theses, technical reports dealing explicitly with
Included final Selected publications aquatic impacts were also inluded.
(n=146) (n=111) • Exlude terrestrial (land use/cover) related impacts publications.

Step 4. Literature Analysis and Recommendations

Hydrologic alteration Upstream Monitoring

/downstream
Geomorphology
impacts
Identifying
Clasification Vegetation Synthesis of
specific types Future research
criteria Water quality the results
of impacts
Fish Mitigation
measures
Macroinvertebrates

Fig. 1. Flowchart showing different steps of literature selection and analysis under systematic review protocol
according to PRISMA approach.

The review papers were excluded from the analysis to avoid overlapping of similar
information. Papers dealing with terrestrial impacts, modeling-based impact assessment, or
hydropower site selection and optimization were also excluded from the analysis. The
screening process resulted in 111 relevant publications; 35 more publications were found
through snowballing (i.e., by looking at each document's reference list), leading to a total
number of 146 publications. The analysis focused on four main topics: impacts in biota (i.e.,
fishes, macroinvertebrates, and riparian vegetation), water quality, hydrologic alteration, and
geomorphology. Additional literature was used to support statements not directly linked to
small RoR hydropower plants ecological impacts. Most of the publications considered in this
analysis were peer-reviewed scientific articles (91%), proceedings (5%), Ph.D. theses (2%), and
technical reports (2%). The selected publications were then processed in an excel spreadsheet
regarding the authorship, publication year, type of document, countries/regions, subject
categories, and type of ecological impacts discussed in each document. The number of study
cases reported in each document was also counted.
As most of the SHPs operate as RoR hydropower, these two designations are used
interchangeably with each other in this paper. The raw data about the number of existing and
planned SHPs, power capacity, and classification for each country/region were obtained from
Deyou, Heng [6], and Couto and Olden [11]. The global share of publications, study cases, and
number of developed SHPs for each region or country against the total number of each
respective item at a global scale was computed as a ratio, expressed in percentage, using Eq.1
6
 , (%) = 100 (1)

where , represent the share of publications, study cases, or the number of developed
SHPs for a given region or country, is the number of publications, study cases, or the
number of developed SHPs for a given region or country, and is the total number of
publications, study cases, or the estimated total number of potential SHPs globally. The
regional share of the number of developed SHPs against the total number of estimated
potential SHPs for each region was also computed as a ratio, expressed in percentage, using
Eq.2

, (%) = 100 (2)

,

where , represent the share of the number of developed SHPs for a given region against
the estimated total number of potential SHPs for that region, is the number of developed
SHPs for a given region, and , is the estimated total number of potential SHPs for a given
region.
Finally, in the fourth step, all documents were analyzed in detail. Relevant pieces of
information were obtained regarding the most prominent upstream–downstream ecological
impacts (i.e., related to four main topics mentioned above) induced by small RoR hydropower
plants. Simultaneously, 19 biophysical parameters were identified as the most impacted at
three types of small RoR hydropower plants analyzed in this study. The alteration of 19
biophysical parameters was analyzed for both sides of the diversion and characterized as not
reported (i.e., no evidence)—if no study reported any alteration of a specific parameter in one
or both sides of the diversion, scarcely reported—for a number of studies ≤20, and extensively
reported—for a number of studies >20. It should be noted that some studies report multiple
ecological impacts.

2.2. Limitations

Selecting relevant studies that focus on a specific topic is challenging because it infers the
ability to screen many documents scattered among multiple journals and/or databases.
Furthermore, large databases' literature search may involve some statistical bias since it is
based solely on database content. Many articles used nuanced titles that contain one or two
of the search terms used in literature sampling. The literature search, at first, based on the
pre-defined terms, yielded more than thousands of documents belonging to cross-sectional
subjects, making the relevant literature identification more difficult. For that reason, each
route to the full text of the accessible documents was slightly different. Only literature in the
English language was considered; it was acknowledged that some valuable information from
literature in other languages might have been missed. Nevertheless, no relevant information

7
appeared through some literature search tests made in other languages (i.e., French, Chinese,
German, Hindi, Italian, Persian, Portuguese, Slavic, Spanish, and Turkish).
The literature search approach considered peer-review/non-peer-review documents that
were available online only. Grey literature, such as technical or environmental impacts
assessment reports conducted mainly from consulting companies or NGOs, was scarcely
considered because of not having access and time limitation. The analysis was focused mainly
on identifying the most prominent impacts in a quasi-quantitative way. An in-depth analysis is
needed to determine the degree of each type of impact quantitatively in future research.
Almost all studies analyzed in this review focused only on the fluvial ecosystems by analyzing
a few hundred meters upstream and downstream of the diversion.
The ecological impacts were analyzed, considering the small RoR hydropower plants typology
only without distinguishing the flow regime type. This may hinder some specific impacts in
more fragile ecosystems and lead to an overestimation of some ecological impacts in more
resilient ecosystems. However, bearing in mind that this review's main objective was to
identify the most prominent impacts rather than define them in a purely quantitative way (i.e.,
the magnitude of each impact), findings and conclusions drawn from this review are not
affected by the limitations above.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Temporal and geographical distribution of literature

Analysis of the literature shows that the first studies on the ecological impacts of small RoR
hydropower plants date back to the early eighties, mainly regarding fish injuries/mortality
resulting from turbine passage [41] and e-flows requirements for the riverine ecosystem
conservation [42]. The number of publications remains relatively low until the end of 1997
(Fig.2).
Water Quality Fish Macroinvertebrates Hydrologic Alteration
30 Vegetation Geomorphology Total Cumulative 160
146
140
25
122 1
Cumulative Publications (#)

1 120
105 2
20
Publications (#)

92 100
79 2 8
15 80
2
66
58 2 2 2 2
51 1 1
60
10 2
42 44 2
3
6
38 2
2 32
35 1 40
1 9
2 2 4
5 22 24 32 3
17 19 1 1
10 11
14
6
1 2
1
4
7
6
20
6 7 8 1 1 1 3
3 4 5 2 2 2 2 4
1
2 1
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0
1981
1987
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Year
Fig. 2. Temporal distribution of publications number for each topic (impact) distributed by year.
8
 There is a transition period between 1997 and 2011, which corresponds to the rising concern
about freshwater ecosystems conservation when a slight increase in publications is observed.
From 2011, the number of publications on small RoR hydropower plants' ecological impacts
increase exponentially. However, not the same attention has been devoted to different
ecological impacts (Fig.2). Studies on fish represent the highest number (40%), followed by
studies on macroinvertebrates (24%), water quality (15%), geomorphology (9%), hydrologic
alteration (7%), and vegetation (5%).
Regarding the impacts on fish species, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is the most
investigated species (see Table A.1). Macroinvertebrates, snails, and slugs (Gastropoda) also
appear to be highly investigated. Last, the analysis of studies about impacts on vegetation,
including riparian vegetation and aquatic plants, showed that Sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentate) appears to be the most investigated. Regarding specifically the aquatic plants,
macrophytes represented by Lythrum salicaria, Rorippa amphibia, Lemna minor, Lycopus
europaeus, Potamogeton gramineus are in general highly investigated. Fewer studies were
found on impacts related to algae and phytoplankton.
Regarding the potential of SHPs globally, the analysis showed that Europe leads with the
highest number of potential SHPs (Fig. 3 bar chart), followed by Asia, Latin America, Africa,
North America, and Oceania. North America leads in terms of the development rate, i.e., the
number of SHPs in operation against its potential number (Fig. 4), followed by Asia, Oceania,
Europe, Latin America, and Africa.

Fig. 3. Colored countries’ shapes show the number of monitored study cases retrieved from publications; violet
circles show the geographical distribution of publications number for different countries; brown circles show the
total number of publications for each region; bar chart graph on the left shows the number of potential and in
operation of SHPs. Finally, the pie charts show the installed and undeveloped SHPs’ capacity for each region.

9
 North America also leads in terms of exploited power capacity against its total potential
(Fig. 3 pie chart), followed by Europe, Asia, Oceania, Latin America, and Africa. Regarding the
global share of SHPs in operation, Asia represents the highest share, followed by Europe, Latin
America, North America, Oceania, and Africa with the lowest share.
Based on the publications and reported study cases, results show that, in general, most of
the countries/regions with a considerably high development rate of SHPs and potential
capacity also show increasing awareness towards ecological impacts induced by such
hydropower schemes (Fig. 4). Europe leads with a noticeable difference regarding
publications number and reported study cases, followed by Asia, North America, Latin
America, Oceania, and Africa with no publications and consequently no study cases.
Even though characterized by the relatively high development rate of SHPs against its
potential number, the Oceania region has reported very few publications and study cases
(Fig.4). In contrast, the lack of studies from Africa might be explained perhaps by a low
development rate of SHPs. Indeed, investment in Africa's hydropower industry has gained
significant momentum in SHPs only during the last decade [6, 43].
Publications Study cases
Regional share of developed SHPs Global share of developed SHPs

70
64.3
62.1
60

48.6 50
50
46
Share (%)

40
33
32.6
30 25.3
21.2
20 22 17.1
11.6
10 7
5.9
4.3 4
2.4 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0
2.2
0 0.4 0.3
Europe AsiaNorth Latin America Oceania Africa
America
Fig. 4. Bars show the publications and study cases share for each region against the total number of publications
and study cases considered in the analysis. The lines show the regional and global share of developed SHPs
against the estimated total number of potential SHPs.

At the country level, China, followed by the USA, Brazil, Spain, and the UK, have remarkable
numbers of publications (Table A2 and Fig. A1). Publications from Norway, followed by China,
Austria, and the USA, report the highest number of study cases (Table A2 and Fig. A1);
globally, 1568 study cases are reported. Studies from Norway and Austria are mainly
restricted to hydrological and geomorphological alterations.

10
3.2. The RoR typology definition and classification

There is a wide variety in the typology of SHPs; most of them are RoR type or with small
regulation capacities for low flows. A diversion weir is commonly considered RoR when the
access water flows over the weir's crest, which operates as a spillway that spans
approximately the entire width of the river channel it blocks. There is no or just a small
amount of inflow detention to the impoundment (i.e., headpond) created by the weir [44]. In
terms of operation mode, dam-toe RoR, diversion weir, and pondage are the most common
RoR hydropower schemes (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Schematic presentation of the RoR schemes classification based on the operation mode: a) non-diversion
without storage (dam-toe RoR scheme), b) diversion without storage (diversion weir scheme), and c) diversion
with storage (pondage scheme), adapted with permission from Couto and Olden [11], Wiley. Some components
of the diversion weir scheme may also apply to the pondage scheme.

In small RoR hydropower plants, the dam-toe RoR hydropower scheme is always found as
an ultra-low head regarding the hydraulic head. Conversely, diversion weir and pondage
hydropower schemes can be found as a low, medium, and high head (Table 1), depending on
the location and water availability. The dam-toe RoR hydropower scheme is mainly developed
in lowland rivers with large flow discharge and low variability.

Table 1. Global classification of the small RoR hydropower plants according to the power production, hydraulic
head, and the operation mode/water retention capacity.
Power
Classification
Europe Asia L. A Africa N. A Oceania
Upper limit 1-30 6-50 5-50 1-30 10-50 10
Primary (MW)
Lower limit 1-2 1-5 0.5-10 0.5-10 NA 0.1-2
Pico ≤6-50 ≤5-10 ≤5-100 ≥1-100 NA ≤500
Secondary (kW)
Micro ≥10-500 ≥5-150 ≥5-1000 ≥20-5000 NA ≥1-2000

11
 Mini ≥100-1000 ≥100-5000 ≥50-1000 ≥50-10000 NA ≥10-1000
Head (m)
Ultra-low Hg ≤3
One-Main Low 3< Hg ≤40
Medium 40< Hg ≤250
High Hg >250
Operation Mode Water Retention Time (D) in Impoundment
*No flow regulation. It utilizes the available kinetic
energy of instream flow to run turbines. Hydroelectric
Dam-toe RoR
— generation depends strictly upon the available
scheme
instream flow.

Insignificant flow regulation; it covers only short-

One-Main
Diversion weir term peak-times electricity demand. Hydroelectric
D≤2 h (≈0.1 days)
scheme generation depends upon the natural inflow.

Known also as ‘’run-of-river/upstream Peaking’’.

Capacity to provide daily or weekly flow regulation.
Pondage 2 h ≤ D ≤ 400 h (≈ 17 days)
Water is stored during off-peak times and released
during peak-time electricity demand.
Note: L. A stands for Latin America, N. A for North America. *This stands only for small RoR hydropower plants. Hg is the
gross head.

The dam-toe RoR hydropower scheme operates using the flow discharge within a river
channel; without water storage or diversion, the water retention time is almost negligible [45]
(Table 1). In contrast, diversion weir and pondage hydropower schemes are mainly developed
in medium or highland rivers where flow discharge over considerable gradient creates an
available hydraulic head for electricity generation [29]. The pondage hydropower scheme
blocks the entire cross-section of the channel. The weir serves as a dam that lowers flow
velocity and creates a reservoir upstream of the hydropower facilities. Water retention time
may last less than one day in the diversion weir hydropower scheme and from a couple of
hours up to 17 days in the pondage hydropower scheme. The analysis conducted in this study
shows a global consensus concerning the hydraulic head and operation-mode-based
classification of small RoR hydropower plants.
In contrast, the same consensus has not been reached yet regarding the power-capacity-
based classification (Table 1). Capacity-based classification of small RoR hydropower plants
varies among countries. Most of the countries define it as a lower limit of generating capacity
from 1-10 MW. In contrast, the upper limit is varying from 1-50 MW. Also, there is a secondary
classification that classifies the RoR hydropower plants as: ‘’pico’’ with a global capacity range
(5-500 kW), ‘’micro’’ (10-5,000 kW), and ‘’mini’’ (50-10,000 kW). In general, there is a
tendency in increasing the upper limit classification, where countries with weak
environmental legislation were distinctly more predisposing to increasing such upper
threshold [26, 27]. The European Commission and several other international agencies
dealing with the sustainable development of renewable energy sources define small RoR
hydropower plants as having a capacity between 1-10 MW [14].

12
3.3. River flow regime alteration and hydropower operation-related impacts

Although disproportionally distributed worldwide, many studies reported several ecological

impacts induced by small RoR hydropower plants, associated with three typical hydropower
schemes. Main ecological impacts induced by small RoR hydropower plants involve changes
in the flow regimes such as flow depletion in the de-watered river reach, notably in diversion
weir and large instantaneous flow discharges through turbines (i.e., hydropeaking operation
regime) in the pondage hydropower scheme. Flow regime alteration due to small RoR
hydropower plant operation affects river geomorphology, riparian and aquatic vegetation,
water quality, fish, macroinvertebrates, and other biota composition, and connectivity. Some
of the main hydrological and biophysical alterations of the fluvial ecosystem are presented in
Table 2.

13
Table 2. The most common hydrological and biophysical alterations and ecological impacts associated with three main types of small RoR hydropower plants.
Diversion
RoR Examples
length River flow alteration Fluvial habitat alteration Consequences on biota
typology of studies
(km)
• May alter the physical and chemical • Habitat fragmentation. • Behavior and physiological
Dam-toe (ultra-low head)

parameters of water. • Substrate heterogeneity alteration. alteration of aquatic animals.

• Induces a slight reduction of flow • Channel regulation downstream • Loss of longitudinal connectivity.
discharge velocity. might affect habitat suitability and • Fish injuries, reduction of fish
[14, 46-
— • May alter water depth upstream and food web distribution. richness, and assemblages.
downstream of the weir. • Partial flood plain disconnection due • Macroinvertebrates community 51]
• The wetted perimeter slightly decreases to the channel regulation. composition alteration and
downstream of the weir. reduction of density and richness.

• Natural flow regime variability alteration, • Sediment composition alteration • May alter biota composition along
Diversion weir (low/medium/high head)

mainly during normal and dry periods. along the river and substrate the de-watered river reach, reduce
• Flow velocity decrease upstream of the displacement. fish richness and abundance.
weir. • Quality and quantity alteration of the • Loss of connectivity, the inclination
• Water temperature alteration during the food web composition and of biota abundance, and diversity.
warm and cold seasons. distribution. • Downstream migration inhibition of
• Flow quantity and quality reduction in the • Fragmentation of aquatic habitat. eel and organism displacement.
≥0.1-15 de-watered river reach. • Coarse sediments retention • Macroinvertebrates composition [52-63]
• Substantial reduction of low flows, upstream of the weir. and structure alteration.
extreme low flows, water depth, and • Potential risk in clogging the fish • Low mobility of fish and other
wetted perimeter in the de-watered river refuges and spawning areas with fine organisms, exposure to the
reach. sediments. terrestrial predators.
• Pollutants retention upstream of the
weir.

14
 • Flow quantity and quality reduction • Reduction of bedload transport and • Loss of longitudinal and horizontal
in the de-watered river reach. sediments heterogeneity, coarse sediments connectivity, fish injuries.
• Flow velocity decrease upstream of retention upstream of the weir. • Substantial reduction of richness,
the weir. • Formation of lentic condition upstream of abundance, and diversity of
(low/medium/high head)
• Alteration of frequency and the weir. macroinvertebrates and fish.
duration of high and low pulses. • Habitat fragmentation and heterogeneity • Drought stress on plants. Reduction
• Substantial reduction of low flows, reduction in the de-watered river reach. of stomatal conductance, and lower
Pondage

≥0.05-9 extreme low flows, and water • Quality and quantity alteration of the food midday water potentials, reduction [64-72]
depth in the de-watered river web composition. of total leaf area.
reach. • Substantial pollutants retention upstream • Fish and other organisms drifting
• Alteration of the rate of changes of the weir. and stranding during high water
(i.e., rise and fall rate). • High risk in filling the refuges and fish level fluctuation, low mobility in the
• Hydropeaking (i.e., low intensity of spawning areas with fine sediments both de-watered river reach, exposure to
hydropeaking). upstream and downstream of the weir. the terrestrial predators during
drought stress periods.

15
 3.3.1 The most altered biophysical parameters upstream–downstream of the diversion

Although flow regime alteration downstream of the diversion is one of the most noticeable
impacts, this study's findings show that three types of small RoR hydropower plants analyzed
in this study may also induce substantial impacts upstream of the diversion structure. The
degree of impact is closely related to the hydropower typology, the operation mode, and the
flow regime characterizing the river under exploitation. Although the dam-toe RoR
hydropower scheme has negligible water retention capacity, it may still induce several
impacts in the lowland rivers [50]. Dam-toe RoR hydropower scheme may alter the fluvial
ecosystem dynamic and natural succession by causing hygric habitats' degradation and
inducing significant taxonomical and functionality changes in the biota community [49]. On
the other side, as mentioned above, diversion weir and pondage RoR hydropower schemes
are associated with multiple other ecological impacts at a higher degree, such as substantial
loss of connectivity, sediment and pollutants retention, water temperature alteration, and
water quality deterioration, among others [73, 74]. There were identified 19 biophysical
parameters that appear to be the most altered (Table 3). In the dam-toe RoR scheme,
longitudinal connectivity loss and fish injuries were the only two most highly reported
impacts. In contrast, the other ecological impacts were scarcely, or some were not reported
in the analyzed literature. There is no strong evidence that those types of alterations occur
globally regardless of flow regime type or specific features characterizing the fluvial
ecosystems.

Table 3. The most altered upstream–downstream biophysical parameters near the RoR hydropower site; yellow-
colored cells represent the most predominant and extensively reported impacts.
Dam-toe RoR scheme Diversion weir Pondage
Parameters
↑ ↓ ↔ ↑ ↓ ↔ ↑ ↓ ↔
Water temperature — — ● ●d — — ●d ○u —
pH ○u ○d ● ○u ●d — ●u ●d —
Conductivity — — ● ○u ○d — ●u ●d —
Turbidity ○u ○d ● ○u ○d ● ○u ●d —
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) — — ● ○u ●d — ○u ●d —
Water depth ○u ○d ● ○u ●d — ●u ●d —
Flow velocity — ○u ● — ●u — — ●u —
Wetted perimeter — ○d ● ○u ●d — ●u ●d —
Sediments retention — — ● ○u — ○ ●u — —
Chlorophyll-a — — ● ○u ○d ○ ●u ●d —
Pollutants retention/concentration — — ● ○u ○d ○ ●u ●d —
Connective loss/migration — ● u-d — — ● u-d — — ● u-d —
Fish injuries ●u-d — — ● u-d — — ●u-d — —
Fish abundance — ○ u-d ● — ●u-d ○ — ●u-d —
Fish richness — ○ u-d ● — ● u-d ○ — ●d —
Macroinvertebrates abundance — ○u-d ● — ●u-d ○ — ●u-d —
Macroinvertebrates richness — ○u-d ● — ●u-d ○ — ●u-d —
Riparian vegetation — ○ u-d ● — ○ u-d ○ — ●u-d
Macrophytes/Other aquatic plants — ○ u-d ● ○d ○u ● ○d ●u ○
Note: Symbols used in this table stand for: increase (↑), decrease (↓), no changes (↔), no study reported (—), scarcely
reported (○)— for a number of studies ≤20, extensively reported (●)— for a number of studies >20, upstream (u), downstream
(d), and upstream-downstream (u-d).

16
 In the diversion weir scheme, several more biophysical parameters have been reported as
most altered. Namely, water temperature increases downstream, and fish injuries increase
on both sides of the diversion; pH, conductivity, DO, water depth, flow velocity, and wetted
perimeter decrease downstream; connectivity, fish abundance, and richness, and
macroinvertebrates abundance and richness decrease in both sides of the diversion weir
scheme were among highly reported impacts in literature regardless flow regimes type or
other particularities related to the fluvial ecosystems, and/or hydropower features. Finally,
the pondage scheme, as shown by the number of the impacted biophysical parameters,
stands ahead of two other RoR hydropower schemes. Namely, water temperature increases
downstream; pH, conductivity, water depth, wetted perimeter, chlorophyll-a, and pollutants
retention increase upstream; sediments retention increase upstream, fish injuries increase
both sides; turbidity, DO, and fish richness decrease downstream; flow velocity decreases,
and macrophytes become simpler upstream; connectivity, fish abundance,
macroinvertebrates abundance and richness decrease, and riparian vegetation become
simpler in both sides of the pondage scheme. Overall, analysis shows that the most common
impacts induced by three types of RoR hydropower schemes are related to the physical-
chemical water parameters and flow regime alteration, longitudinal connectivity loss, and
upstream-downstream migration constraints, and finally, the impact on the biota
composition, diversity loss, i.e., abundance, richness, and density reduction. As expected, the
dam-toe RoR scheme induces relatively fewer impacts than diversion weir and pondage
hydropower schemes.

3.3.2 Flow discharge depletion and hydropeaking

Predominantly, diversion hydropower schemes such as diversion weir and pondage imply
diversion of a certain fraction of flow discharges from a single or multiple rivers (i.e., usually
small rivers) to the power station by creating a bypass or so-called de-watered river reach, i.e.,
the stretch of river from water intake to the tailrace. The de-watered river reach experiences
flow regime alteration, which in some cases may be extended further downstream if the water
upon exiting the tailrace is released to another river. Most of the flow regime’s components
may be altered in the de-watered river reach [55, 75]. Studies on daily flow regime alteration
show that flow regime components such as mean annual flows, moderate flows; 1, 3, and 7-
day minimum flows, extreme low flows, frequency, low pulses count, and duration may be
significantly altered, i.e., experience abrupt increase or decrease from day to day depending
on the operation mode and typology of the small RoR hydropower plant [55, 76-78].
Studies on hourly flow regime alteration demonstrate that rise and fall rates may also be
substantially altered [79, 80]. Water retention time, which depends on the water storage
capacity implied by the diversion structure height, erosion dynamic in the catchment area, and
hydropower operation mode, determines the magnitude, timing, frequency, and duration of
the flow regime alteration [45, 81]. In some cases, the flow regime alteration induced by small

17
RoR hydropower may dominate the impacts triggered by other hydraulic structures, e.g.,
flood-control structures [76]. Small RoR hydropower plants' impacts in fluvial ecosystems may
be even higher than climate change and other anthropogenic activities, particularly in cascade
systems [82]. Hydropeaking, a hydrologic phenomenon characterized by rapid water level
fluctuations downstream of the diversion, alters ecologically-relevant hydraulic variables, is
mostly observed in regulation-based hydropower schemes [83, 84]. Sort of hydropeaking
characterized by a lower intensity of water level fluctuation has been reported in small RoR
hydropower plants as well [65]. The low intensity of hydropeaking associated to small RoR
hydropower plants, notably pondage RoR hydropower scheme, is mostly found in Alpine rivers
such as in Austria [65, 85] and Scandinavian countries [86, 87], but it may also occur in
Mediterranean rivers [80]. Hydropeaking, in the case of small RoR hydropower plants, may
have a slight impact on geomorphology and vegetation growth [88]. In contrast, fish, notably
juvenile life-stage, appears to be more vulnerable and instantaneously impacted by such water
level fluctuations [80, 85].

3.3.3 Impacts on river geomorphology

Except for the dam-toe RoR hydropower scheme, which, over-all, induces minor changes in
rivers geomorphology, mainly upstream of the dam. In contrast, the other two types of
diversion RoR hydropower schemes affect sediment transport deposition and ultimately may
modify, in a long-term period, river geomorphology [50]. Namely, diversion weir and notably
pondage scheme may alter at a certain degree several geomorphological features of the river,
upstream–downstream of the diversions [44, 89]. In general, all types of small RoR hydropower
schemes do not induce significant discontinuities in channel morphology, such as shifting the
river course, which is a common impact in regulation-based hydropower plants [90]. Small RoR
hydropower plants also impact the sediment heterogeneity upstream and downstream of the
diversion at a considerable degree [52, 91]. The silt/clay and sand concentration are generally
higher upstream, and gravel is higher downstream of the diversion; the latter is mainly
accumulated in the bypass river reach [91, 92].
Conditional to the predevelopment of bedload supply rate and the duration of the disruption,
alteration in D50 bed-surface grain size varies from considerably (74%) to negligible (1%), and
it increases downstream of the diversion [93]. Another issue related to sediment retention
upstream of the diversion is the retention of the fertilizers draining from the catchment area
[60], which depends on the proportion of diverted flow discharge and may promote short-
term periods of mixed sediments, e.g., sediment methane (CH4) fluxes [94]. The weir height
influences the wetted perimeter and water depth significantly [68]. On the other side, the
wetted perimeter and water depth may change from upstream to downstream[95, 96].
Depending on the local system channel geometry and slope, flow drops over the weir may
cause riverbed scouring.
In some cases, depending on the small RoR hydropower plant operation mode, a deep
plunges pool and mid-channel bar immediately downstream of the diversion may be formed

18
[68]. The aforesaid geomorphological changes, including temporary bedload transfer
disruption, may reduce the natural heterogeneity of stream habitat by directly impacting the
biota [97, 98]. While small RoR hydropower plants, notably diversion weir and pondage
schemes, may induce a significant reduction of several hydraulic parameters such as water
depth, shear stress, velocity, and wetted perimeter; still, in some case, those ecologically
relevant parameters may remain within the minimum requirement of, e.g., fish habitat
conditions and the impact varies from case to case [52]. In this regard, a general conclusion
that small RoR hydropower schemes always have irreversible negative impacts on the fluvial
ecosystems cannot be drawn.

3.3.4 Impacts on riparian and aquatic vegetation

Vegetation linked to the fluvial ecosystem is interchangeably connected with several

geomorphological processes. It affects fluvial dynamic, river channel geomorphology and
increases bank stability and aquatic fauna habitat suitability [99]. The aquatic and riparian
vegetation may serve as a shelter for aquatic and terrestrial animals near the river banks
[100]. Even though it is well recognized that regulation-based hydropower plants induce a
substantial impact on the riparian and aquatic vegetation than small RoR hydropower plants
[101], streamflow diversion in the latter still may affect numerous aspects, such as increasing
the water stress on the riparian vegetation [64, 102, 103] and simplifying the macrophytes’
structural composition [71, 104]. The small RoR hydropower plants impact on the aquatic and
riparian vegetation, notably the impacts from the pondage scheme, are more prominent
during the summer season. Water availability reduction during the low flow seasons causes
moisture stress in the riparian zone, leading to a drop in the frequency of tall and small shrubs,
i.e., a decrease of seedlings and/or vegetative reproduction downstream diversion [103].
Streamflow diversion may also cause thinning or loss of near-stream riparian vegetation zone.
Thicker leaves and a reduction of the total leaf area are among several structural responses
of woody plants and notably juvenile plants due to water stress resulting from small RoR
hydropower plants water diversion [64].
In some cases, such adaptation may enable the riparian zone downstream of the diversion to
retain their canopies in low flow periods; nevertheless, prolonged low flow periods (i.e., lack
of high pulses and floods) may cause mortality of the juvenile plants [90, 103, 105]. On the
other side, areas characterized by mostly pioneer/juvenile trees and shrubs located upstream
of the diversion, which are not used to frequent inundation periods characterizing
hydropeaking regimes, notably in pondage scheme, may disappear or become simpler [103,
106]. Such unfavorable conditions may alter riparian vegetation distribution at a considerable
distance from the impacted river stretch.
In contrast to the riparian zone, aquatic plants/vegetation, such as macrophytes, are mostly
affected upstream of the diversion. Increased share of sealed bed surface area and banks of
the channel may reduce species diversity and macrophytes' quality composition upstream of
the diversion [71]. Lentic habitat created upstream of the diversion in combination with other

19
anthropogenic factors such as retention of fertilizers and other pollutants originating from
waste thrown away to the water, households wastewater, and/or industry, increase the
chlorophyll-a concentration (i.e., an essential element for photosynthesis of some aquatic
plants) and algae densities significantly [107-109]. When produced in a regular quantity, algae
are essential in forming most aquatic food webs, which support plenty of animals. Small RoR
hydropower plants have a twofold effect on the algae community: increasing their density
upstream and decreasing downstream [110]. Overall, there is clear evidence that small RoR
hydropower plants, notably pondage scheme, may negatively affect both the riparian and
aquatic vegetation. Considering flow regime variability, hydropower operation mode, and
other stressors that might affect them, it is not always easy to discern small RoR hydropower
plants' real impacts on the riparian and aquatic vegetation.

3.3.5 Impacts on water quality and its physical-chemical parameters

In general, individual small RoR hydropower plants may not always have a substantial impact
on the water quality parameters; in contrast, cascade systems may significantly alter
numerous water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), on both sides of
the diversion [111]. Temperature is an essential controlling physical factor for many ecological
processes. Water retention, mainly in pondage scheme and flow discharge depletion in the
bypass reach, may induce hyporheic heat advection by decreasing water temperature
upstream and notably increasing it downstream up to 5oC above-normal conditions during low
flow periods [112]. The high-temperature periods vary in duration, magnitude, and frequency;
the temperature increase downstream tends to remain higher for a more extended period
than the upstream of the diversion. As reported by Chandesris, Van Looy [113], the
temperature threshold of 22oC exceeded downstream of the diversion for a cumulative of 42h
over the three consecutive days of monitoring. Similar results were found in Alpine rivers; the
temperature downstream of the diversions increases about 3.7°C in a 2.1 km distance of
bypass river reach under high solar radiation during the Summer season [114]. Increasing
temperatures downstream of the diversion affect the abundance of several cold-water fish
species, notably brown trout (Salmo trutta), and alters macroinvertebrates community
composition [115]. The typology of the hydropower plants, especially inflow height, water
retention time, and the detention area upstream of the diversion, as well as the closeness
between two or more impoundments, are leading factors that influence the degree of water
quality deterioration in small RoR hydropower plants, notably in cascade hydropower
schemes. In general, water quality deteriorates more during low flow periods and it is strongly
linked with the capacity of rivers to export the pollutants accumulated upstream of the
diversion or in the fragment pools downstream [116]. Notably, in the case of the pondage
scheme, contamination of fine sediments with heavy metals and/or other pollutants and then
sedimentation process upstream of the diversion pose a high risk for contamination of water
quality downstream of the diversion during releases of high fluxes induced by flushing flows

20
or high pulses [117, 118], especially in high gradient rivers [119]. Such high fluxes of
contaminated water releases may considerably affect the river's ecological vitality, especially
its lowland part [120, 121]. Moreover, as a result of a high level of water contamination, a
considerable amount of pollutants such as mercury (Hg) may be very toxic for aquatic animals
such as fishes [122] or mollusks [123].
As mentioned above, water quality may also be strongly influenced by agriculture activities
within the catchment area [124, 125]. As such, it should be emphasized that small RoR
hydropower plants indirectly and seasonally affect the water quality [54, 126, 127].

3.3.6 Connectivity loss and impacts on the fish composition

As flow regime is the primary driver for many geomorphological and biological processes,
flow discharge depletion in the bypass reach may profoundly alter the lotic habitat [128-130].
Substantial loss, mainly of longitudinal connectivity due to the habitat fragmentation because
of the water depletion in the bypass reach, is one of the major impacts of small RoR
hydropower plants. The most substantial loss of connectivity is due to the diversion structure,
which splits the river into two parts and, as a result, alters upstream–downstream flow regime,
biophysical habitat conditions [113, 131, 132] and also may considerably hinder the fish [133-
136] and other aquatic animals [137-139] migration. Upstream migration is usually more
constrained than downstream since the latter one may be facilitated by water spills over the
diversion structure [140], especially for eel [56] and lamprey [141], which migrate more easily
downstream through the spillway because of the body size and morphology. Fish composition
and assemblage are mostly influenced by a rich, patchy, and heterogeneous habitat [131, 142,
143]. The impact of river flow diversion on the aquatic habitat increases mostly during low
flow periods. The residual flows released to the bypass reach may remain lower in magnitude
for a prolonged time. As a result, aquatic habitat gets fragmented in small hydromorphologic
units such as riffles and pools [44, 141, 144]. For instance, brown trout (Salmo trutta)
demonstrates high sensitivity to altered flow regime; degradation of habitat influences notably
the community composition of juvenile fish and may decrease their densities and biomass up
to 50 % [145-149].
Moreover, flow regime alteration and habitat reduction limit biota and increase food and
space competition with invasive species [46]. It may potentially increase dispersal, e.g., fish, to
more suitable downstream environments, depending on the aquatic habitat fragmentation
degree [150, 151]. In some cases, it may be challenging to determine if the hydropower
scheme is the direct or indirect cause of the observed impacts; for instance, it is not always
clear whether flow reduction in the bypass reach inhibits fish migration or such impact might
be just due to natural fluctuations in recruitment [152].
In addition to the previous impacts, particularly fish may be subjected to various forms of
stress and injuries related to their attempts at passing through the turbine(s) [153-155]. Still,
such impacts are quite variable and depend on the turbine type, fish species, life-stage, body
size, and morphology of the fish [156, 157], e.g., eels demonstrate a high rate of injuries while

21
attempting to pass through the turbine [154]. The impact is higher in the lack of appropriate
facilities that enable safe upstream–downstream fish migration.

3.3.7 Connectivity loss and impacts on macroinvertebrates composition

Macroinvertebrates play an essential role in leaf litter decomposition, presence of storage in

case of pondage scheme, alter the processing rate of leaf and other organic matter, also alter
the food web and composition of macroinvertebrates upstream [158] but mostly downstream
of the diversion [159-161]. Macroinvertebrates community composition is closely linked to
water conductivity and temperature; altering those parameters may also affect their
assemblages [59, 162, 163]. Natural flow regime alteration, mainly in spring and summer, may
decrease macroinvertebrate abundance and richness [128, 164]. Pearl mussels have also been
reported to be profoundly impacted by small RoR hydropower plants, notably in the case of
the pondage scheme [165].
The impacts of small RoR hydropower plants, particularly for fishes and macroinvertebrates,
may differ from site to site [158, 166] and from upstream to downstream of the diversion [129,
167, 168]. In general, a considerable loss of macroinvertebrates' functional diversity has been
found most often downstream of the diversion and notably during the summer period due to
substantial reduction of flow discharge [150, 169]. The macroinvertebrates' structure
composition is also closely related to the microhabitats’ configuration, e.g., knickzones located
downstream of the diversion exhibit higher richness and suitability than the other types of
habitat [72]. Small RoR hydropower plants' impact on macroinvertebrates differs among flow
regimes type, river channel geomorphology, and topography, as well. A higher reduction of
the richness and density is observed more often in highland rivers than in lowland rivers [170].

3.4. Possible positive impacts

Streamflow diversion in RoR hydropower plants may not always negatively impact the biota;
e.g., Wu, Tang [171] found that streamflow diversion in cascade RoR hydropower affected the
diatom species richness positively. Also, in some cases, the development of small RoR
hydropower plants improves the migratory window at a complex natural barrier, particularly
in small rivers for specific fish species such as salmon (Salmo salar) [172], create favorable
conditions for trout (Salmo trutta), e.g., pools created upstream may serve as a refuge and
increase the winter survival [173]. Therefore, in a few cases, the ecological impacts induced by
small RoR hydropower plants may be quite site-specific and not always negative.
Simultaneously, the diversion's presence may even complement a few specific components of
the fluvial ecosystem; nevertheless, those are infrequent and specific occasions.

4. Recommendations on Mitigation Measures

Although the small RoR hydropower plants may induce several ecological impacts on the
fluvial ecosystems, the analysis conducted in this paper also identified several potential
22
measures to avoid or mitigate some sorts of ecological impacts. Some of the measures have
only been experimentally tested so far; others have already been successfully implemented
and tested in practice. The measures were categorized into non-structural, i.e., related e-
flows implementation and hydropower operation adjustment, and structural mitigation
measures.

4.1. E-flows and operational measures

As the flow regime drives several geomorphological and biological processes, the e-flow
regime implementation represents an essential instrument for conserving the fluvial
ecosystems and mitigating the ecological impacts induced by small RoR hydropower plants.
In the e-flows setting, it is essential not only the magnitude of the flow discharge released
downstream of the diversion but also the frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change [3].
E-flows should guarantee permanent connectivity for fish and other aquatic fauna and also
suitable habitat conditions downstream of the diversion. Considering climate change, the e-
flows should be carefully implemented in future hydropower plants; the existing ones should
also be monitored and checked if an upgrade of the e-flows is needed. In general, in small
RoR hydropower plants, the most dominant practice in the e-flows setting is hydrologically-
based methods (EFMs). The most common ones are those based on a percentage of Mean
Annual Flow (%MAF), Tennant, Tessman, percentiles of Flow Duration Curve (QX% of FDC)
[174], hydraulic and habitat modeling [175], and recently so-called dynamic approaches (%
Qmean-Daily) [176-178]. Hydrologically-based EFMs, although criticized for not having firm
ecological ground, are less demanding in terms of resources and have demonstrated
promising results in several cases. For instance, the establishment of e-flows from 5 to 10%
of MAF has improved the benthic macroinvertebrate diversity in Alpine rivers [179]. E-flows
setting resulting from 5%MAF demonstrates adequate flow for nearly fully functioning of fish
passes in more than 100 cases over Europe [180]. Also, dynamic e-flows demonstrate to
preserve several flow regime components while still allowing for reasonable hydropower
production both in Alpine [181] and Mediterranean rivers [182-184]. Such a small portion of
MAF may be sufficient in large rivers, but further downscaling may not be appropriate in small
rivers because of the high flow regime variability; further downscaling may require field
measurements and/or extensive hydraulic modeling [185].
Optimization of the hydropower operation and interruption of water diversion for a short
period during a specific time of the day may reduce fish mortality, especially larvae, and also
improve habitat availability and suitability at a negligible cost of hydropower production loss
[66, 186]. The operation changes have also improved the flow regime features by mimicking
natural flow regimes and subsequently accelerating geomorphological processes
downstream of the diversion by improving habitat suitability [187]. Releasing sufficient e-
flows during downstream migration periods improves the eels' attraction to the spillways by
improving longitudinal connectivity at a low hydropower production cost. Such e-flows
regime can be ensured, e.g., by partially and accurately timed close of turbines during

23
migration peaks [62, 188]. Tuning the hydropower operation has been shown to improve the
fish habitat conditions during the hydropeaking regime in Alpine [189] and Mediterranean
rivers [80].
Additionally, flushing flows during the specific period of the year, e.g., in Autumn in Alpine
rivers, improves the macroinvertebrate abundance and richness considerably [190].
Implementation of periodic flushing flows regime mimicking the magnitude, frequency,
timing, and duration of the natural hydrograph, particularly in the pondage RoR hydropower
scheme, remobilizes the sediments transport downstream of the diversion and improves
habitat conditions for grayling (Thymallus thymallus) population, among others [70, 191]. All
of these non-structural mitigation measures mentioned above should be carefully
implemented not to compromise hydropower profitability.

4.2. Structural measures

The geometry of the diversion structures also plays a vital role, e.g., in fish injuries.
Experimental research has shown that, e.g., smooth-faced ogee-shaped spillways demonstrate
a much lower rate of injuries in the case of salmonid fish than other common types of spillways
[192]. Similar results were observed for cyprinids fish species, where wider weir crest
considerably influenced the downstream fish movements [193]. Traditional or innovative
fishways such as multi-slot vertical slot fishway [194] and tube fishway [195] improve
longitudinal connectivity at an affordable cost. Friendly design of the turbines’ blades can
significantly increase the fish survival rate for passage through the turbine [196]; e.g.,
Archimedes screw induces considerably low injuries and almost no mortality in downstream
eels and potamodromous fish migration [197].
Moreover, integrated measures, such as e-flow regime releases in combination with habitat
improvements, effective design of the weir [198, 199], fishways [200], or other types of bypass
structures [201-203], and fish guidance structures such as vertical [134, 204, 205] or innovative
curved bar racks [206], can facilitate the salmonid and non-salmonid fish passage and also
reduce the mortality in low-head diversion hydropower plants significantly. As fish species
migration abilities diverge, the same mitigation measures may not be useful for all species,
even within the same order or family. For instance, contrary to the standard eel bypass
systems, undershot sluice gates demonstrate high attractiveness for downstream migration of
Silver Eel (Anguilla anguilla) [58].
Implementation of instream structures such as islands and lateral deflectors [207], boulders
[208], or in the case of hydropeaking, a different configuration of shelter structures [209, 210]
are among the potential structural mitigation measures. Nevertheless, the applicability and
effectiveness of those measures may be questionable in highly dynamic rivers. To effectively
implement those measures, local hydraulic and geomorphological conditions and long-term
flow regime should be carefully analyzed.
Inflatable weirs or so-called rubber dams represent a low cost and eco-friendly solution that
can be used to retrofit existing weirs or in new small RoR hydropower plants. Inflatable weir is

24
flexible in operation and maintenance; it can be easily implemented in different hydro-
meteorological conditions, remobilize sediment transport [211, 212], and improve longitudinal
connectivity for aquatic macrofauna [213].
Finally, barrier removal has demonstrated effectiveness and potential to restore river
connectivity, increase habitat availability, and re-establish suitable habitats for refuge, feeding,
and fish spawning [214, 215]. Nevertheless, barrier removal may not always positively affect
all species, e.g., macroinvertebrates [216]. Furthermore, this kind of measure may conflict with
the purpose for which the barrier was built, e.g., the case of RoR hydropower plants. Yet, it
may be applicable for very old RoR hydropower, which may need refurbishment or the
identified resulting benefits to overcome the benefits of its present purpose [217]. Readers
may refer to [218] and other deliverables from the ‘’FIThydro’’ project
(https://www.fithydro.eu/) for additional mitigation measures and more information related
to the implementation practices. A combination of non-structural with structural measures
may also be a potential solution to mitigate ecological impacts and enable, sustainable
operation of small RoR hydropower plants.

5. Future Research Recommendations

This review shows a rapidly rising body of literature about the ecological impacts of small RoR
hydropower plants. Further progress in solid scientific knowledge will support water managers
and other interested stakeholders in better planning and managing small RoR hydropower
plants. To date, less than 50% of the potential SHPs worldwide have been developed [6]; there
is an immediate need to make future development of this renewable energy technology more
effective and sustainable, particularly in terms of their impacts on fluvial ecosystems. The
following three main areas are considered the most important domains for future research
considering the current research gaps.

5.1. Expansion of geographical and taxonomic coverage

Ecological impacts induced by small RoR hydropower plants differ from country to country
and/or region to region due to the scale definition of what is considered small, climate
conditions, flow regime variability, the rivers' geomorphological context, and biota resilience
against flow regime alteration [14]. To achieve more comprehensive information about the
specific ecological impacts, it is imperative to expand the research geographically, especially
in those countries where there are very few or no studies [11, 30, 219].
Further research is needed to understand geographical variability in hydraulic conditions and
geomorphological responses of rivers to RoR hydropower plants, which may vary with
hydropower typology and geographical context [93, 95]. Such essential information can be
achieved by integrating process-based field studies [68, 98], experimental work and numerical
modeling—defining acceptable flow regime alteration thresholds [220], and inherent trade-
offs specific to the different species from rivers, including fauna and flora [18, 38, 221].

25
 Cumulative impact assessment, particularly in cascade RoR hydropower plants and exploring
main mechanisms influencing some of the major ecological impacts [82, 222]. A better
understanding is needed in habitat use of fish survival and growth to estimate demographic
consequences of aquatic habitat alteration [147, 156]. Additional studies considering broader
geographical coverage are needed in quantifying the ecological responses of less investigated
fauna such as eels [62, 154] and zooplankton communities due to small RoR hydropower
operation [138].

5.2. Monitoring

The analysis conducted in this paper showed that it was difficult to discern between
ecological impacts induced by small RoR hydropower plants and other anthropogenic stressors
in some cases. Data that might be obtained through monitoring are essential in validating and
further improving mathematical models or existing mitigation measures [32, 132]. There is an
immediate need for sufficient evidence to evaluate if some particular ecological impacts, e.g.,
quantifying at which degree, water quality deterioration, originates from small RoR
hydropower plants or other anthropogenic stressors [36, 119]. In this regard, it is essential to
develop biological indices [163] and to organize monitoring campaigns to identify main
mechanisms triggering flow regime, and water quality alteration, particularly in those cases
where the catchment area draining to the river under exploitation for energy generation is
extensively used, e.g., for agriculture purposes [223]. Strategic monitoring must identify the
species and ecological processes most likely to be at risk due to small RoR hydropower plants
operation [7]. The implemented mitigation measures should be continually monitored to
understand their effectiveness and factors that may lead them to failure [224]. It was reported
that the ecological impacts of small RoR hydropower plants per megawatt power generation
might overpass regulation-based hydropower plants [7, 14, 28].
Yet, such statements remain relatively subjective and unclear. There is a lack of research to
quantify such impacts based on multiple metrics such as flow regime, water quality,
geomorphology, and biota alteration. There is also a need to understand better and identify
which factors, e.g., head or length of bypass reach, in addition to capacity, can accurately
delineate the ecological impacts of small RoR hydropower plants [55]. Future research should
also focus on understanding to what extend downstream of the diversion, small RoR
hydropower plants operation impact the riverine ecosystem and also the influence of
tributaries in reducing such impacts—developing flow-ecology relationships curves based on
long-term records by addressing the key flow regime metrics to ecological response data, e.g.,
aquatic species richness, riparian vegetation recruitment, or larval fish density [225-227].
There is little research on so-called hydropeaking; therefore, it is essential to monitor and
investigate the occurrence and degree to which this type of flow regime alteration affects the
biota in the case of small RoR hydropower plants [55, 65, 86-88]. There is also a need to
investigate the fishes [80] and other aquatic biotas, e.g., macroinvertebrates [169], abilities to
survive or adapt to low flow conditions.

26
5.3. Innovation in design and technology

The existing design concepts of small RoR hydropower plants need to be profoundly
upgraded. For instance, an entirely new concept still under development is the ‘’TUM hydro
shaft’’[228]. Experimental investigations conducted so far demonstrate that the TUM
hydropower plant is feasible in construction, maintenance cost, and energy generation; also,
it has minimal ecological impacts [229]. The prototype of the ‘’TUM hydro shaft’’ was recently
successfully implemented in Loisach river, Germany. Low head hydropower technologies such
as ‘’TURBULENT’’ hydropower [230], Archimedes screw [197, 231], and many other innovative
concepts/technologies [232] are among eco-friendly hydropower design under development,
or some of them implemented already. The development of utilities for improving connectivity
for other aquatic species rather than fish, e.g., utilities for macroinvertebrates [47, 72] and eels
[154], remains less investigated.
Further research is needed in eco-friendly retrofitting technologies, e.g., siphon turbine [231],
modular guide vane Francis turbine [233] that can enhance hydropower production but also
reduce ecological impacts, especially on fishes. More investigation is needed to understand
what makes the obstacles impassable and improve their functionality [234, 235]. Developing
useful metrics to understand the relationship between flow regime alteration and the
hydropower design may facilitate lower impact hydropower plants [55].
Further improvements or development of the new design of fish-friendly turbines can have a
twofold effect. Reducing the ecological impacts and maximizing hydropower production as
shutdown periods may no longer be necessary [197, 229, 230]. Improvement of the intake
structures is also essential to reduce fish injuries and head losses [206]. Downstream
movement fishways facilities for potamodromous fishes remain still less investigated; there is
an immediate need to improve further and develop such facilities [234]. Development of the
conceptual and mathematical models to predict how small RoR hydropower plants operation
may influence several aspects of the riverine ecosystem is also essential, particularly in
planning and refurbishing existing hydropower plants [52, 114, 204, 236].

6. Conclusions
This study intends to give a comprehensive overview of the major ecological impacts induced
by small RoR hydropower plants. Also, it provides insights into the main factors behind
triggering those impacts. Literature investigation showed that, in general, countries with a high
development rate of small RoR hydropower plants also reveal an increasing awareness of the
ecological impacts of such hydropower schemes. In this regard, Europe leads with the highest
number of publications and study cases. Most of the available studies considered in this review
concern impacts on fish. In contracts, impacts in riparian and aquatic vegetations remain less
investigated. The most common small RoR hydropower schemes are: dam-toe RoR, diversion
weir, and pondage scheme. Diversion weir and notably pondage hydropower schemes pose
higher ecological impacts compare to the dam-toe RoR hydropower scheme. The most

27
common reported ecological impacts are: flow regime alteration, water depletion in the
bypass reach, loss of longitudinal connectivity, fish injuries, habitat degradation, and
fish/macroinvertebrates community composition simplification. In this regard, the following
main conclusions can be drawn from this study:
• Mean annual flows, moderate flows; 1, 3, and 7-day minimum flow, extreme low flows,
frequency, low pulses count, duration, and rise/fall rate were among the most altered
flow regime components.
• Peak operation in the diversion weir and notably pondage scheme stimulates
hydropeaking regime by affecting several ecologically-relevant hydraulic variables;
nevertheless, hydropeaking in small RoR hydropower plants occurs at a lower intensity
than regulation-based hydropower plants.
• Sediments retention upstream of the diversion and habitat degradation mainly
downstream are the most common geomorphological alteration in small RoR hydropower
plants, mainly in pondage scheme.
• The water stress increase on the riparian vegetation and simplification of the
macrophytes' structural composition, notably during the pioneer phase, is the most
noticeable impact on the fluvial vegetation.
• Water temperature increases downstream, especially in dewatered river stretches, and
water quality deterioration due to frequently contaminated sediment flux releases are the
main impacts of water quality deterioration.
• Connectivity loss, injuries, abundance, richness, and density loss are the main impacts
affecting the aquatic fauna.
Overall, literature investigation shows that most of the ecological impacts are directly linked
to a lack of rigorous planning and management practices concerning the implementation of
the e-flows, periodic monitoring, and lack of effective measures to ensure longitudinal
connectivity. The issues mentioned above are more present in developing and transition
countries. The development of small RoR hydropower plants should undergo adequate
environmental requirements. Apart from several ecological impacts, there is already
enormous potential to implement non-structural and structural mitigation measures to
support the sustainable development and operation of small RoR hydropower plants. Thus, it
is possible that through given adequate background information, precautionary regulatory
conditions, correct design, and active monitoring, small RoR hydropower plants can be
sustainably expanded.

28
 CRediT authorship contribution statement

Alban Kuriqi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,

Visualization, writing–original draft, Writing–review & editing. António N. Pinheiro:
Conceptualization, Writing–review & editing, Resources, Supervision. Alvaro Sordo-Ward:
Conceptualization, Writing–review & editing, Resources, Supervision. María D. Bejarano:
Writing–review & editing. Luis Garrote: Conceptualization, Writing–review & editing,
Resources, Supervision.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions to further improve this paper. The authors also thank Thiago B. A. Couto and
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment journal for providing permission to reuse (Order
Number: 4837701282513) with modification Figure 5. The graphical abstract's main panel was
adopted with permission from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy. Alban
Kuriqi was supported by a Ph.D. scholarship granted by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia,
I.P. (FCT), Portugal; Ph.D. Program FLUVIO–River Restoration and Management, grant number
PD/BD/114558/2016. María D. Bejarano and Alvaro Sordo-Ward were supported by research
project grants from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain, grant numbers PID2019-
111252RA-I00 CTA (RIHEL) and PID2019-105852RA-I00 (SECA-SRH), respectively. María D.
Bejarano was also supported by a research project grant from Universidad Politécnica de
Madrid (Programa Propio: Ayudas a Proyectos de I+D de Investigadores Posdoctorales) and
Comunidad de Madrid (Convenio Plurianual con la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid), grant
number APOYO-JOVENES-PHZKKU-148- SSPVMP.

29
References

[1] Poff NL. Beyond the natural flow regime? Broadening the hydro-ecological foundation to meet
environmental flows challenges in a non-stationary world. Freshwater Biology. 2018;63:1011-21.

[2] Mittal N, Bhave AG, Mishra A, Singh R. Impact of Human Intervention and Climate Change on
Natural Flow Regime. Water Resources Management. 2015;30:685-99.

[3] Bunn SE, Arthington AH. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for
aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage. 2002;30:492-507.

[4] Vaillancourt K, Bahn O, Frenette E, Sigvaldason O. Exploring deep decarbonization pathways to

2050 for Canada using an optimization energy model framework. Applied Energy. 2017;195:774-85.

[5] IHA. Hydropower status report. 7 ed. London, United Kingdom: International Hydropower
Association (IHA); 2020. p. 1-54.

[6] Deyou L, Heng L, Xianlai W, Krēmere E. World small hydropower development report (WSHPDR)
2019. 3 ed. Vienna, Austria: United Nations Industrial Development Organization and International
Center on Small Hydro Power; 2019. p. 1-67.

[7] Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, Tydecks L, Tockner K. A global boom in hydropower dam
construction. Aquatic Sciences. 2014;77:161-70.

[8] Ansar A, Flyvbjerg B, Budzier A, Lunn D. Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of
hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy. 2014;69:43-56.

[9] Jadoon TR, Ali MK, Hussain S, Wasim A, Jahanzaib M. Sustaining power production in hydropower
stations of developing countries. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments.
2020;37:100637.

[10] Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to
inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology. 2010;55:194-205.

[11] Couto TBA, Olden JD. Global proliferation of small hydropower plants - science and policy.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2018;16:91-100.

[12] Mayeda AM, Boyd AD. Factors influencing public perceptions of hydropower projects: A
systematic literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2020;121:109713.

[13] Venus TE, Hinzmann M, Bakken TH, Gerdes H, Godinho FN, Hansen B, et al. The public's
perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe. Energy Policy. 2020;140:111422.

[14] Kelly-Richards S, Silber-Coats N, Crootof A, Tecklin D, Bauer C. Governing the transition to

renewable energy: A review of impacts and policy issues in the small hydropower boom. Energy
Policy. 2017;101:251-64.

[15] Commission E. Energy 2020: A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy. Brussels,
Belgium: European Commission; 2010. p. 1-21.

[16] Hennig T, Harlan T. Shades of green energy: Geographies of small hydropower in Yunnan, China
and the challenges of over-development. Global Environmental Change. 2018;49:116-28.

30
[17] Bódis K, Monforti F, Szabó S. Could Europe have more mini hydro sites? A suitability analysis
based on continentally harmonized geographical and hydrological data. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. 2014;37:794-808.

[18] Schillinger M, Weigt H, Hirsch PE. Environmental flows or economic woes-Hydropower under
global energy market changes. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0236730.

[19] UN GA. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, USA:
United Nations; 2015. p. 1-35.

[20] Commission E. Guidance document on the requirements for hydropower in relation to EU

nature legislation. In: Environment, editor. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2018. p. 1-83.

[21] Commission E. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official
Journal of the European Communities. 2000;L 327:1-73.

[22] Kallis G, Butler D. The EU water framework directive: measures and implications. Water Policy.
2001;3:125-42.

[23] Chandra A, Idrisova A. Convention on Biological Diversity: a review of national challenges and
opportunities for implementation. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2011;20:3295-316.

[24] Dogmus ÖC, Nielsen JØ. The on-paper hydropower boom: A case study of corruption in the
hydropower sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ecological Economics. 2020;172:106630.

[25] Kentel E, Alp E. Hydropower in Turkey: Economical, social and environmental aspects and legal
challenges. Environmental Science & Policy. 2013;31:34-43.

[26] Dogmus ÖC, Nielsen JØ. Is the hydropower boom actually taking place? A case study of a South
East European country, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
2019;110:278-89.

[27] Huđek H, Žganec K, Pusch MT. A review of hydropower dams in Southeast Europe – distribution,
trends and availability of monitoring data using the example of a multinational Danube catchment
subarea. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2020;117:109434.

[28] Ptak T. Towards an ethnography of small hydropower in China: Rural electrification,

socioeconomic development and furtive hydroscapes. Energy Research & Social Science.
2019;48:116-30.

[29] Premalatha M, Tabassum A, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. A critical view on the eco-friendliness of small
hydroelectric installations. Sci Total Environ. 2014;481:638-43.

[30] Kelly S. Megawatts mask impacts: Small hydropower and knowledge politics in the
Puelwillimapu, Southern Chile. Energy Research & Social Science. 2019;54:224-35.

[31] Popescu VD, Munshaw RG, Shackelford N, Montesino Pouzols F, Dubman E, Gibeau P, et al.
Quantifying biodiversity trade-offs in the face of widespread renewable and unconventional energy
development. Scientific Reports. 2020;10:7603.

[32] Anderson D, Moggridge H, Warren P, Shucksmith J. The impacts of ‘run-of-river’ hydropower on

the physical and ecological condition of rivers. Water and Environment Journal. 2015;29:268-76.

31
[33] Erlewein A. Disappearing rivers — The limits of environmental assessment for hydropower in
India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2013;43:135-43.

[34] Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. Small hydro and the environmental implications of its extensive utilization.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15:2134-43.

[35] Mbaka JG, Wanjiru Mwaniki M. A global review of the downstream effects of small
impoundments on stream habitat conditions and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Reviews.
2015;23:257-62.

[36] McManamay RA, Samu N, Kao SC, Bevelhimer MS, Hetrick SC. A multi-scale spatial approach to
address environmental effects of small hydropower development. Environ Manage. 2015;55:217-43.

[37] Pascale G, Connors BM, Palen. WJ. Run-of-River hydropower and salmonids: potential effects
and perspective on future research. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
2017;74:1135-49.

[38] Lange K, Meier P, Trautwein C, Schmid M, Robinson CT, Weber C, et al. Basin-scale effects of
small hydropower on biodiversity dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2018;16:397-
404.

[39] Larinier M. Fish passage experience at small-scale hydro-electric power plants in France.
Hydrobiologia. 2008;609:97-108.

[40] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

[41] Turbak SC, Reichle DR, Shriner CR. Analysis of Environmental Issues Related to Small-Scale
Hydroelectric Development IV: Fish Mortality Resulting from Turbine Passage Tennessee: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory; 1981. p. 95.

[42] Loar JM, Sale MJ. Analysis of Environmental Issues Related to Small-Scale Hydroelectric
Development V: Instream Flows needs for Fishery Resources. Tennessee: Oak Ridge National
Laboratory; 1981. p. 1-91.

[43] Korkovelos A, Mentis D, Siyal S, Arderne C, Rogner H, Bazilian M, et al. A Geospatial Assessment
of Small-Scale Hydropower Potential in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energies. 2018;11:3100.

[44] Csiki S, Rhoads BL. Hydraulic and geomorphological effects of run-of-river dams. Progress in
Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. 2010;34:755-80.

[45] Punys P, Dumbrauskas A, Kasiulis E, Vyčienė G, Šilinis L. Flow Regime Changes: From
Impounding a Temperate Lowland River to Small Hydropower Operations. Energies. 2015;8:7478-
501.

[46] Chu L, Wang W, Zhu R, Yan Y, Chen Y, Wang L. Variation in fish assemblages across
impoundments of low-head dams in headwater streams of the Qingyi River, China: effects of abiotic
factors and native invaders. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2014;98:101-12.

[47] Xiaocheng F, Tao T, Wanxiang J, Fengqing L, Naicheng W, Shuchan Z, et al. Impacts of small
hydropower plants on macroinvertebrate communities. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2008;28:45-52.

32
[48] Bilotta GS, Burnside NG, Turley MD, Gray JC, Orr HG. The effects of run-of-river hydroelectric
power schemes on invertebrate community composition in temperate streams and rivers. PLoS One.
2017;12:e0171634.

[49] Cejka T, Beracko P, Matecny I. The impact of the Gabcikovo hydroelectric power barrier on the
Danube floodplain environment-the results of long-term monitoring of land snail fauna. Environ
Monit Assess. 2019;192:30.

[50] Summer W, Stritzinger W, Zhang W. The Impact of Run-of-River Hydropower Plants on the
Temporal Suspended Sediment Transport Behaviour. Variability in Stream Erosion and Sediment
Transport Symposium. Canberra, Australia: IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-
Intern Assoc Hydrological Sciences; 1994. p. 411-20.

[51] Dubois RB, Gloss SP. Mortality of juvenile american shad and striped bass passed through
ossberger crossflow turbines at a small-scale hydroelectric site. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 1993;13:178-85.

[52] Gogoaşe Nistoran DE, Ionescu CS, Braşoveanu L, Armaş I, Opriş I, Costinaş S. Modeling
Hydrodynamic Changes Induced by Run-of-River Hydropower Plants along the Prahova River in
Romania. Journal of Energy Engineering. 2018;144:04017078.

[53] Meier W, Bonjour C, Wüest A, Reichert P. Modeling the Effect of Water Diversion on the
Temperature of Mountain Streams. 2003;129:755-64.

[54] Kucukali S. Environmental risk assessment of small hydropower (SHP) plants: A case study for
Tefen SHP plant on Filyos River. Energy for Sustainable Development. 2014;19:102-10.

[55] Kibler KM, Alipour M. Flow alteration signatures of diversion hydropower: An analysis of 32
rivers in southwestern China. Ecohydrology. 2017;10.

[56] Caroline D, Pierre E, Claude G, Jacques R, François T. Behavioral study of downstream migrating
eels by radio-telemetry at a small hydroelectric power plant. American Fisheries Society Symposium
XX: American Fisheries Society; 2002. p. 1-14.

[57] Light T. Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Rivers Above and Below Four Hydroelectric
Power Facilities in the Chiriquí Viejo and Chico Watersheds of Chiriquí, Panama. In: SIT Panama:
Tropical Ecology ME, and Biodiversity Conservation, editor. Independent Study Project (ISP)
Collection. I ed. Panama: Scripps College; 2016. p. 1-30.

[58] Egg L, Mueller M, Pander J, Knott J, Geist J. Improving European Silver Eel ( Anguilla anguilla )
downstream migration by undershot sluice gate management at a small-scale hydropower plant.
Ecological Engineering. 2017;106:349-57.

[59] Jesus T, Formigo, N. S, P., Tavares GR. Impact evaluation of the Vila Viçosa small hydroelectric
power plant (Portugal) on the water quality and on the dynamics of the benthic macroinvertebrate
communities of the Ardena river. Limnetica. 2004;23:241-55.

[60] Izagirre O, Argerich A, Martí E, Elosegi A. Nutrient uptake in a stream affected by hydropower
plants: comparison between stream channels and diversion canals. Hydrobiologia. 2012;712:105-16.

[61] Robson AL. Implications of Small-Scale Run-of-River Hydropower Schemes on Fish Populations in
Scottish Streams [PhD-Dissertation]: University of Hull; 2013.

33
[62] Travade F, Larinier M, Subra S, Gomes P, De-Oliveira E. Behaviour and passage of European
silver eels (Anguilla anguilla) at a small hydropower plant during their downstream migration.
Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. 2010;398:1-18.

[63] Alp A, Akyüz A, Özcan M, Yerlİ SV. Efficiency and Suitability of the Fish Passages of River Ceyhan,
Turkey. Journal of Limnology and Freshwater Fisheries Research. 2020;6:1-13.

[64] Smith SD, Wellington AB, Nachlinge JL, Fox CA. Functional responses of riparian vegetation to
streamflow diversion in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Ecological Applications. 1991;1:89-97.

[65] Greimel F, Schülting L, Graf W, Bondar-Kunze E, Auer S, Zeiringer B, et al. Hydropeaking Impacts
and Mitigation. Riverine Ecosystem Management2018. p. 91-110.

[66] Chen Q, Chen D, Li R, Ma J, Blanckaert K. Adapting the operation of two cascaded reservoirs for
ecological flow requirement of a de-watered river channel due to diversion-type hydropower
stations. Ecological Modelling. 2013;252:266-72.

[67] Almeida RM, Hamilton SK, Rosi EJ, Arantes JD, Jr., Barros N, Boemer G, et al. Limnological effects
of a large Amazonian run-of-river dam on the main river and drowned tributary valleys. Scientific
Reports. 2019;9:16846.

[68] Sindelar C, Schobesberger J, Habersack H. Effects of weir height and reservoir widening on
sediment continuity at run-of-river hydropower plants in gravel bed rivers. Geomorphology.
2017;291:106-15.

[69] Baumgartner MT, Piana PA, Baumgartner G, Gomes LC. Storage or Run-of-river Reservoirs:
Exploring the Ecological Effects of Dam Operation on Stability and Species Interactions of Fish
Assemblages. Environ Manage. 2020;65:220-31.

[70] Reisenbüchler M, Bui MD, Skublics D, Rutschmann P. Sediment Management at Run-of-River

Reservoirs Using Numerical Modelling. Water. 2020;12:249.

[71] Tomczyk P, Wiatkowski M, Gruss Ł. Application of Macrophytes to the Assessment and

Classification of Ecological Status above and below the Barrage with Hydroelectric Buildings. Water.
2019;11:1028.

[72] Ruocco AMC, Portinho JL, Nogueira MG. Potential impact of small hydroelectric power plants on
river biota: a case study on macroinvertebrates associated to basaltic knickzones. Braz J Biol.
2019;79:722-34.

[73] Valero E. Characterization of the Water Quality Status on a Stretch of River L&eacute;rez around
a Small Hydroelectric Power Station. Water. 2012;4:815-34.

[74] Koralay N, Kara O, Kezik U. Effects of run-of-the-river hydropower plants on the surface water
quality in the Solakli stream watershed, Northeastern Turkey. Water and Environment Journal.
2018;32:412-21.

[75] Li Y, Wu J-p, Liu L-s, Wu L-x, Huo W-j. The Study on Assessment of Fish Habitat in De-watered
River Channel Due to Diversion-type Hydropower Station. Energy Procedia. 2016;100:496-500.

[76] Lu W, Lei H, Yang D, Tang L, Miao Q. Quantifying the impacts of small dam construction on
hydrological alterations in the Jiulong River basin of Southeast China. Journal of Hydrology.
2018;567:382-92.

34
[77] Paes RPd, Costa VAF, Fernandes WdS. Effects of small hydropower plants in cascade
arrangement on the discharge cyclic patterns. Rbrh. 2019;24:1-15.

[78] Fantin-Cruz I, Pedrollo O, Girard P, Zeilhofer P, Hamilton SK. Effects of a diversion hydropower
facility on the hydrological regime of the Correntes River, a tributary to the Pantanal floodplain,
Brazil. Journal of Hydrology. 2015;531:810-20.

[79] Haas NA, O'Connor BL, Hayse JW, Bevelhimer MS, Endreny TA. Analysis of Daily Peaking and
Run-of-River Operations with Flow Variability Metrics, Considering Subdaily to Seasonal Time Scales.
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2014;50:1622-40.

[80] Pragana I, Boavida I, Cortes R, Pinheiro A. Hydropower Plant Operation Scenarios to Improve
Brown Trout Habitat. River Research and Applications. 2017;33:364-76.

[81] Kibler KM, Tullos DD. Cumulative biophysical impact of small and large hydropower
development in Nu River, China. Water Resources Research. 2013;49:3104-18.

[82] Xiao X, Chen X, Zhang L, Lai R, Liu J. Impacts of small cascaded hydropower plants on river
discharge in a basin in Southern China. Hydrological Processes. 2019;33:1420-33.

[83] Hayes D, Moreira M, Boavida I, Haslauer M, Unfer G, Zeiringer B, et al. Life Stage-Specific
Hydropeaking Flow Rules. Sustainability. 2019;11:1547.

[84] Moreira M, Hayes DS, Boavida I, Schletterer M, Schmutz S, Pinheiro A. Ecologically-based criteria
for hydropeaking mitigation: A review. Sci Total Environ. 2019;657:1508-22.

[85] Seliger C, Scheikl S, Schmutz S, Schinegger R, Fleck S, Neubarth J, et al. Hy:Con: A Strategic Tool
For Balancing Hydropower Development And Conservation Needs. River Research and Applications.
2016;32:1438-49.

[86] L'Abée-Lund JH, Otero J. Hydropeaking in small hydropower in Norway-Compliance with license
conditions? River Research and Applications. 2018;34:372-81.

[87] Ashraf FB, Haghighi AT, Riml J, Alfredsen K, Koskela JJ, Klove B, et al. Changes in short term river
flow regulation and hydropeaking in Nordic rivers. Sci Rep. 2018;8:17232.

[88] Gorla L, Signarbieux C, Turberg P, Buttler A, Perona P. Effects of hydropeaking waves’ offsets on
growth performances of juvenile Salix species. Ecological Engineering. 2015;77:297-306.

[89] Angelaki V, Harbor JM. Impacts of Flow Diversion for Small Hydroelectric Power Plants on
Sediment Transport, Northwest Washington. Physical Geography. 2013;16:432-43.

[90] Ibisate A, Díaz E, Ollero A, Acín V, Granado D. Channel response to multiple damming in a
meandering river, middle and lower Aragón River (Spain). Hydrobiologia. 2013;712:5-23.

[91] Csiki SJC, Rhoads BL. Influence of four run-of-river dams on channel morphology and sediment
characteristics in Illinois, USA. Geomorphology. 2014;206:215-29.

[92] Pearson AJ, Pizzuto J. Bedload transport over run-of-river dams, Delaware, U.S.A.
Geomorphology. 2015;248:382-95.

[93] Fuller TK, Venditti JG, Nelson PA, Palen WJ. Modeling grain size adjustments in the downstream
reach following run-of-river development. Water Resources Research. 2016;52:2770-88.

35
[94] Pearson AJ, Pizzuto JE, Vargas R. Influence of run of river dams on floodplain sediments and
carbon dynamics. Geoderma. 2016;272:51-63.

[95] Fencl JS, Mather ME, Costigan KH, Daniels MD. How Big of an Effect Do Small Dams Have? Using
Geomorphological Footprints to Quantify Spatial Impact of Low-Head Dams and Identify Patterns of
Across-Dam Variation. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0141210.

[96] Jumani S, Rao S, Kelkar N, Machado S, Krishnaswamy J, Vaidyanathan S. Fish community

responses to stream flow alterations and habitat modifications by small hydropower projects in the
Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot, India. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems. 2018;28:979-93.

[97] Hitchman SM, Mather ME, Smith JM, Fencl JS. Habitat mosaics and path analysis can improve
biological conservation of aquatic biodiversity in ecosystems with low-head dams. Sci Total Environ.
2018;619-620:221-31.

[98] Depret T, Piegay H, Dugue V, Vaudor L, Faure JB, Le Coz J, et al. Estimating and restoring
bedload transport through a run-of-river reservoir. Sci Total Environ. 2019;654:1146-57.

[99] Rivaes R, Boavida I, Santos JM, Pinheiro AN, Ferreira T. Importance of considering riparian
vegetation requirements for the long-term efficiency of environmental flows in aquatic
microhabitats. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2017;21:5763-80.

[100] Rivaes R, M. Rodríguez-González P, Albuquerque A, N. Pinheiro A, Egger G, Teresa Ferreira M.

Riparian vegetation responses to altered flow regimes driven by climate change in Mediterranean
rivers. Ecohydrology. 2013;6:413-24.

[101] Aguiar FC, Martins MJ, Silva PC, Fernandes MR. Riverscapes downstream of hydropower dams:
Effects of altered flows and historical land-use change. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016;153:83-
98.

[102] Mendonça M, Portela MM, Aguiar FC. Alteration of the river regime downstream small
hydropower schemes. Exploratory analysis of the effects on the vegetation of the river corridor. 2nd
International Workshop on Hydraulic: Data Validation. 2 ed. Coimbra, Portugal2015. p. 1-12.

[103] Harris RR, Fox CA, Risser R. Impacts of hydroelectric development on riparian vegetation in the
Sierra Nevada region, California, USA. Environmental Management. 1987;11:519-27.

[104] Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J. The effects of weirs on structural stream habitat and biological
communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2011;48:1450-61.

[105] Souza-Cruz-Buenaga FVA, Espig SA, Castro TLC, Santos MA. Environmental impacts of a
reduced flow stretch on hydropower plants. Braz J Biol. 2019;79:470-87.

[106] Bejarano MD, Jansson R, Nilsson C. The effects of hydropeaking on riverine plants: a review.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2018;93:658-73.

[107] Wu NC, Jiang WX, Fu XC, Zhou SC, Li FQ, Cai QH, et al. Temporal impacts of a small hydropower
plant on benthic algal community. Fundamental and Applied Limnology / Archiv für Hydrobiologie.
2010;177:257-66.

36
[108] Wu N, Tang T, Zhou S, Jia X, Li D, Liu R, et al. Changes in benthic algal communities following
construction of a run-of-river dam. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 2009;28:69-
79.

[109] Wu N, Cai Q, Fohrer N. Development and evaluation of a diatom-based index of biotic integrity
(D-IBI) for rivers impacted by run-of-river dams. Ecological Indicators. 2012;18:108-17.

[110] Li H, Zhao W, Tang X, Li Q, Guo W, Gong D. Entrainment effects of a small-scale diversion-type

hydropower station on phytoplankton. Ecological Engineering. 2018;116:45-51.

[111] Silva ACCd, Fantin-Cruz I, Lima ZMd, Figueiredo DMd. Cumulative changes in water quality
caused by six cascading hydroelectric dams on the Jauru River, tributary of the Pantanal floodplain.
Rbrh. 2019;24.

[112] Hester ET, Doyle MW, Poole GC. The influence of in-stream structures on summer water
temperatures via induced hyporheic exchange. Limnology and Oceanography. 2009;54:355-67.

[113] Chandesris A, Van Looy K, Diamond JS, Souchon Y. Small dams alter thermal regimes of
downstream water. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2019;23:4509-25.

[114] Meier W, Bonjour C, Wuest A, Reichert P. Modeling the effect of water diversion on the
temperature of mountain streams. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2003;129:755-64.

[115] Lessard JL, Hayes DB. Effects of elevated water temperature on fish and macroinvertebrate
communities below small dams. River Research and Applications. 2003;19:721-32.

[116] Avilés A, Niell FX. The Control of a Small Dam in Nutrient Inputs to a Hypertrophic Estuary in a
Mediterranean Climate. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 2006;180:97-108.

[117] Todorova Y, Lincheva S, Yotinov I, Topalova Y. Contamination and Ecological Risk Assessment
of Long-Term Polluted Sediments with Heavy Metals in Small Hydropower Cascade. Water Resources
Management. 2016;30:4171-84.

[118] Silverthorn VM, Bishop CA, Jardine T, Elliott JE, Morrissey CA. Impact of flow diversion by run-
of-river dams on American dipper diet and mercury exposure. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2018;37:411-
26.

[119] Silverthorn VM, Bishop CA, Elliott JE, Morrissey CA. An assessment of run-of-river hydroelectric
dams on mountain stream ecosystems using the American dipper as an avian indicator. Ecological
Indicators. 2018;93:942-51.

[120] Fantin-Cruz I, Pedrollo O, Girard P, Zeilhofer P, Hamilton SK. Changes in river water quality
caused by a diversion hydropower dam bordering the Pantanal floodplain. Hydrobiologia.
2015;768:223-38.

[121] Branco CWC, Leal JJF, Huszar VLM, Farias DDS, Saint'Pierre TD, Sousa-Filho IF, et al. New lake in
a changing world: the construction and filling of a small hydropower reservoir in the tropics (Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26:36007-22.

[122] Cebalho EC, Diez S, Dos Santos Filho M, Muniz CC, Lazaro W, Malm O, et al. Effects of small
hydropower plants on mercury concentrations in fish. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017;24:22709-16.

37
[123] Gnatyshyna L, Khoma V, Mishchuk O, Martinyuk V, Springe G, Stoliar O. Multi-marker study of
the responses of the Unio tumidus from the areas of small and micro hydropower plants at the
Dniester River Basin, Ukraine. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020;27:11038-49.

[124] Vaikasas S, Bastiene N, Pliuraite V. Impact of Small Hydropower Plants on Physicochemical and
Biotic Environments in Flatland Riverbeds of Lithuania. Journal of Water Security. 2015;1:1-13.

[125] Baskaya S, Baskaya E, Sari A. The principal negative environmental impacts of small
hydropower plants in Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2011;6:3284-90.

[126] Álvarez X, Valero E, Torre-Rodríguez Ndl, Acuña-Alonso C. Influence of Small Hydroelectric

Power Stations on River Water Quality. Water. 2020;12:312.

[127] Zeleňáková M, Fijko R, Diaconu D, Remeňáková I. Environmental Impact of Small Hydro Power
Plant—A Case Study. Environments. 2018;5:12.

[128] Martínez Y, Gutiérrez D, Álvarez-Troncoso R, Garrido J. Impact of small-scale hydropower

stations on macroinvertebrate communities for regulated rivers. Limnetica. 2020;39:317-34.

[129] Linares MS, Assis W, Castro Solar RR, Leitão RP, Hughes RM, Callisto M. Small hydropower dam
alters the taxonomic composition of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in a neotropical river.
River Research and Applications. 2019;35:725-35.

[130] Zhao W, Guo W, Zhao L, Li Q, Cao X, Tang X. Influence of Different Types of Small Hydropower
Stations on Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Changjiang River Basin, China. Water.
2019;11:1892.

[131] Santos JM, Ferreira MT, Pinheiro AN, Bochechas JH. Effects of small hydropower plants on fish
assemblages in medium-sized streams in central and northern Portugal. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2006;16:373-88.

[132] Anderson EP, Freeman MC, Pringle CM. Ecological consequences of hydropower development
in Central America: impacts of small dams and water diversion on neotropical stream fish
assemblages. River Research and Applications. 2006;22:397-411.

[133] Havn TB, Thorstad EB, Borcherding J, Heermann L, Teichert MAK, Ingendahl D, et al. Impacts of
a weir and power station on downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolts in a German river. River
Research and Applications. 2020;36:784-96.

[134] Larinier M, Dumond L, Lagarrigue T, Frey A, Travade F. Performance of a large partial-depth

guide wall to divert downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolts at Tuilières dam, Dordogne River.
Knowledge & Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. 2020;10.1051/kmae/2020010:1-15.

[135] Pehlivanov LZ, I. Apostolou A, Velkov BK. Effects of Small Hydropower Plants on Fish
Communities in Bulgarian Rivers: Case Studies. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica. 2018;70:93-100.

[136] Shaw TL. The implications of modern hydro-electric power schemes for fisheries. Water and
Environment Journal 2004;18:207-9.

[137] Zhou S, Tang T, Wu N, Fu X, Cai Q. Impacts of a Small Dam on Riverine Zooplankton.

International Review of Hydrobiology. 2008;93:297-311.

38
[138] Zhou S, Tang T, Wu N, Fu X, Jiang W, Li F, et al. Impacts of cascaded small hydropower plants
on microzooplankton in Xiangxi River, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2009;29:62-8.

[139] O’Keefe L, Ilic S. Effects of changes in flow velocity on the phytobenthic biofilm below a small
scale low head hydropower scheme. Sustainable hydraulics in the era of global change: proceedings
of the 4th IAHR Europe congress. Liege, Belgium: CRC Press; 27-29 July 2016. p. 227.

[140] Ovidio M, Philippart J-C. The impact of small physical obstacles on upstream movements of six
species of fish. Hydrobiologia. 2002;483:55–69.

[141] Lucas MC, Bubb DH, Jang M-H, Ha K, Masters JEG. Availability of and access to critical habitats
in regulated rivers: effects of low-head barriers on threatened lampreys. Freshwater Biology.
2009;54:621-34.

[142] Habit E, Belk MC, Parra O. Response of the riverine fish community to the construction and
operation of a diversion hydropower plant in central Chile. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems. 2007;17:37-49.

[143] Butler SE, Wahl DH. Distribution, movements and habitat use of channel catfish in a river with
multiple low-head dams. River Research and Applications. 2011;27:1182-91.

[144] Anderson D, Moggridge H, Shucksmith JD, Warren PH. Quantifying the Impact of Water
Abstraction for Low Head ‘Run of the River’ Hydropower on Localized River Channel Hydraulics and
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. River Research and Applications. 2017;33:202-13.

[145] Almodóvar A, Nicola GG. Effects of a small hydropower station upon brown trout Salmo trutta
L. in the River Hoz Seca (Tagus basin, Spain) one year after regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research &
Management: An International Journal Devoted to River Research and Management. 1999;15:477-
84.

[146] Gouraud V, Capra H, Sabaton C, Tissot L, Lim P, Vandewalle F, et al. Long-term simulations of
the dynamics of trout populations on river reaches bypassed by hydroelectric installations-analysis
of the impact of different hydrological scenarios. River Research and Applications. 2008;24:1185-
205.

[147] Bilotta GS, Burnside NG, Gray JC, Orr HG. The Effects of Run-of-River Hydroelectric Power
Schemes on Fish Community Composition in Temperate Streams and Rivers. PLoS One.
2016;11:e0154271.

[148] Ovidio M, Paquer F, Capra H, Lambot F, Gérard P, Dupont E, et al. Effects of a micro
hydroelectric power plant upon population abundance, mobility and reproduction behaviour of
European grayling T. thymallus and brown trout S. trutta in a salmonid river. International
Symposium on Ecohydraulics Aquatic habitat: Analysis & Restoration. Madrid, Spain2004.

[149] Benejam L, Saura-Mas S, Bardina M, Solà C, Munné A, García-Berthou E. Ecological impacts of

small hydropower plants on headwater stream fish: from individual to community effects. Ecology of
Freshwater Fish. 2016;25:295-306.

[150] McIntosh MD, Benbow ME, Burky AJ. Effects of stream diversion on riffle macroinvertebrate
communities in a Maui, Hawaii, stream. River Research and Applications. 2002;18:569-81.

39
[151] Yan Y, Wang H, Zhu R, Chu L, Chen Y. Influences of low-head dams on the fish assemblages in
the headwater streams of the Qingyi watershed, China. Environmental Biology of Fishes.
2012;96:495-506.

[152] Robson AL. Implications of small-scale run-of-river hydropower schemes on fish populations in
Scottish streams [Dissertation]. York, England: University of Hull; 2013.

[153] Steinmetz M, Sundqvist N. Environmental Impacts of Small Hydropower Plants-A Case Study of
Borås Energi och Miljö’s Hydropower Plants. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of
Technology; 2014.

[154] Winter HV, Jansen HM, Bruijs MCM. Assessing the impact of hydropower and fisheries on
downstream migrating silver eel, Anguilla anguilla, by telemetry in the River Meuse. Ecology of
Freshwater Fish. 2006;15:221-8.

[155] Moore A, Privitera L, Ives MJ, Uzyczak J, Beaumont WRC. The effects of a small hydropower
scheme on the migratory behaviour of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts. J Fish Biol. 2018;93:469-
76.

[156] Amaral SV, Coleman BS, Rackovan JL, Withers K, Mater B. Survival of fish passing downstream
at a small hydropower facility. Marine and Freshwater Research. 2018;69:1870.

[157] Bracken FSA, Lucas MC. Potential Impacts of Small-Scale Hydroelectric Power Generation on
Downstream Moving Lampreys. River Research and Applications. 2013;29:1073-81.

[158] Sharma CM, Sharma S, Borgstrom R, Bryceson I. Impacts of a small dam on

macroinvertebrates: A case study in the Tinau River, Nepal. Aquatic Ecosystem Health &
Management. 2005;8:267-75.

[159] Menéndez M, Descals E, Riera T, Moya O. Effect of small reservoirs on leaf litter decomposition
in Mediterranean headwater streams. Hydrobiologia. 2012;691:135-46.

[160] Cortes RMV, Ferreira MT, Oliveira SV, Godinho F. Contrasting impact of small dams on the
macroinvertebrates of two Iberian mountain rivers. Hydrobiologia. 1998;389:51-61.

[161] Arle J. The effects of a small low-head dam on benthic invertebrate communities and
particulate organic matter storage in the Ilm stream (Thuringia / Germany) [PhD-Dissertation]. Jena,
Thuringia, Germany: Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena; 2005.

[162] Álvarez-Troncoso R, Benetti CJ, Sarr AB, Pérez-Bilbao A, Garrido J. Impacts of hydroelectric
power stations on Trichoptera assemblages in four rivers in NW Spain. Limnologica. 2015;53:35-41.

[163] Linares MS, Callisto M, Marques JC. Thermodynamic based indicators illustrate how a run-of-
river impoundment in neotropical savanna attracts invasive species and alters the benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages’ complexity. Ecological Indicators. 2018;88:181-9.

[164] Copeman VA. The Impact of Micro-Hydropower on the Aquatic Environment Water and
Environment Journal. 1997;11:431-5.

[165] Sousa R, Ferreira A, Carvalho F, Lopes-Lima M, Varandas S, Teixeira A, et al. Small hydropower
plants as a threat to the endangered pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Sci Total Environ.
2020;719:137361.

40
[166] Santucci VJ, Gephard SR, Pescitelli SM. Effects of Multiple Low-Head Dams on Fish,
Macroinvertebrates, Habitat, and Water Quality in the Fox River, Illinois. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management. 2005;25:975-92.

[167] Kubečka J, Matěna J, Hartvich P. Adverse ecological effects of small hydropower stations in the
Czech republic: 1. Bypass plants. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management: An International
Journal Devoted to River Research and Management. 1997;13:101–13.

[168] O'Connor JP, O'Mahony DJ, O'Mahony JM, Glenane TJ. Some impacts of low and medium head
weirs on downstream fish movement in the Murray?Darling Basin in southeastern Australia. Ecology
of Freshwater Fish. 2006;15:419-27.

[169] Martínez A, Larrañaga A, Basaguren A, Pérez J, Mendoza-Lera C, Pozo J. Stream regulation by

small dams affects benthic macroinvertebrate communities: from structural changes to functional
implications. Hydrobiologia. 2013;711:31-42.

[170] Wang H, Chen Y, Liu Z, Zhu D. Effects of the “Run-of-River” Hydro Scheme on
Macroinvertebrate Communities and Habitat Conditions in a Mountain River of Northeastern China.
Water. 2016;8:31.

[171] Wu N, Tang T, Fu X, Jiang W, Li F, Zhou S, et al. Impacts of cascade run-of-river dams on benthic
diatoms in the Xiangxi River, China. Aquatic Sciences. 2009;72:117-25.

[172] Kennedy RJ, O'Connor W, Allen M. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar passing a natural barrier before
and after construction of a hydroelectric station. J Fish Biol. 2019;95:1257-64.

[173] Arne F, Raddum AGG. Weir building in a regulated west Norwegian river: long-term dynamics
of invertebrates and fish. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management: An International Journal
Devoted to River Research and Management. 1996;12:501-8.

[174] Młyński D, Operacz A, Wałęga A. Sensitivity of methods for calculating environmental flows
based on hydrological characteristics of watercourses regarding the hydropower potential of rivers.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;250:119527.

[175] Tharme RE. A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the
development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and
Applications. 2003;19:397-441.

[176] Kuriqi A, Pinheiro AN, Sordo-Ward A, Garrote L. Influence of hydrologically based

environmental flow methods on flow alteration and energy production in a run-of-river hydropower
plant. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;232:1028-42.

[177] Gorla L, Perona P. On quantifying ecologically sustainable flow releases in a diverted river
reach. Journal of Hydrology. 2013;489:98-107.

[178] Lazzaro G, Basso S, Schirmer M, Botter G. Water management strategies for run-of-river power
plants: Profitability and hydrologic impact between the intake and the outflow. Water Resources
Research. 2013;49:8285-98.

[179] Quadroni S, Crosa G, Gentili G, Espa P. Response of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to

current water management in Alpine catchments massively developed for hydropower. Sci Total
Environ. 2017;609:484-96.

41
[180] Wolter C, Schomaker C. Fish passes design discharge requirements for successful operation.
River Research and Applications. 2019;35:1697-701.

[181] Razurel P, Gorla L, Crouzy B, Perona P. Non-proportional Repartition Rules Optimize

Environmental Flows and Energy Production. Water Resources Management. 2015;30:207-23.

[182] Kuriqi A, Pinheiro AN, Sordo-Ward A, Garrote L. Flow regime aspects in determining
environmental flows and maximising energy production at run-of-river hydropower plants. Applied
Energy. 2019;256:113980.

[183] Bejarano MD, Sordo-Ward A, Gabriel-Martin I, Garrote L. Tradeoff between economic and
environmental costs and benefits of hydropower production at run-of-river-diversion schemes under
different environmental flows scenarios. Journal of Hydrology. 2019;572:790-804.

[184] Kuriqi A, Pinheiro AN, Sordo-Ward A, Garrote L. Water-energy-ecosystem nexus: Balancing

competing interests at a run-of-river hydropower plant coupling a hydrologic–ecohydraulic
approach. Energy Conversion and Management. 2020;223:113267.

[185] Mielach C, Schinegger R, Schmutz S, Zeiringer B. See Hydropower – Clear Water Clean Energy:
WP 4 - Preserving Water Bodies’ Ecosystems – Environmental Flow Comparison. 9th International
Symposium on Ecohydraulics. Vienna, Austria: IAHR; 2012. p. 1-8.

[186] Benstead JP, March JG, Pringle CM, Scatena FN. Effects of a low-head dam and water
abstraction on migratory tropical stream biota. Ecological Applications. 1999;9:656-68.

[187] Gierszewski PJ, Habel M, Szmanda J, Luc M. Evaluating effects of dam operation on flow
regimes and riverbed adaptation to those changes. Sci Total Environ. 2020;710:136202.

[188] Knott J, Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J. Seasonal and diurnal variation of downstream fish
movement at four small-scale hydropower plants. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 2019;29:74-88.

[189] Person E, Bieri M, Peter A, Schleiss AJ. Mitigation measures for fish habitat improvement in
Alpine rivers affected by hydropower operations. Ecohydrology. 2014;7:580-99.

[190] Gabbud C, Robinson CT, Lane SN. Summer is in winter: Disturbance-driven shifts in
macroinvertebrate communities following hydroelectric power exploitation. Sci Total Environ.
2019;650:2164-80.

[191] Reckendorfer W, Badura H, Schutz C. Drawdown flushing in a chain of reservoirs-Effects on

grayling populations and implications for sediment management. Ecol Evol. 2019;9:1437-51.

[192] Bestgen KR, Mefford B, Compton RI. Mortality and injury rates for small fish passing over three
diversion dam spillway models. Ecological Engineering. 2018;123:141-50.

[193] Amaral SD, Branco P, Romão F, Viseu T, Ferreira MT, Pinheiro AN, et al. The effect of weir crest
width and discharge on passage performance of a potamodromous cyprinid. Marine and Freshwater
Research. 2018;69:1795.

[194] Romão F, Branco P, Quaresma AL, Amaral SD, Pinheiro AN. Effectiveness of a multi-slot vertical
slot fishway versus a standard vertical slot fishway for potamodromous cyprinids. Hydrobiologia.
2018;816:153-63.

42
[195] Harris JH, Peirson WL, Mefford B, Kingsford RT, Felder S. Laboratory testing of an innovative
tube fishway concept. Journal of Ecohydraulics. 2019;5:84-93.

[196] Vowles AS, Karlsson SP, Uzunova EP, Kemp PS. The importance of behaviour in predicting the
impact of a novel small-scale hydropower device on the survival of downstream moving fish.
Ecological Engineering. 2014;69:151-9.

[197] Piper AT, Rosewarne PJ, Wright RM, Kemp PS. The impact of an Archimedes screw hydropower
turbine on fish migration in a lowland river. Ecological Engineering. 2018;118:31-42.

[198] Amaral SD, Quaresma AL, Branco P, Romão F, Katopodis C, Ferreira MT, et al. Assessment of
Retrofitted Ramped Weirs to Improve Passage of Potamodromous Fish. Water. 2019;11:2441.

[199] Amaral S, Branco P, Katopodis C, Ferreira M, Pinheiro A, Santos J. Passage Performance of

Potamodromous Cyprinids over an Experimental Low-Head Ramped Weir: The Effect of Ramp
Length and Slope. Sustainability. 2019;11:1456.

[200] Santos JM, Branco PJ, Silva AT, Katopodis C, Pinheiro AN, Viseu T, et al. Effect of two flow
regimes on the upstream movements of the Iberian barbel (Luciobarbus bocagei) in an experimental
pool-type fishway. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2013;29:425-30.

[201] Knott, Mueller, Pander, Geist. Fish Passage and Injury Risk at a Surface Bypass of a Small-Scale
Hydropower Plant. Sustainability. 2019;11:6037.

[202] Gosset C, Travade F, Durif C, Rives J, Elie P. Tests of two types of bypass for downstream
migration of eels at a small hydroelectric power plant. River Research and Applications.
2005;21:1095-105.

[203] Boubée JAT, Williams EK. Downstream passage of silver eels at a small hydroelectric facility.
Fisheries Management and Ecology. 2006;13:165-76.

[204] Szabo-Meszaros M, Forseth T, Baktoft H, Fjeldstad HP, Silva AT, Gjelland KØ, et al. Modelling
mitigation measures for smolt migration at dammed river sections. Ecohydrology. 2019;12:e2131.

[205] Russon IJ, Kemp PS, Calles O. Response of downstream migrating adult European eels (Anguilla
anguilla) to bar racks under experimental conditions. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 2010;19:197-205.

[206] Beck C, Albayrak I, Meister J, Boes RM. Hydraulic performance of fish guidance structures with
curved bars – Part 2: flow fields. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 2019;58:1-12.

[207] Boavida I, Santos JM, Cortes RV, Pinheiro AN, Ferreira MT. Assessment of instream structures
for habitat improvement for two critically endangered fish species. Aquatic Ecology. 2010;45:113-24.

[208] Branco P, Boavida I, Santos JM, Pinheiro A, Ferreira MT. Boulders as building blocks: improving
habitat and river connectivity for stream fish. Ecohydrology. 2013;6:627-34.

[209] Costa MJ, Fuentes-Perez JF, Boavida I, Tuhtan JA, Pinheiro AN. Fish under pressure: Examining
behavioural responses of Iberian barbel under simulated hydropeaking with instream structures.
PLoS One. 2019;14:e0211115.

[210] Moreira M, Costa MJ, Valbuena-Castro J, Pinheiro AN, Boavida I. Cover or Velocity: What
Triggers Iberian Barbel (Luciobarbus Bocagei) Refuge Selection under Experimental Hydropeaking
Conditions? Water. 2020;12:317.

43
[211] Islam Su, Kumar A. Inflatable dams for shp projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews. 2016;57:945-52.

[212] Zhang XQ, Tam PWM, Zheng W. Construction, operation, and maintenance of rubber dams.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2002;29:409-20.

[213] Manning DJ, Mann JA, White SK, Chase SD, Benkert RC. Steelhead Emigration in a Seasonal
Impoundment Created by an Inflatable Rubber Dam. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 2005;25:1239-55.

[214] Birnie-Gauvin K, Larsen MH, Nielsen J, Aarestrup K. 30 years of data reveal dramatic increase in
abundance of brown trout following the removal of a small hydrodam. J Environ Manage.
2017;204:467-71.

[215] Stanley EH, Luebke MA, Doyle MW, Marshall DW. Short-term changes in channel form and
macroinvertebrate communities following low-head dam removal. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society. 2002;21:172-87.

[216] Thomson JR, Hart DD, Charles DF, Nightengale TL, Winter DM. Effects of removal of a small
dam on downstream macroinvertebrate and algal assemblages in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of
the North American Benthological Society. 2005;24:192-207.

[217] Garcia de Leaniz C. Weir removal in salmonid streams: implications, challenges and
practicalities. Hydrobiologia. 2008;609:83-96.

[218] Harby A, Bakken TH, Charmasson J, Fjeldstad H-P, Hansen BT, Schönfelder LH. A classification
system for methods, tools and devices for improvements measures. In: FIThydro, editor. Mitigating
measures for the improved environmental performance of hydropower. Trondheim, Norway: SINTEF
2018. p. 1-113.

[219] Zhang L, Pang M, Wang C, Ulgiati S. Environmental sustainability of small hydropower schemes
in Tibet: An emergy-based comparative analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;135:97-104.

[220] Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ. The challenge of providing environmental flow
rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological applications. 2006;16:1311-8.

[221] Fruhmann C, Tuerk A, Kulmer V, Gubina AF. Balancing environmental benefits and damages of
small hydropower generation in policy-making: assessing the implementation of a contradicting EU
policy framework in Austria and Slovenia. International Journal of Sustainable Energy. 2018;38:37-
49.

[222] Athayde S, Duarte CG, Gallardo ALCF, Moretto EM, Sangoi LA, Dibo APA, et al. Improving
policies and instruments to address cumulative impacts of small hydropower in the Amazon. Energy
Policy. 2019;132:265-71.

[223] Birk S, Chapman D, Carvalho L, Spears BM, Andersen HE, Argillier C, et al. Impacts of multiple
stressors on freshwater biota across spatial scales and ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution.
2020;4:1060-8.

[224] Walczak N. Operational Evaluation of a Small Hydropower Plant in the Context of Sustainable
Development. Water. 2018;10:1114.

44
[225] McClain ME, Subalusky AL, Anderson EP, Dessu SB, Melesse AM, Ndomba PM, et al. Comparing
flow regime, channel hydraulics, and biological communities to infer flow–ecology relationships in
the Mara River of Kenya and Tanzania. Hydrological Sciences Journal. 2014;59:801-19.

[226] Rosenfeld JS. Developing flow-ecology relationships: Implications of nonlinear biological

responses for water management. Freshwater Biology. 2017;62:1305-24.

[227] Cartwright J, Caldwell C, Nebiker S, Knight R. Putting Flow–Ecology Relationships into Practice:
A Decision-Support System to Assess Fish Community Response to Water-Management Scenarios.
Water. 2017;9:196.

[228] Rutschmann P. Visionaries and Unsung Heroes. The TUM Hydro Shaft Power Plant Innovation:
Detail; 2019. p. 124.

[229] Yao W, Chen Y, Yu G, Xiao M, Ma X, Lei F. Developing a Model to Assess the Potential Impact of
TUM Hydropower Turbines on Small River Ecology. Sustainability. 2018;10:1662.

[230] TURBULENT. Eco-friendly hydropower for anyone, anywhere. Belgium2020.

[231] Martinez JJ, Daniel Deng Z, Klopries E-M, Mueller RP, Scott Titzler P, Zhou D, et al.
Characterization of a siphon turbine to accelerate low-head hydropower deployment. Journal of
Cleaner Production. 2019;210:35-42.

[232] Kougias I, Aggidis G, Avellan F, Deniz S, Lundin U, Moro A, et al. Analysis of emerging
technologies in the hydropower sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2019;113.

[233] Martinez JJ, Deng ZD, Mueller R, Titzler S. In situ characterization of the biological performance
of a Francis turbine retrofitted with a modular guide vane. Applied Energy. 2020;276:115492.

[234] Silva AT, Lucas MC, Castro-Santos T, Katopodis C, Baumgartner LJ, Thiem JD, et al. The future of
fish passage science, engineering, and practice. Fish and Fisheries. 2018;19:340-62.

[235] Silva AT, Bermúdez M, Santos JM, Rabuñal JR, Puertas J. Pool-Type Fishway Design for a
Potamodromous Cyprinid in the Iberian Peninsula: The Iberian Barbel—Synthesis and Future
Directions. Sustainability. 2020;12.

[236] Sindelar C, Gold T, Reiterer K, Hauer C, Habersack H. Experimental Study at the Reservoir Head
of Run-of-River Hydropower Plants in Gravel Bed Rivers. Part I: Delta Formation at Operation Level.
Water. 2020;12:2035.

45