Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 17;16(3):e0247482. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247482

The role of migration barriers for dispersion of Proliferative Kidney Disease—Balance between disease emergence and habitat connectivity

Heike Schmidt-Posthaus 1,*, Ernst Schneider 2, Nils Schölzel 3, Regula Hirschi 1, Moritz Stelzer 1, Armin Peter 3
Editor: Paolo Ruggeri4
PMCID: PMC7968629  PMID: 33730108

Abstract

Natural and uninterrupted water courses are important for biodiversity and fish population stability. Nowadays, many streams and rivers are obstructed by artificial migration barriers, often preventing the migration of fish. On the other hand, distribution of pathogens by migrating fishes is still a point of concern. Pathogen transport and transmission is a driving force in the dynamics of many infectious diseases. The aim of the study was to investigate the possible consequences of the removal of an artificial migration barrier for the upstream transport of Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae, the causative agent of Proliferative Kidney Disease (PKD) in brown trout, by migrating fish. To test this question, a river system was selected with a migration barrier separating a PKD positive river from a PKD negative tributary. After removal of the barrier, PKD prevalence and pathology was examined during five years after elimination of the barrier. In the tributary, no PKD was recorded at any time of the survey. By means of unidirectional PIT (passive integrated transponder)-tagging, we confirmed upstream migration of adult brown trout into the tributary during the cold season, presumably for spawning. By eDNA, we confirmed presence of T. bryoalmonae and Fredericella sp., the definitive host, DNA in water from the PKD positive river stretch, but not in the PKD negative tributary. Our study illustrates the importance of the connectivity of streams for habitat maintenance. Although migration of brown trout from a PKD-positive river into a PKD-negative tributary, mainly for spawning, was confirmed, upstream spreading of PKD was not observed.

Introduction

Water courses are important components of natural landscapes as well as a vital part of ecosystems. Many streams and rivers are obstructed and migration barriers prevent migration of fishes. For decades, free flowing rivers in Central Europe were seen as a threat rather than as a benefit, despite such areas often compromising the only functioning reservoirs of biodiversity. Fragmentation of river networks can increase the isolation of fish populations [14]. Species like brown trout (Salmo trutta) or salmon (Salmo salar) are particularly sensitive to barriers. Juvenile and adult life stages of these species must migrate extensively within freshwater river systems. Barriers are therefore a potentially important constraint on reproduction and population stability where access to and from spawning and rearing habitats is limited, delayed, or even barred [5]. Nowadays, the restoration of the water courses is included as a dynamic part of several projects, which propose full connectivity for migrating fish and expansion of water space [6].

On the other hand, distribution of pathogens by migrating fishes is still a point of concern. Pathogen transport by hosts is a driving force in the dynamics of many infectious diseases [7]. Proliferative Kidney Disease (PKD) in brown trout is one example where controversial arguments were put forward, weighting interests between habitat upgrade and dispersion of this devastating disease. PKD is an emerging disease in Europe [8] with high losses in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) [9, 10] and wild salmonid populations [1113]. Likely, the disease is one factor for the long term population decline of wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) in many Swiss midland river systems [14] and in neighboring Southern Germany [15]. PKD is caused by Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae, belonging to the Malacospora, Cnidaria [1620]. The life cycle of T. bryosalmonae involves bryozoans, mainly Fredericella sultana, as the definitive host [18, 21, 22] and salmonids as the intermediate host [17, 23]. Infected bryozoans release malacospores that infect salmonids by penetrating the gill epithelium and vascular walls. Through haematogenic dispersion, a generalized infection occurs, with the kidney as main target organ [24]. In the renal interstitial tissue, the parasite develops from presporogonic into sporogonic stages, which migrate into the tubular lumen and are eventually excreted via the urine [25, 26]. These fish malacospores infect susceptible bryozoans [2729] to complete the parasite cycle. In the salmonid host, mainly young-of-the-year (YOY) show signs of disease, when the wild fish are exposed to the water-borne bryozoan malacospores for the first time in their life [8]. Following infection, brown trout can release spores up to five years post exposure [30].

PKD is a temperature dependent disease [26, 31], with a peak in disease severity at temperature above 15°C, corresponding with high temperatures typical of late summer / early autumn [32]. During winter and spring, the infection is usually inactive and asymptomatic [33]. However, Gay et al. (2001) [34] showed that infectious stages of the parasite can be present throughout the year.

The aim of this study was to investigate possible consequences of the removal of an artificial migration barrier for the upstream transport of T. bryosalmonae by migrating brown trout. To investigate this aim, a river system was selected with a migration barrier separating a PKD positive river, the Wutach, from a PKD negative tributary, the Ehrenbach. The removed barrier was situated close to the estuary of the Ehrenbach into the Wutach.

PKD prevalence and pathology in YOY brown trout were examined immediately before and over a period of five years after elimination of the barrier. To investigate upstream migration of brown trout from the PKD positive river stretches of the Wutach into the Ehrenbach, PIT (passive integrated transponder)-tagging of wild trout from the Wutach was used. In the Wutach, different age classes of brown trout (from YOY up to adult fish) were PIT-tagged. In addition, water samples were taken and filtered in the field to investigate the presence of F. sultana and T. bryosalmonea DNA to confirm the requirements for an entire parasite cycle.

Material and methods

Ethics statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the University of Bern Animal Ethics Committee. Approval for animal experiments was obtained from the Cantonal Veterinary Offices in Bern, Zürich and Schaffhausen, Switzerland (Authorization # BE102/14+ and # 75698).

Study sites, fish sampling and eDNA sampling

The river Wutach and its tributary Ehrenbach are situated at the border between Southern Germany and the North-eastern part of Switzerland (Fig 1). The selection of the river system was based on previous investigations which showed a negative PKD status in brown trout in the Ehrenbach, but high infection prevalence in brown trout in the Wutach, ranging from 90 to 100% [35]. Beginning in 2013 (14th of September), 20 YOY brown trout were sampled above (Ehrenbach) and below the migration barrier (Wutach) to monitor the PKD status, as a reference sampling, before removal of the barrier. In the Wutach, two sampling sites were selected, one site above the estuary of the Ehrenbach and one below the estuary to monitor the PKD status of possibly migrating brown trout.

Fig 1. Scheme of study area, photographs of area of former migration barrier.

Fig 1

a. Map of Switzerland, square marks location of study area; b. Scheme of study area shows locations of electrofishing, PIT-tagging, monitoring antenna and temperature loggers; c. Area of removed barrier in 2014, directly after removal; d. Same area in 2020.

The removed migration barrier consisted of a 4.3 m wide and 1 m high stone wall, which was anchored in the stream bank with longitudinal constructions of the same material. The bottom of the natural riverbed ended at the upper edge of the wall. There was no flow through or around the barrier, a deep pool at the foot of the wall was present. This barrier prevented upstream movement of fish. Mid-June 2014, the barrier was dismantled and replaced by a 25 m long rough ramp with a gradient not higher than 1:15. The removal of the barrier was part of a restoration program (https://plattform-renaturierung.ch/). Starting from 2016 until 2019, the PKD status of resident brown trout YOY was evaluated. Samples were collected annually by electrofishing, same day from the Wutach and the Ehrenbach, between 24th of August and 15th of September 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. This sampling period was selected due to presenting the highest probability to detect infection with T. bryosalmonae.

Brown trout were captured by electrofishing. Two stretches of 100 m in the river Wutach (2’677’061.2/1’289’694.7, 2’677’814.2/1’291’059.7) and one of 50 m in the Ehrenbach (2’674’786/1’292’254), approximately 4 km upstream from the removed migration barrier were investigated (Fig 1). Twenty YOY brown trout from each of the three sampling sites were captured and euthanized separately by 150 mg/L buffered tricaine methanesulfonate (MS 222®, Argent Chemical Laboratories, Redmont, USA).

In 2020, at each of the three locations in the Wutach and the Ehrenbach, respectively, three replicates of 300 ml of water each (nine water samples in total) were taken from the river banks and filtered immediately on site with a 50/60 ml BD Plastipak syringe (Becton Dickinson GmbH, Germany) and SterivexTM- filters (Merck Millipore®, Merck, Germany) of 0.45μm pore size. Filters were put on ice for transport and stored at -20°C until DNA extraction.

Pathology and histopathology

Length and weight of every euthanized fish was recorded and the condition index was calculated (100*weight/lenght3) [36, 37]. A complete necropsy was performed. Macroscopic changes in the inner organs were evaluated. Kidneys were removed and cut longitudinally. One part was immediately fixed in 10% buffered formalin for histopathological examination. The other half was fixed in RNAlater® (DNA stabilisation solution, Insel Gruppe AG, Switzerland) for qPCR analysis. At the Centre for Fish and Wildlife Health (CFWH), formalin fixed samples were routinely prepared for histology and stained with haematoxylin and eosin (HE). HE stained slides were examined by light microscopy (Nikon Eclipse E400, Ryf AG, Switzerland). In renal histopathology, the following criteria were considered as acute changes: proliferation of interstitial tissue, vasculitis with thrombi, interstitial haemorrhage, vessel wall necrosis and inflammation with mainly macrophages and lymphocytes, interstitial necrosis, interstitial inflammation predominantly with macrophages. Chronic changes were characterized by interstitial inflammation predominantly with macrophages, interstitial fibrosis, tubulonephrosis and tubuloneogenesis [31]. These histopathological changes were graded as 0 (no), 1 (scattered), 2 (mild), 3 (mild to moderate), 4 (moderate), 5 (moderate to severe) to 6 (severe) according to Bettge et al. (2009) [31]. Presence of T. bryosalmonae was examined on one histological section through the entire kidney. Six randomly selected high power fields (HPF) (magnification: 400x) were evaluated and parasite abundance was classified ranging from 0 (no parasites / 6 HPFs), 1 (1–5 parasites / 6 HPFs), 2 (5–10 parasites / 6 HPFs)), 3 (10–20 parasites / 6 HPFs), 4 (20–50 parasites / 6 HPFs), 5 (50–100 parasites / 6 HPFs) to 6 (> 100 parasites in renal haematopoietic tissue, vessels and / or tubules / 6 HPFs) [31].

qPCR for detection of T. bryosalmonae DNA in kidney tissue, conventional PCR and sequencing

Fish negative or suspicious for T. bryosalmonae by histology were screened for traces of parasite DNA by qPCR. Before extraction, kidneys were homogenized in a 2 ml tube containing 0.2 ml ATL buffer (QIAGEN, Germany) with a 5 mm diameter steel bead (QIAGEN, Germany) using a tissue lyser (QIAGEN, Germany) with a shaking frequency set at 30 shakes per sec for 2 min. Genomic DNA was extracted by using a DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (QIAGEN, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA was finally eluted in 100 μl of AE buffer (QIAGEN, Germany) and stored at -20°C. Tissue from a known positive brown trout was included as extraction control. qPCR was performed targeting T. bryosalmonae 18s rDNA (Acc. N.: AF190669) using a TaqMan method according to Bettge et al. (2009a) [38]. All reactions were carried out in duplicates. In each qPCR run, negative controls and positive controls were included in duplicates. Non-target controls (DNAse free water) within the qPCR never showed amplification, while the positive controls (sample known positive for T. bryosalmonae) were always amplified, showing no qPCR inhibition.

To confirm the specificity of selected qPCR results, selected samples showing a positive qPCR result were re-evaluated by conventional PCR according to Morris et al. (2002) [39] with some modifications. Primer pairs described by Kent et al. (1998) [40] were used. PCR products were purified with WIZAR RD®SV Gel and PCR Clean-Up System (Promega AG, Switzerland). The products were checked on a 1,5% agarose gel for amplification and molecular weight and sent for sequencing (Microsynth AG, Switzerland). Sequencing results were determined by BLAST-n based on a search in the GenBank database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

DNA extraction from filters and qPCR for T. bryosalmonae and F. sultana

DNA extraction from the filters was performed according to Miya et al. (2016) [41] with the DNeasy Blood &Tissue Kit (QIAGEN, Germany), leaving the housing intact. qPCR targeting T. bryosalmonae 18s rDNA was carried out in duplicates as described above. DNAse free water served as negative control. As internal control, Exo IPC Mix and IC DNA (TaqMan University MMix w Exog IntPostC, Applied Biosystems, MA, USA) was used [26]. qPCR targeting Fredericella sp. 16s DNA was performed in duplicates according to Carraro et al. (2017) [42]. DNAse free water served as negative control, extracted DNA from fresh F. sultana cultures as positive control.

Monitoring of migration by tagging wild brown trout

Trout were sampled by electrofishing in the river Wutach at two stretches of 280 m each, on the 24th of August 2017. The first stretch (start 2’677’061.2/1’289’694.7, end 2’677’155.2/1’289’950.7) was situated 1200 m downstream of the estuary of the Ehrenbach, and the second stretch (start 2’677’814.2/1’291’059.7, end 2’678’012.2/1’291’261.7) was situated 280 m upstream of the estuary. Those two sites were selected to monitor fish possibly migrating into the nearby tributary. Accessibility of the river was an additional criterion. In total 162 brown trout and two rainbow trout were captured, 68 brown trout at the upper location, 96 trout (94 brown trout, 2 rainbow trout) at the downstream location.

Fish were anaesthetized with 1 ml clove oil (80–95% Eugenol®, Merck, Switzerland) in aerated 30 l water, the body cavity was opened by a 3–4 mm incision and a half-duplex (HDX) PIT-tag (OREGON RFID, OR, USA) was implanted in every fish for individual recognition. Depending on the size of the fish, a 12 mm (fish < 150 mm) or 23 mm PIT-tag (fish > 150 mm) was implanted. After implantation, fish were kept for at least 30 min in an aerated tank (100x50x30 cm) for recovery. Afterwards, trout were released into the respective river stretch.

For detection of migrating fish, a single HDX-antenna with an automatic registration and single reader (OREGON RFID, OR, USA) was installed 300 m upstream of the estuary of Ehrenbach on August 24th 2017. It was located approximately 15 m upstream from the site of the removed barrier (2’677’531.8/1’291’207.6). The setup registered the PIT-ID and time for each tagged fish in the electromagnetic field of the antenna, but only allowed for presence-absence detection. A multiplex array was not feasible, as there was electromagnetic interference from the environment. Due to heavy flooding and flotsam, the antenna design had to be a swim-over antenna. It consisted of a double coil spanning the entire cross section of the Ehrenbach and was fixed on the river bed. The reading range was approximately 15–35 cm above the bottom for the 23 mm PIT-tags and almost covered the entire water column. For the smaller 12 mm PIT-tags the reading range was around 15 cm or less above the bottom, resulting in a lower detection probability. The setup was kept running until January 6th 2020. It was out of order due to software issues, power failure or damage by flooding, from October 7th until November 15th 2017, December 3rd until December 4th 2018, January 4th until March 8th 2018, April 27th until July 4th 2018 and October 16th until October 22nd 2018.

Water temperature

Water temperature from Ehrenbach (2’674’615/1’292’318) and Wutach (2’676’398/1’289’323) was recorded between 2013 and 2018, from April to October every 2 hours by Onset TidbiT v2 Temp Loggers (location of loggers, see Fig 1). For 2019, no data were available from Ehrenbach, because the logger was lost by vandalism. Mean values for each day were calculated and plotted.

Statistics

Migration data, fish data and temperature data were analysed using R 3.1.2 (R Core Team 2018) as well as Excel 2016 [43]. Condition index was calculated with the following formula 100*weight/lenght3. Mean values and standard deviation of length, weight, condition index, infection severity and parasite abundance values were calculated per group using Excel 2016. Mean values of temperature data per day were calculated. Afterwards, temperature values over a period of one year were plotted using Excel 2016. Migration data were analysed using a self-made algorithm in R.

Results

Fish parameters and PKD status

Length, weight and condition index of brown trout sampled from Wutach and Ehrenbach between 2013 and 2019 are shown in Table 1. Over the years, condition index varied within normal limits for brown trout, according to the criteria of Froese et al. (2016) [36].

Table 1. Number (n) of fish investigated, length, weight, condition index, PKD prevalence, parasite abundance and associated pathology of T. bryosalmonae infection in brown trout in Ehrenbach and Wutach in 2013 (before removal of barrier) and from 2016 to 2019 (after removal of barrier in 2014).

Ehrenbach Wutach
2013 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 2016 2017 2018 2019
n 15 27 30 20 20 11 22 26 12 20
Length (mm), mean±SD 83±15 99±19.2 99±8.67 99±15.31 90±14.14 102±9.6 102±13 101±15.04 129±28.34 98±12.64
Weight (g), mean±SD nd 12±8 12±7.23 11.2±5.28 7.8±2.42 nd 11.8±4.38 11.8±5.12 25±18.73 10.5±3.94
Condition index, mean±SD nd 1.19±0.14 1.19±0.14 1.13±0.32 1.03±0.11 nd 1.09±0.12 1.09±0.12 1.01±0.09 1.09±0.2
Prevalence by histology (%) 0 0 0 0 0 82 77 75 92 50
Prevalence by qPCR (%) 0 4* 0 0 0 nd 100 100 100 100
Parasite abundance, mean±SD 0 0 0 0 0 2.8±1.3 2.1±1.5 2.7±1.5 2.8±1.5 1.9±1.4
Pathology severity, mean±SD 0 0 0 0 0 3.6±1.9 3.0±1.8 3.6±1.6 3.5±1.5 2.1±1.5

*one positive animal by qPCR.

Shown are mean values ± standard deviation (SD) of length, weight, condition index, parasite abundance and pathology severity grades. PKD prevalence was calculated by number of positive fish divided by total number of examined fish by histology (Prevalence by histology) or examined by qPCR (Prevalence by qPCR). Parasite abundance and pathology severity were examined by histology. Parasite abundance was classified ranging from 0 (no parasites / 6 HPFs) to 6 (> 100 parasites in renal hematopoietic tissue, vessels and / or tubules / 6 HPFs). Pathology severity was graded from 0 (no changes) to 6 (severe changes); nd = not done.

At the first sampling in 2013, before removal of the migration barrier, 15 brown trout sampled in the Ehrenbach showed no signs of PKD, neither macroscopically nor histologically. By qPCR, no T. bryosalmonae DNA was detected. In the Wutach, 9 out of 11 animals (81.8%) showed histological signs of an infection with T. bryosalmonae. Eight animals showed acute lesions with vascular thrombosis, interstitial necrosis and haemorrhage, interstitial infiltration with lymphocytes and macrophages and low to high numbers of parasites. One animal showed chronic active changes with interstitial fibrosis and concurrent acute signs as described above. Severity of changes and parasite abundance are summarized in Table 1.

In 2014, the migration barrier was removed. Annual samplings of brown trout YOY were implemented from 2016 to 2019 in the rivers Wutach and Ehrenbach. In brown trout sampled from the Ehrenbach, in none of the examined fish at any time, neither macroscopic nor histological signs of an infection with T. bryosalmonae were found. All animals from the Ehrenbach were additionally investigated by qPCR. All examined brown trout revealed to be negative by qPCR, with the exception of one animal in 2016. This single positive result was confirmed by sequencing. The product showed a 100% identity to the T. bryosalmonae 18S ribosomal RNA gene (Accession n° EU570235.1). All other samples tested by qPCR were negative (Table 1).

From 2016 to 2019, 50 to 92% of investigated brown trout from the river Wutach showed histological signs of PKD with acute lesions and interstitial extrasporogonic parasite stages (Table 1). Several specimens showed intratubular spores. By qPCR, all remaining brown trout were positive for T. bryosalmonae DNA with a total prevalence of 100% during the investigation period (Table 1).

qPCR for detection of F.sultana and T. bryosalmonae by eDNA

qPCR showed negative results for Fredericella sp. and T. bryosalmonae in all three field replicates sampled in the Ehrenbach. The six water samples collected at the two locations in the Wutach (three replicates at two locations) showed a positive result for Fredericella sp. in all samples beside one replicate at the upstream location. qPCR for T. bryosalmonae was positive in three replicates, two replicates at the downstream location and one replicate at the upstream location. All other replicates did not detect parasite DNA in the water.

Fish migration

In total, 162 brown trout and two rainbow trout from the Wutach were PIT-tagged. Length, weight and condition index of tagged brown trout are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Length, weight and condition index of PIT-tagged brown trout according to sampling site.

sampling site N total length in mm weight in g condition index
min. max. mean median min. max. mean median min. max. mean median
upstream of Ehrenbach 68 90 432 247 251 9 941 251 194 0.85 1.78 1.21 1.19
downstream of Ehrenbach 94 102 471 288 295 12 1072 329 296 1.03 1.47 1.18 1.17

On 5th of September 2017, the first brown trout migrating from the Wutach into the Ehrenbach was registered. Monitoring was continued until 6th of January 2020. Migration of brown trout was exclusively detected between the end of September and the beginning of March of the respective years (one rainbow trout was detected in March and April 2018). During the investigation period, 19 tagged brown trout and one rainbow trout migrated from the Wutach into the Ehrenbach (12% of all tagged trout) (Fig 2). 143 brown trout and one rainbow trout were never detected (Fig 2). No tagged fish below 150 mm total length were detected in the Ehrenbach. Three fish were detected in consecutive years, one of these individuals even during every spawning season of the investigation period. The other two brown trout were detected in two consecutive years.

Fig 2. Length frequency distribution of trout migrating into the Ehrenbach.

Fig 2

The total length refers to the length at the moment of tagging. Light grey bars = brown trout tagged in upstream stretch of the Wutach, grey bars = brown trout tagged in downstream stretch of the Wutach, dark grey bar = rainbow trout.

Water temperature

In 2013, water temperature was higher in the Wutach compared to the Ehrenbach. However, in the Ehrenbach, water temperature was increasing during the investigation period, levelling similar to the temperature measured in the Wutach (Fig 3). In the Ehrenbach, water temperature exceeded 15°C over 8 non-consecutive days in 2013 (3 days in July and 5 day in August). In 2017, the time span increased to 65 non-consecutive days (July till August with single days below 15°C). In 2018, temperature surpassed 15°C on 51 non-consecutive days distributed over July and August, again with single cooler days in between. In the Wutach, water temperature exceeded 15°C over 48 non-consecutive days in 2013 (July till August), over 83 non-consecutive days in 2017 (June till August) and over 80 non-consecutive days in 2018 (June till August). Similar to the Ehrenbach, temperature showed some fluctuations with single cooler days in this warm time period. As time span of temperature <15°C was limited to single days in the mentioned periods and temperature fluctuated around 15°C, non-consecutive days are recorded.

Fig 3. Temperature profiles from the rivers Ehrenbach and Wutach, 2017 and 2018.

Fig 3

PKD is temperature dependent with the disease getting clinically relevant at water temperature above 15°C. The blue line in the temperature profiles marks the 15°C line.

Discussion

River regulation for flood protection purposes and the construction of barriers for hydropower generation or agricultural irrigation has led to an increased number of artificially impacted water bodies. Migrating fish populations are strongly affected by intra- and inter-stream barriers that cause river network fragmentation, constraining productivity or preventing migration for spawning. However, the problem is well recognized and several restoration projects are ongoing in Switzerland and Germany (https://plattform-renaturierung.ch/). For brown trout, which migrate considerable distances, free connectivity of river systems is essential to reach spawning habitats. In addition, increased connectivity also increases biodiversity facilitating migration also for smaller fish species [44] and invertebrates. On the other hand, spreading of infectious agents possibly detrimental for vulnerable fish populations can be enhanced by migration. Spreading of pathogens by migration has been shown for different animal groups including mammals, birds, fish, and insects [45, 46]. However, migration also allows hosts to escape from infected habitats, reduces disease levels when infected animals do not migrate successfully, and may lead to the evolution of less-virulent pathogens [47].

PKD is one example of an emerging fish disease rapidly spreading throughout Europe during the last decades [11, 13, 48]. This spreading is due to a complex interaction of multiple factors [13, 26, 31, 4951]. It has been shown that distribution of PKD is related to the occurrence of bryozoan, mainly F. sultana [28, 42]. In our eDNA investigation, no Fredericella sp. DNA was detectable in water from the Ehrenbach. In contrast, in the Wutach, both Fredericella sp. and T. bryosalmonae DNA was detectable. However, local inspections along the Ehrenbach have revealed presence of Plumatella sp. (Hartikainen, pers. comm.), a bryozoan which, beside F. sultana, may also act as a host for T. bryosalmonae [52]. Therefore, even if Fredericella occurrence was not confirmed in the tributary, a possible final host to complete the parasite cycle seems to be present. Distribution of freshwater bryozoan is dependent on elevation above sea level, water temperature, water velocity, and eutrophication [53]. The temperature profile of the rivers Wutach and Ehrenbach showed that water temperature was higher in the PKD positive Wutach. The growth of F. sultana colonies increases when water temperature reaches 8 to 12°C in spring. Also in the Ehrenbach, water temperature was mostly > 8°C during the whole year. Therefore, in the Ehrenbach, water temperature alone is not sufficient to explain host and parasite distribution. Further investigations are needed to confirm bryozoan occurrence in the Ehrenbach as well as the importance of different bryozoan species in the parasite cycle.

Brown trout migration from the Wutach into the Ehrenbach was mainly seen in winter months, from December to April. This supports the hypothesis that the Ehrenbach is an important spawning stream for brown trout. On the other hand, PKD is a disease which gets clinically apparent primarily in YOY, an age class not migrating upstream for spawning. However, excretion of spores has been shown in adult brown trout, up to 5 years post exposure [30]. Therefore, transport and excretion of infectious spores by adult migrating brown trout cannot be excluded. Furthermore, bryozoans have been shown to shed infective spores all year round and brown trout get infected. When infected fish are transferred to higher temperature, they can develop clinical disease [34]. Therefore, even migrating adult trout could transmit the parasite during winter months and complete the cycle. In the first year after barrier removal, qPCR showed T. bryosalmonae DNA in a single fish. This was a unique, isolated finding over the whole survey period, not associated with disease, tissue changes or parasite detection by histology. Whether or not this detection of T. bryosalmonae DNA was linked to migrating trout remains unresolved.

Considering the technical malfunction of the PIT antenna over cumulated 91 days, between October 2017 and March 2018 (i. e. mainly during the spawning migration period) due to flooding and electrical supply failure, the number of registered events might not reflect the accurate number of all migration movements. Nevertheless, the total detection rate over 27 months of tagged brown and rainbow trout migrating into the Ehrenbach reached 12% (20 out of 164). Only adult fish were detected. None of the 21 tagged YOY fish were registered in the Ehrenbach. The Ehrenbach was probably used by adult brown trout from the Wutach as a spawning tributary. Bagliniere & Maisse (2002) confirmed in a comprehensive study that spawning of brown trout took place mainly in the tributaries of rivers, but also in the main river [54]. On the other hand, the detection range of the RFID-antenna was suboptimal for smaller 12 mm PIT-tags, compared to the larger 23 mm PIT-tags. Therefore, smaller fish (< 150 mm total length) were less likely to be registered. Furthermore, the mortality of small fish can be assumed to be naturally higher than of larger fish, which leads to a lower chance of detection. In addition, it can be assumed that brown trout affected by T. bryosalmonae are less mobile. Therefore, recognition of brown trout migrating from the Wutach into the Ehrenbach might be biased, detecting only healthy fish.

Conclusion

Our study illustrates that, after removal of an impassable barrier, adult brown trout were migrating upstream during winter months. This supports the importance of continuity of this stream for habitat maintenance and productivity. Although migration of brown trout from a PKD-positive river into a PKD-negative tributary was confirmed, upstream spreading of the disease was not observed over a five-year period. Therefore, the benefit of restoration of the river corridor seems to exceed the risk of transmission of infectious agents at least over limited periods in the study area. However, findings are based on a single river system. This highlights the importance of further monitoring studies in future restoration projects, with a focus on possible parasite spread.

Acknowledgments

We thank the fisheries association „Oberes Wutachtal Stühlingen e.V.”for help during electrofishing, the staff of the histology laboratory of the Institute of Animal Pathology for preparation of the histological sections and Christopher Robinson for evaluating data of the temperature loggers. In addition, we are grateful to James Ord for the correction of the English language.

Data Availability

The data underlying this study are available on OSF (DOI: osf.io/ftb7m).

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern, Switzerland (HS) (www.bafu.admin.ch) in the form of materials contributed to HS and AP and part of a salary for HS. Additionally, the study was supported by FishConsulting GmbH in the form of salaries for NS and AP. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. FOEN had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. FishConsulting GmbH was involved in data collection and analysis and preparation of the manuscript, but had no role in the study design or decision to publish.

References

  • 1.Campbell Grant EH, Lowe WH, Fagan WF. Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks. Ecol Lett 2007;10(2):165–75. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.01007.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Freeman MC, Bowen ZH, Bovee KD, Irwin ER. Flow and Habitat Effects on Juvenile Fish Abundance in Natural and Altered Flow Regimes. Ecological Applications 2001;11(1):179. 10.2307/3061065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Junge C, Museth J, Hindar K, Kraabøl M, Vøllestad LA. Assessing the consequences of habitat fragmentation for two migratory salmonid fishes. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2014;24(3):297–311. 10.1002/aqc.2391 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.SCHICK RS LINDLEY ST. Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. Journal of Applied Ecology 2007;44(6):1116–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01383.x [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Venditti DA, Rondorf DW, Kraut JM. Migratory Behavior and Forebay Delay of Radio-Tagged Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon in a Lower Snake River Impoundment. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2000;20(1):41–52. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU. Gewässer aufwerten—für Mensch und Natur [Internet]; 2017. Available from: https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/wasser/publikationen-studien/publikationen-wasser/gewaesser-aufwerten.html.
  • 7.McCallum H. How should pathogen transmission be modelled? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2001;16(6):295–300. 10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02144-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Okamura B, Hartikainen H, Schmidt-Posthaus H, Wahli T. Life cycle complexity, environmental change and the emerging status of salmonid proliferative kidney disease. Freshwater Biology 2011;56(4):735–53. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02465.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Feist SW. Progress on proliferative kidney disease (PKD) research. Trout News 2004(38):17–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Palikova M, Papezikova I, Markova Z, Navratil S, Mares J, Mares L, et al. Proliferative kidney disease in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under intensive breeding conditions: Pathogenesis and haematological and immune parameters. Vet Parasitol 2017;238:5–16. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2017.03.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kristmundsson Á, Antonsson T, Árnason T. First record of Proliferative Kidney Disease in Iceland. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 2010(30 (1)):35–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Skovgaard A, Buchmann K. Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae and PKD in juvenile wild salmonids in Denmark. Dis Aquat Org 2012;101(1):33–42. 10.3354/dao02502 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wahli T, Knuesel R, Bernet D, Segner H, Pugovkin D, Burkhardt-Holm P, et al. Proliferative kidney disease in Switzerland: current state of knowledge. J Fish Diseases 2002;25(8):491–500. 10.1046/j.1365-2761.2002.00401.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Burkhardt-Holm P, Giger W, Güttinger H, Ochsenbein U, Peter A, Scheurer K, et al. Where have all the fish gone? The reasons why fish catches in Swiss rivers are declining. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39(21):441A–447A. 10.1021/es053375z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ros A, Basen T, Schneider E, Schmidt-Posthaus H. Die Verbreitung einer temperaturempfindlichen Nierenerkrankung PKD in Bachforellen in Baden-Württemberg. AUF AUF 2018(1):40–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Canning EU, Curry A, Feist SW, Longshaw M, Okamura B. A new class and order of myxozoans to accommodate parasites of bryozoans with ultrastructural observations on Tetracapsula bryosalmonae (PKX organism). J Eukaryot Microbiol 2000;47(5):456–68. 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2000.tb00075.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hedrick RP, MacConnell E, Kinkelin P de. Proliferative kidney disease of salmonid fish. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 1993;3:277–90. 10.1016/0959-8030(93)90039-E [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Okamura B, Anderson CL, Longshaw M, Feist SW, Canning EU. PATTERNS OF OCCURRENCE AND 18S rDNA SEQUENCE VARIATION OF PKX (TETRACAPSULA BRYOSALMONAE), THE CAUSATIVE AGENT OF SALMONID PROLIFERATIVE KIDNEY DISEASE. Journal of Parasitology 2001;87(2):379–85. 10.1645/0022-3395(2001)087[0379:POOARS]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jiménez-Guri E, Philippe H, Okamura B, Holland PWH. Buddenbrockia is a cnidarian worm. Science 2007;317(5834):116–8. 10.1126/science.1142024 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nesnidal MP, Helmkampf M, Bruchhaus I, El-Matbouli M, Hausdorf B. Agent of whirling disease meets orphan worm: phylogenomic analyses firmly place Myxozoa in Cnidaria. PLoS ONE 2013;8(1):e54576. 10.1371/journal.pone.0054576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Anderson CL, Canning EU, Okamura B. 18S rDNA sequences indicate that PKX organism parasitizes Bryozoa. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 1999(19 (3)):94–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Longshaw M, Feist SW, Canning EU, Okamura B. First identification of PKX in bryozoans from the United Kingdom–Molecular evidence. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 1999(19):146–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Feist SW, Bucke D. Proliferative kidney disease in wild salmonids. Fisheries Research 1993;17(1–2):51–8. 10.1016/0165-7836(93)90006-S [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Feist SW, Longshaw M, Canning EU, Okamura B. Induction of proliferative kidney disease (PKD) in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss via the bryozoan Fredericella sultana infected with Tetracapsula bryosalmonae. Dis Aquat Org 2001;45(1):61–8. 10.3354/dao045061 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hedrick RP, Baxa DV, Kinkelin P de, Okamura B. Malacosporean-like spores in urine of rainbow trout react with antibody and DNA probes to Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae. Parasitol Res 2004;92(1):81–8. 10.1007/s00436-003-0986-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Strepparava N, Segner H, Ros A, Hartikainen H, Schmidt-Posthaus H, Wahli T. Temperature-related parasite infection dynamics: the case of proliferative kidney disease of brown trout. Parasitology 2018;145(3):281–91. 10.1017/S0031182017001482 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Grabner DS, El-Matbouli M. Transmission of Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae (Myxozoa: Malacosporea) to Fredericella sultana (Bryozoa: Phylactolaemata) by various fish species. Dis Aquat Org 2008;79(2):133–9. 10.3354/dao01894 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Morris DJ, ADAMS A. Transmission of Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae (Myxozoa: Malacosporea), the causative organism of salmonid proliferative kidney disease, to the freshwater bryozoan Fredericella sultana. Parasitology 2006;133(Pt 6):701–9. 10.1017/S003118200600093X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tops S, Baxa DV, McDowell TS, Hedrick RP, Okamura B. Evaluation of malacosporean life cycles through transmission studies. Dis Aquat Org 2004;60(2):109–21. 10.3354/dao060109 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Soliman H, Kumar G, El-Matbouli M. Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae persists in brown trout Salmo trutta for five years post exposure. Dis Aquat Org 2018;127(2):151–6. 10.3354/dao03200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bettge K, Wahli T, Segner H, Schmidt-Posthaus H. Proliferative kidney disease in rainbow trout: time- and temperature-related renal pathology and parasite distribution. Dis Aquat Org 2009;83(1):67–76. 10.3354/dao01989 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bailey C, Segner H, Casanova-Nakayama A, Wahli T. Who needs the hotspot? The effect of temperature on the fish host immune response to Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae the causative agent of proliferative kidney disease. Fish Shellfish Immunol 2017;63:424–37. 10.1016/j.fsi.2017.02.039 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tops S, Lockwod W, Okamura B. Temperature-driven proliferation of Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae in bryozoan hosts portends salmonid declines. Dis Aquat Org 2006;2006(70):227–36. 10.3354/dao070227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gay M, Okamura B, Kinkelin P de.s Evidence that infectious stages of Tetracapsula bryosalmonae for rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss are present throughout the year. Dis Aquat Org 2001;46(1):31–40. 10.3354/dao046031 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schmidt-Posthaus H, Hirschi R, Schneider E. Proliferative kidney disease in brown trout: infection level, pathology and mortality under field conditions. Dis Aquat Org 2015;114(2):139–46. 10.3354/dao02855 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Froese R, Pauly D. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication [Internet]; 2016. Available from: www.fishbase.org, version. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ricker WE, editor. Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh waters. 2nd ed. IBP handbook, Vol 3. Oxford: Blackwell; 1970. 313 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bettge K, Segner H, Burki R, Schmidt-Posthaus H, Wahli T. Proliferative kidney disease (PKD) of rainbow trout: temperature- and time-related changes of Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae DNA in the kidney. Parasitology 2009;136(6):615–25. 10.1017/S0031182009005800 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Morris DC, Morris DJ, ADAMS A. Development of improved PCR to prevent false positives and false negatives in the detection of Tetracapsula bryosalmonae, the causative agent of proliferative kidney disease. J Fish Diseases 2002;25(8):483–90. 10.1046/j.1365-2761.2002.00398.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kent ML, Khattra J, Hervio DML, Devlin RH. Ribosomal DNA Sequence Analysis of Isolates of the PKX Myxosporean and Their Relationship to Members of the Genus Sphaerospora. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 1998;10(1):12–21. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Miya M, Minamoto T, Yamanaka H, Oka S-I, Sato K, Yamamoto S, et al. Use of a Filter Cartridge for Filtration of Water Samples and Extraction of Environmental DNA. J Vis Exp 2016(117). 10.3791/54741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Carraro L, Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Fontes I, Hartikainen H, Strepparava N, et al. Integrated field, laboratory, and theoretical study of PKD spread in a Swiss prealpine river. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017;114(45):11992–7. 10.1073/pnas.1713691114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Use R! Cham: Springer; 2016. 260 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shao X, Fang Y, Jawitz JW, Yan J, Cui B. River network connectivity and fish diversity. Science of The Total Environment 2019;689:21–30. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Russell CA, Smith DL, Childs JE, Real LA. Predictive spatial dynamics and strategic planning for raccoon rabies emergence in Ohio. PLoS Biol 2005;3(3):e88. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.White A, Watt AD, Hails RS, Hartley SE. Patterns of spread in insect-pathogen systems: the importance of pathogen dispersal. Oikos 2000;89(1):137–45. 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890115.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Altizer S, Bartel R, Han BA. Animal migration and infectious disease risk. Science 2011;331(6015):296–302. 10.1126/science.1194694 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Waldner K, Bechter T, Auer S, Borgwardt F, El‐Matbouli M, Unfer G. A brown trout (Salmo trutta) population faces devastating consequences due to proliferative kidney disease and temperature increase: A case study from Austria. Ecol Freshw Fish 2019. 10.1111/eff.12528 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bailey C, Rubin A, Strepparava N, Segner H, Rubin J-F, Wahli T. Do fish get wasted? Assessing the influence of effluents on parasitic infection of wild fish. PeerJ 2018;6:e5956. 10.7717/peerj.5956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dash M, Vasemägi A. Proliferative kidney disease (PKD) agent Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae in brown trout populations in Estonia. Dis Aquat Org 2014;109(2):139–48. 10.3354/dao02731 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Gorgoglione B, Kotob MH, Unfer G, El-Matbouli M. First Proliferative Kidney Disease outbreak in Austria, linking to the aetiology of Black Trout Syndrome threatening autochthonous trout populations. Dis Aquat Org 2016;119(2):117–28. 10.3354/dao02993 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Okamura B, Wood TS. Bryozoans as hosts for Tetracapsula bryosalmonae, the PKX organism. J Fish Diseases 2002;25(8):469–75. 10.1046/j.1365-2761.2002.00376.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Økland KA, Økland J, Geimer G, Massard JA. Freshwater bryozoans (Bryozoa) of Norway IV: Distribution and ecology of four species of Plumatella with notes on Hyalinella punctata. Hydrobiologia 2003;501(1/3):179–98. 10.1023/A:1026244101302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Baglinière JL, Maisse G. La biologie de la truite commune (Salmo trutta L.) dans la rivière Scorff, Bretagne: une synthèse des études de 1972 à 1997. INRA Prod. Anim. 2002;15(5):319–31. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paolo Ruggeri

5 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-18486

The role of migration barriers for dispersion of Proliferative Kidney Disease – balance between disease emergence and habitat connectivity

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schmidt-Posthaus,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Authors of the manuscript Number PONE-D-20-18486 entitled "The role of migration barriers for dispersion of Proliferative Kidney Disease – balance between disease emergence and habitat connectivity". I read myself this interesting manuscript and I obtained comments from three eminent experts in Malacosporean parasite and PKD disease. Despite the divergent opinions from these three reviewers, I think the manuscript has still merit for being published in Plos ONE. As expressed from the three reviewers, there are some main concerns that involve the possibility to make inference about the results obtained. This is especially true if looking at the fact that the study was 1) limited in the sample size of fish host (brown trout) analysed and 2) lacking of relevant information concerning the environmental features that characterize the study area and 3) most importantly concerning the occurrence of freshwater bryozoan hosts (mostly Fredericella sultana) in both the areas investigated. The latter point is essential to understand the results here obtained that suggest how connectivity in the fish host is not affecting the introduction of the parasite in the area that was free from the parasite before the reopening of migratory barriers in 2014. In fact, the lack of bryozoan hosts in the area reopened to fish connectivity might be the reason for such a pattern considering that the availability for a bryozoan host is a determining factor in the ability of the parasite Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae to complete the life cycle and being carried around by the intermediate (fish) host. The manuscript is also limited to a very narrow area and the authors should have better described the features of the area here studied and express this limit in the discussion. As a minor consideration, I would recommend a better figure (in terms of quality) of the studied area because it is essential for the main aim of this manuscript.

I`d like to open up to the possibility to publish this manuscript if the authors can cover these gaps, especially providing proof that both areas here investigated show viable freshwater bryozoan populations that can sustain the interpretation of their results. Therefore, I`m going to suggest "major revision".

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30 November 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paolo Ruggeri, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a caption for figure 4.

3.We note that [Figure(s) 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [1] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 11.

5. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

6.Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[The study was financially supported by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern, Switzerland (HS, AP) (www.bafu.admin.ch). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.].   

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: FishConsulting GmbH.

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please respond by return email with an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement and we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have several major conceptual criticisms of this work, which I will expand upon below. I understand that word limits often restrict methods details, but the methods, as they are described in the submission, are not detailed enough to be repeated. In addition, the manuscript does not seem like it is ready for submission, as there are several formatting anomalies.

The methods of the study do not address the objective as it is outlined in the introduction: “The aim of the study was to investigate the role of a migration barrier in limitation of pathogen transport by migrating fish…”. These data are not generalizable to other diseases and the study design is incapable of addressing this objective. As is pointed out in the manuscript, PKD generally manifests in naïve fish, which are generally YOY. As is also pointed out in the manuscript, YOY brown trout generally do not migrate into tributary streams from larger bodies of water. So the study’s conclusion that “the benefit of restoration of the river corridor seems to exceed the risk of transmission of infectious agents” is based on an extremely biased data set because the fish that are migrating are the same ones that are least likely to succumb to, be susceptible to, or to release parasite spores due to PKD.

Another major flaw is that the study completely ignores the primary bryozoan hosts of T. bryosalmonae. There was no mention of any effort to confirm the presence of bryozoans in the Ehrenbach, which would be necessary for the complete life cycle of T. bryosalmonae, because spores released from infected fish cannot, as far as we know, ever infect other fish. If bryozoans are not present in the Ehrenbach, might the results have been dramatically different if bryozoans were there? On a similar note, the absence of parasite in fish is not necessarily an accurate indicator for the absence of the parasite in bryozoans in the same location. This disease is extremely complex and there are several variables which might decouple infection in the two hosts.

If I am reading the methods correctly, only fish from the Wutach were pit-tagged, which means that there is no movement data for fish that were above the barrier before its removal. These fish may have very different patterns of movement across the two water bodies. This missing information represents a large gap for any epidemiological model of this system.

Reviewer #2: This paper aims to assess whether removal of migration barriers to fish in rivers results in upstream movement of fish and whether their associated parasites also disperse with the fish. This aim is communicated clearly. The research focuses on a relatively rare opportunity to track parasite dispersal in a real river system, centering on a removal of a migration barrier in one river. The paper presents novel results from a field observational experiment. Prevalence of infection was monitored upstream and downstream of a migration barrier one year before the barrier removal, followed by monitoring in five years after the removal of the barrier.

The premise of the study is of applied importance for many river restoration efforts. The research rationale and methodology is in principle presented well, however, not enough details of the study system are given to understand how the parasite might disperse to the upstream reaches of the river, and at what time scales that might be expected to occur. Regardless, the study design and methodology appear sound.

The main concern is that the results are based on a single site. However, it is clear that such investigations are exceedingly difficult to replicate in wild. Regardless it is very important to highlight this issue in the discussion and perhaps recommend ways to improve monitoring in future restoration projects, and highlight the focus on parasite spread. I unfortunately was not able to find Table 3 and the line numbering disappeared around the discussion start, making in difficult to highlight specific issues. I hope the comments will nevertheless be possible to be tracked by the authors.

The writing is clear, and the authors have done a very competent job of the scientific discussion and arguments, BUT editing of English language is needed throughout to improve sentence structure in particular. Otherwise the article is clearly written and logically organised, it is relatively easy to follow. Appropriate controls and confirmatory techniques are taken in most parts. I was not able to correct all the grammar issues as that would have required a substantial amount of work, but have provided a .doc document where I have highlighted particularly noticeable problems in yellow highlight.

If the authors address the suggestions made below, in my opinion this manuscript appears suitable for publication in PLoSOne.

Introduction

- Line 45: why “developing”? Suggest removing “Nowadays”

- Line 47: fragment sentence starting on this line “Thus,…” – please revise.

- Line 49-52: punctuation missing, sentence is really long, and hard to follow due to odd grammar.

- Line 55: “…several current projects” suggests some specific projects are implied (also indicated by the pers. com reference). Suggest revising this sentence to be more general and providing a reference to primary literature.

- Line 59: clearly transmission is important for parasites, but here its combined with the dispersal of the parasite (“transport”). Transmission and dispersal are very different concepts and the sentence should be re-written to distinguish this better.

- Line 61-62: replace “was classified as” with “is”. Classified sounds too formal in this context.

- Line 69: Please review most recent terminology – actinospores and myxospores refer to mxosporeans, suggest using malacospores and fish malacospores instead.

- Does fish to fish transmission occur? Please provide information here e.g. Line 71.

- Line 79: please articulate the sentence above as a question or change wording here. It is not clear what the specific, testable idea (hypothesis) is here. What is being tested? Whether infected fish can move upstream? Whether the parasite is transmitting in the upstream section? Whether the parasite spreads to the new upstream area? It should be pointed out here that migration of adult fish was monitored and disease status in the upstream and downstream YOY populations was also monitored. Please revise this section to be explicit about what the experiment really tests.

- Line 81: It is difficult to understand the extent of this barrier without further information. Please describe what this barrier is like, does it prevent up and downstream movement of fish? What is it exactly? Why is it being removed? What was involved in its removal?

- Finally, it is confusing that the disease manifests in the YOY but these are not migrating. Please provide more information regarding what is known about migration habits of different age classes and what the expectations are relative to the spread and disease in fish populations. Are the migrating adult fish competent hosts and transmit the parasite to other hosts? Please provide references.

- In general the introduction needs a thorough checking of English to improve sentence structure. There are many incomplete sentences and incorrect wordings, which make it tough to follow.

Methods

- Line 99: “own investigation”: whose? Please cite pers comm. NAME if no other reference is available.

- Line 98: It would be important to know if the fish sampled were YOY or adult fish.

- Line 101: When in 2014?

- Line 112: not clear what the “respectively, “ refers to. Please revise.

- Line 122: please use consistent terminology for qPCR or RT PCR or RT qPCR….

- Line 144-147: Are these the same as in the referenced paper? Consider deleting?

- Line 159: was the infection status of these fish checked? Or the infection status of a peer group captured at the same time? Previous investigations showed that prevalence was high in the YOY fish but was that the case for the older fish too? Is it possible the infected fish more less and do not take part in migration?

- The statistics section is not sufficient. This should describe the analyses conducted to a detail where they could be repeated following the description provided here. What tests were done on what data? Please ensure all analyses presented in results section are covered here.

Results

- Table 1: What does the +/- refer to? Please define.

- Figure 1 should be redrawn – the satellite imaging shot does not show the river clearly and its hard to see the confluence. Also, the red font on busy background is difficult to see. The zoomed in map should be presented in a larger context in an inset figure – e,g, its difficult to understand where the border is and where the site is located.

- Figure 2 is not particularly informative. Could be easily deleted or replaced.

- Where is Table 3?

- Line numbers disappers and it difficult to provide direct comments from here forwards…

- Can the possible invasion be really linked to the migrating trout? Using the methods employed here, it does not seem be possible to make a direct link, although such effects may be implied. Please reword to take account of this ambiguity.

- Reporting of Cq values is relatively meaningless. Would it be possible to provide copy numbers per unit of kidney, this would make comparisons more relevant. Taking means of Cq values across samples is also confusing and should be avoided in the table.

- Is the section starting with “From 2016 to..” referring to Wutach? Please add.

- The results section could be made clearer by combining the fish parameters with the PKD monitoring section as these presumably pertain to the same fish. The migration fish are a different batch of animals.

- Table 2: please make separate column for prevalence.

- “On 15th…” migrating from Wutach?

- Did the fish collected and tagged from Ehrenbach move upstream too? The monitoring station was only 20m upstream – is this considered a migration? Why were fish tagged in the Ehrenbach – is the data reported? Suggest reporting results separately for the fish tagged in Wutach and Ehrenbach. Were the same fish detected in multiple years?

- What is the significance of the non-consecutive days?

Discussion

- The discussion needs a re-write, to improve flow and English. Comparisons to other research in the field is limited to the considerations of PKD, it would be interesting to see further discussion relating this research to other disease systems in aquatic context.

- A section on future research directions in this field would be useful, for example, investigations across the full life-cycle.

- It seems one limitation of this study is that the infection status of the tagged fish was not known, and it is not clear if PKD impacted adult fish migrate normally. This should be discussed further.

- The start of discussion should be improved with more details regarding the e.g. wh is restoration “more significant”. Perhaps this is not the wording the authors mean? Referencing here is completely lacking. E.g. “unambiguous benefits” should be backed up by references.

- Include references that discuss or test the spreading of pathogens in association with restoration of connecitivity

- Discuss further the implications of complex life-cycle of parasite for the likelihood of spreading with migration.

- Is the temperature difference significant? In relation to the triggers of PKD and the parasite development and the development of the invertebrate hosts?

- Reference the lack of spore excretion during winter.

- How does the last sentence of the discussion relate to the results generatated in this experiment? Please tie it in better.

- References are not provided in a consistent format.

Reviewer #3: General Comments

This is a straightforward study with only few, albeit incomplete datasets reported. It describes the migratory movements of salmonids native to Wutach river in Switzerland in the context of PKD infectivity. The manuscript is generally well written, although spelling / grammar could be improved in a few places, as descibed under “Specific Comments” below. Although datasets are not complete due to equipment failure, the study is of a publishable quality, subject to addressing specific points below.

Specific Comments

• Lines 37-39: This sentence needs to be rephrased as it, currently, isn’t very clear.

• Liines 49-54: This is a very long sentence. Please rephrase.

• Lines 69-76: It is not correct to refer to T. bryosalmonae stages as myxopsores and actinospores, it’s a malacosporean not a myxosporean.

• Lines 103-104: Could the authors provide a clear justification for the chosen sampling period (24th Aug – 15th Sept)

• Lines 109-111: The authors need to justify why only a single electrofishing site was chosen on the Ehrenbach tributary and two on the Wurach river. This is important since its migration from the Wutach to the Ehrenbach that is under investigation.

• Could the authors confirm the Ehrenbach tributary-Wutach river connectivity with a better-quality image. Current map is not clear enough.

• Line 112: Define YOY

• Line 117: The authors use “condition factor” here but “condition index” elsewhere

• Line 129: What are the criteria that govern each histological grading score. Please define or refer to a previously published study

• Line 131-132: Also define each poiint in the scoring system 0-6 in the context of parasite numbers. Is it numbers of parasites counted in X number of field of views per tissue section with Y number of sections analysed per fish kidney sample? Please properly define, it is currently not very clear.

• Line 149: What is Exo IPC. Please define.

• Lines 153-157: Can the authors provide more detail justifying the why those sites were chosen for the study.

• Line 162: Figure 2 doesn’t provide real added value to the paper. Simply stating the size of tags in the Methods will suffice.

• Line 169-174: Have the authors implemented the tag reading technology previously? If os, please provide a reference.

• Lines 179-181: What do the authors means in saying the logger was lifted. Why?

• Line 191: Line numbering ends here!

• “(table 3). One animal showed chronic active changes with interstitial fibrosis and concurrent acute signs as described above. Severity of changes and parasite abundance are summarized in table 3”. No Table 3 provided. Presumably, this is a typo and should be Table 2.

• Table 2 and legend need to be clearer and the authors need to describe, in the discussion, why only fish sampled in 2013 are PCR negative yet all other signs point to parasite infection / exposure. Parasite tissue distribution is unlikely to homogenous throughout the kidney and so could account for apparent differences between fixed tissue datasets versus qPCR results? Need to clarify that the “parasite abundance” and “pathology severity” columns originate from histological and parasite abundance datasets (from scores 0-6). Define “nd”.

• “162 brown trout and two rainbow trout were PIT tagged. Length of tagged fish ranged from 90 to 471 mm (mean 270.9, median 282), weight from 9 to 1072 (mean 296.6, median 269.5) g. Condition index ranged from 0. 85 to 1.78 (mean 1.19)”. What were the weights / lengths of fish per sampling site?

• “During the investigation period, 19 tagged brown trout and one rainbow trout were migrating from the Wutach into the Ehrenbach (12%) (Fig. 3)” How does this level compare to similar studies? As it wasn’t possible in this study to get a real idea of the number of tagged fish remaining in the Wutach via tag detection versus fish losses / mortalities, it is important in the discusion to refer to previous datasets.

• So, only mature fish migrate with YOY fish remaining in the Wutach. Yet, the majority of mature fish also remain in the Wutach. Are there other known spawning sites within a few Kms of the study sites? Lack of PKD infectivity in mature migrating fish supports a link between fitness and migration with infected fish less inclined to migrate. This is needs to be mentioned in the discussion.

• 2018 NOT 2918

• “Fig. 3. Temperature profiles from Ehrenbach and Wutach, 2013, 2017 and 2018. Red line marks 15°C, the temperature where PKD revealed to be clinically relevant” This is unclear, please clarify.

• “bryozoan, the final host”: Please correct to “definitive host”

• “Even if the minimum necessary number of days with high water temperature for the clinical outbreak of disease is not known and…………” Please re-structure this very long sentence.

• “……..trout does not play a role”: In what?

• “Considering the technical malfunction of the PIT antenna over cumulated 91 days, between October 2017 and March 2018………….” So, data was only used from one complete spawning season due to technical failure?

• “This proves the importance of continuity…………”Change to “This supports the importance……”

• “We thank the fishermen „Oberes Wutachtal Stühlingen e.V.“ for……” Please correct.

• Figure 3 and 4 axes labels need to be improved re. quality.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hanna Hartikainen

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-18486_comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2020_PLOS1_ms_Migration barriers_PKD_HIGHLIGHTS.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 17;16(3):e0247482. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247482.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Jan 2021

We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and corrections.

In this revision we have incorporated the majority of suggestions made by the reviewers. Further, we have discussed those comments that we were not able to address.

The reviewers’ comments are copied below. Each suggestion/comment is followed by the changes we have made (in italics).

Concerning comments of Reviewer #1:

I have several major conceptual criticisms of this work, which I will expand upon below. I understand that word limits often restrict methods details, but the methods, as they are described in the submission, are not detailed enough to be repeated. In addition, the manu-script does not seem like it is ready for submission, as there are several formatting anoma-lies.

In the method section, more details were added.

The methods of the study do not address the objective as it is outlined in the introduction: “The aim of the study was to investigate the role of a migration barrier in limitation of path-ogen transport by migrating fish…”. These data are not generalizable to other diseases and the study design is incapable of addressing this objective.

The aim of the study was edited to “The aim of the study was to investigate the possible consequences of the removal of an artificial migration barrier for the upstream transport of Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae, the causative agent of Proliferative Kidney Disease (PKD) in brown trout, by migrating fish.»

As is pointed out in the manuscript, PKD generally manifests in naïve fish, which are gen-erally YOY. As is also pointed out in the manuscript, YOY brown trout generally do not mi-grate into tributary streams from larger bodies of water. So the study’s conclusion that “the benefit of restoration of the river corridor seems to exceed the risk of transmission of in-fectious agents” is based on an extremely biased data set because the fish that are migrat-ing are the same ones that are least likely to succumb to, be susceptible to, or to release parasite spores due to PKD.

The reviewer is definitely right that adult fish are unlikely to succumb due to PKD. Howev-er, there are indications that adult brown trout up to 5 years old can release spores infec-tive to bryozoa (Soliman et al. 2018).Therefore, it cannot excluded that adult brown trout can transport infective spores. On the other hand, the argument that PKD could be trans-mitted by migrating brown trout is often used to block revitalization programs, at least in Switzerland.

Another major flaw is that the study completely ignores the primary bryozoan hosts of T. bryosalmonae. There was no mention of any effort to confirm the presence of bryozoans in the Ehrenbach, which would be necessary for the complete life cycle of T. bryosalmo-nae, because spores released from infected fish cannot, as far as we know, ever infect other fish. If bryozoans are not present in the Ehrenbach, might the results have been dramatically different if bryozoans were there? On a similar note, the absence of parasite in fish is not necessarily an accurate indicator for the absence of the parasite in bryozoans in the same location. This disease is extremely complex and there are several variables which might decouple infection in the two hosts.

The reviewer is definitely right. By visual inspection, the bryozoan Plumatella sp. was de-tected in the Ehrenbach in former years. This finding is now mentioned in the discussion. Based on the reviewers comment, we now performed an eDNA investigation to monitor occurrence of Fredericella sultana, the proposed main host in the parasite cycle and T. bryosalmonae DNA in the Ehrenbach and the Wutach. The results are mentioned in the new version of the manuscript.

If I am reading the methods correctly, only fish from the Wutach were pit-tagged, which means that there is no movement data for fish that were above the barrier before its re-moval. These fish may have very different patterns of movement across the two water bodies. This missing information represents a large gap for any epidemiological model of this system.

Fish from the Ehrenbach were not PIT tagged, that is correct. As we wanted to monitor mainly movement from the PKD positive river body to the PKD negative river body, movement of fish from above the barrier was not recorded.

Specific Comments:

Line 58: “…still a point of concerns.” De-pluralize to “concern”.

Changed

Line 68: “primary hosts” is probably a better term for bryozoans than “final hosts”

The term was changed into "definitive host" as proposed by reviewer 3.

Line 69 and throughout: “actinospore” and “myxospore” are terms specifically applied to organisms from the class myxosporea (e.g. M. cerebralis), rather than those of malaco-sporea (e.g. T. bryosalmonae). The best terms that we have for malacosporean spores are along the lines of “fish malacospores”, for those infectious to fish, and “bryozoan malaco-spores” for those infectious to bryozoans, etc.

The terms were changed throughout the manuscript.

Line 76: “with a peak in disease severity and myxospore release in late summer / early autumn (30).” Bailey et al. 2017 seems to be a reference for the disease severity part of the statement, but not for the myxospore release part. Tops et al. 2006 is probably the best citation for the later. Note however that neither study is directly linking seasonality. In both cases temperature, is the independent variable. I suggest changing the language to more accurately reflect that nuance, something like “with peaks in disease severity (Bailey et al. 2017) and myxospore release (Tops et al. 2006) corresponding with high temperatures typical of late summer/ early fall.”

Tops, S., Lockwood, W. and Okamura, B., 2006. Temperature-driven proliferation of Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae in bryozoan hosts portends salmonid declines. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 70(3), pp.227-236.

The sentence was changed partly to the reviewer's suggestions. "and myxospore release" was deleted, therefore, the reference Tops et al., 2006 was not included here.

Line 77: You could cite Gay et al. 2001 or Tops et al. 2006 here.

Gay, M., Okamura, B. and De Kinkelin, P., 2001. Evidence that infectious stages of Tetra-capsula bryosalmonae for rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss are present throughout the year. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 46(1), pp.31-40.

Tops et al. 2006 was included here. Gay et al. was referred to in the discussion.

Figure 1: The satellite imagery base map makes this figure very hard to see/interpret. The red and black text are especially difficult to read. I would rather see a simple base map with water bodies and sample locations depicted.

Figure 1 was completely revised, showing now a scheme of the location and two own pic-tures of the area where the barrier was removed.

Line 143: should read “18s rDNA” instead of “18 rDNA”

Changed

Throughout methods: Please describe your control schemes in more detail. Were there any extraction controls? If so, how many, with what frequency, and what material was used? Same for qPCR negative controls please.

As positive controls, tissue from known positive brown trout were used. This material was also used as extraction control. Negative and positive controls were described in the re-vised version of the manuscript.

Figure 2: This image does not seem necessary.

Figure 2 was deleted.

Line 169: Did you multiplex antennae to determine directionality of fish movement across the array? This would be a good detail to know. The language right now suggests that it was a singleplex antenna array.

It was a single antenna. It has been changed in the methods section to make it more clear. A multiplex setup has been tested, but was not feasible due to lots of heavy electromagnet-ic interferences. It would have been nice to know the direction of migrating fish, but this setup could only provide presence-absence information, which was sufficient to answer the research objective, if fish from the river Wutach enter Ehrenbach and are able to pass the new block ramps.

Line184: Are there any specific packages or macros that need to be referenced? Methods are intended to be repeatable, but this “statistics” sub-section only mentions that some software was used. What tests were performed? I also did not see any reference to statis-tical tests in the results or discussion sections.

There were no statistical tests used. The only package worth mentioning which was used is ggplot in R, which is now referenced. The migration data were analysed using a self-made algorithm for filtering and processing the RFID data, which is now also mentioned.

In addition, the section was supplemented with the values calculated.

Line191: Maybe this is more of an editorial issue, but I think this should read “… according to the criteria of Froese et al. 2016 (32).”

Changed

We lost line numbers after line 191.

Line numbering was added.

“In brown trout originating from the Ehrenbach, in none of the examined fish at any time, neither macroscopic nor histological signs of an infection with T. bryosalmonae were found.”

“originating” seems like a poor word to use here. I think you mean “sampled”. Otherwise, what is meant by “originating”?

“originating” was changed to “sampled”

In the “Water Temperature” sub-section the font style seems to change.

The font style was adapted.

“During the cold season excretion of T. bryosalmonae spores by brown trout does not play a role.”

I don’t think that this sentence accurately describes anything in particular. It should be re-vised or removed.

The sentence was deleted.

Throughout the manuscript: All of the text should be reviewed by someone who is well versed in English grammar.

The manuscript was reviewed by a native speaker. His name is mentioned in the Acknowledgements.

Concerning comments of Reviewer #2:

Reviewer #2: This paper aims to assess whether removal of migration barriers to fish in rivers results in upstream movement of fish and whether their associated parasites also disperse with the fish. This aim is communicated clearly. The research focuses on a rela-tively rare opportunity to track parasite dispersal in a real river system, centering on a re-moval of a migration barrier in one river. The paper presents novel results from a field ob-servational experiment. Prevalence of infection was monitored upstream and downstream of a migration barrier one year before the barrier removal, followed by monitoring in five years after the removal of the barrier.

The premise of the study is of applied importance for many river restoration efforts. The research rationale and methodology is in principle presented well, however, not enough details of the study system are given to understand how the parasite might disperse to the upstream reaches of the river, and at what time scales that might be expected to occur. Regardless, the study design and methodology appear sound.

The main concern is that the results are based on a single site. However, it is clear that such investigations are exceedingly difficult to replicate in wild. Regardless it is very im-portant to highlight this issue in the discussion and perhaps recommend ways to improve monitoring in future restoration projects, and highlight the focus on parasite spread. I unfor-tunately was not able to find Table 3 and the line numbering disappeared around the dis-cussion start, making in difficult to highlight specific issues. I hope the comments will nev-ertheless be possible to be tracked by the authors.

The mistakes regarding table 3 and the line numbering were corrected. The authors apolo-gize for this mistake. Furthermore, an outlook was added in the discussion: "However, findings are based on a single river system. This highlights the importance of further moni-toring studies in future restoration projects, with a focus on possible parasite spread."

The writing is clear, and the authors have done a very competent job of the scientific dis-cussion and arguments, BUT editing of English language is needed throughout to improve sentence structure in particular.

The manuscript was reviewed by a native speaker. His name is mentioned in the Acknowledgements.

Otherwise the article is clearly written and logically organised, it is relatively easy to follow. Appropriate controls and confirmatory techniques are taken in most parts. I was not able to correct all the grammar issues as that would have required a substantial amount of work, but have provided a .doc document where I have highlighted particularly noticeable prob-lems in yellow highlight.

Parts highlighted in yellow were re-written. Furthermore, the manuscript was corrected by a native speaker.

If the authors address the suggestions made below, in my opinion this manuscript appears suitable for publication in PLoSOne.

Introduction

- Line 45: why “developing”? Suggest removing “Nowadays”

The sentences were changed accordingly.

- Line 47: fragment sentence starting on this line “Thus,…” – please revise.

The sentence was changed.

- Line 49-52: punctuation missing, sentence is really long, and hard to follow due to odd grammar.

The sentence was changed.

- Line 55: “…several current projects” suggests some specific projects are implied (also indicated by the pers. com reference). Suggest revising this sentence to be more general and providing a reference to primary literature.

The sentence was changed and a reference was added.

- Line 59: clearly transmission is important for parasites, but here its combined with the dispersal of the parasite (“transport”). Transmission and dispersal are very different con-cepts and the sentence should be re-written to distinguish this better.

The sentence was rewritten.

- Line 61-62: replace “was classified as” with “is”. Classified sounds too formal in this con-text.

The sentence was changed.

- Line 69: Please review most recent terminology – actinospores and myxospores refer to mxosporeans, suggest using malacospores and fish malacospores instead.

The term was changed throughout the manuscript.

- Does fish to fish transmission occur? Please provide information here e.g. Line 71.

No, fish to fish transmission does not occur to the current knowledge. The sentence was re-written.

- Line 79: please articulate the sentence above as a question or change wording here. It is not clear what the specific, testable idea (hypothesis) is here. What is being tested? Whether infected fish can move upstream? Whether the parasite is transmitting in the up-stream section? Whether the parasite spreads to the new upstream area? It should be pointed out here that migration of adult fish was monitored and disease status in the up-stream and downstream YOY populations was also monitored. Please revise this section to be explicit about what the experiment really tests.

The aim of the study and the whole paragraph were re-phrased to describe the experiment in a better way.

- Line 81: It is difficult to understand the extent of this barrier without further information. Please describe what this barrier is like, does it prevent up and downstream movement of fish? What is it exactly? Why is it being removed? What was involved in its removal?

A whole paragraph describing the barrier was added.

- Finally, it is confusing that the disease manifests in the YOY but these are not migrating. Please provide more information regarding what is known about migration habits of differ-ent age classes and what the expectations are relative to the spread and disease in fish populations. Are the migrating adult fish competent hosts and transmit the parasite to other hosts? Please provide references.

These topics were discussed and references were provided.

- In general the introduction needs a thorough checking of English to improve sentence structure. There are many incomplete sentences and incorrect wordings, which make it tough to follow.

The introduction was thoroughly revised.

Methods

- Line 99: “own investigation”: whose? Please cite pers comm. NAME if no other reference is available.

A name was added.

- Line 98: It would be important to know if the fish sampled were YOY or adult fish.

YOY were sampled. This was added.

- Line 101: When in 2014?

The barrier was removed in May to June 2014. A paragraph describing the migration barri-er more in detail was added.

- Line 112: not clear what the “respectively, “ refers to. Please revise.

The sentence was changed.

- Line 122: please use consistent terminology for qPCR or RT PCR or RT qPCR….

The terms were equalized.

- Line 144-147: Are these the same as in the referenced paper? Consider deleting?

The primer information was deleted.

- Line 159: was the infection status of these fish checked? Or the infection status of a peer group captured at the same time? Previous investigations showed that prevalence was high in the YOY fish but was that the case for the older fish too? Is it possible the infected fish more less and do not take part in migration?

As fish usually have to be killed to check for the PKD status, animals included in the tag-ging experiment could not be previously checked for infection with T. bryosalmonae. How-ever, as they were living in the same river part as the YOY brown trout examined, pres-ence of the parasite in the environment and possibility for infection can be expected.

- The statistics section is not sufficient. This should describe the analyses conducted to a detail where they could be repeated following the description provided here. What tests were done on what data? Please ensure all analyses presented in results section are cov-ered here.

There were no specific tests performed on the data. The software information was added in the manuscript.

Results

- Table 1: What does the +/- refer to? Please define.

The table legend was changed.

- Figure 1 should be redrawn – the satellite imaging shot does not show the river clearly and its hard to see the confluence. Also, the red font on busy background is difficult to see. The zoomed in map should be presented in a larger context in an inset figure – e,g, its dif-ficult to understand where the border is and where the site is located.

Figure 1 was completely revised, showing now a scheme of the location and two own pic-tures of the area where the barrier was removed.

- Figure 2 is not particularly informative. Could be easily deleted or replaced.

Figure 2 was deleted.

- Where is Table 3?

This was a mistake. Table 2 shows the data. This was corrected throughout the manu-script.

- Line numbers disappears and it difficult to provide direct comments from here forwards…

Line numbers were added.

- Can the possible invasion be really linked to the migrating trout? Using the methods em-ployed here, it does not seem be possible to make a direct link, although such effects may be implied. Please reword to take account of this ambiguity.

A few sentences were added in the Discussion section.

- Reporting of Cq values is relatively meaningless. Would it be possible to provide copy numbers per unit of kidney, this would make comparisons more relevant. Taking means of Cq values across samples is also confusing and should be avoided in the table.

The Cq values were deleted in the results and in table 2. qPCR was performed to evaluate presence or absence of T. bryosalmonae DNA. Therefore, we refrained to examine copy number per unit of kidney. In the present manuscript version we just refer to presence or absence of parasite DNA.

- Is the section starting with “From 2016 to..” referring to Wutach? Please add.

The information was added.

- The results section could be made clearer by combining the fish parameters with the PKD monitoring section as these presumably pertain to the same fish. The migration fish are a different batch of animals.

The two sections were combined as well as table 1 and 2.

- Table 2: please make separate column for prevalence.

A separate column was included.

- “On 15th…” migrating from Wutach?

The sentence was adapted accordingly.

- Did the fish collected and tagged from Ehrenbach move upstream too? The monitoring station was only 20m upstream – is this considered a migration? Why were fish tagged in the Ehrenbach – is the data reported?

In the Ehrenbach, fish were not tagged.

Suggest reporting results separately for the fish tagged in Wutach and Ehrenbach. Were the same fish detected in multiple years?

There were no fish tagged in Ehrenbach, all tagged fish were caught in the river Wutach.

There were 3 fish that were detected in the Ehrenbach in multiple years. Two of them were detected in two consecutive years and one was detected in 2017, 2018, 2019 and on the last day of operation in 2020.

- What is the significance of the non-consecutive days?

Temperature showed some fluctuation in the warm period, with some cooler days spread-ed inbetween. However, as time span of cooler periods were restricted to single days and temperature stayed around 15°C, we listed the number of non-consecutive days.

Discussion

- The discussion needs a re-write, to improve flow and English. Comparisons to other re-search in the field is limited to the considerations of PKD, it would be interesting to see fur-ther discussion relating this research to other disease systems in aquatic context.

The discussion was revised by discussing more comprehensive the issue of pathogen spreading by migration.

- A section on future research directions in this field would be useful, for example, investi-gations across the full life-cycle.

Discussion of future research was added where appropriate.

- It seems one limitation of this study is that the infection status of the tagged fish was not known, and it is not clear if PKD impacted adult fish migrate normally. This should be dis-cussed further.

A paragraph was added in the discussion.

- The start of discussion should be improved with more details regarding the e.g. wh is res-toration “more significant”. Perhaps this is not the wording the authors mean? Referencing here is completely lacking. E.g. “unambiguous benefits” should be backed up by refer-ences.

The discussion was revised.

- Include references that discuss or test the spreading of pathogens in association with res-toration of connectivity.

Literature of pathogen spread in association with restoration of river connectivity is limited. However, a paragraph discussing pathogen spread in association with migration in general was added in the discussion section.

- Discuss further the implications of complex life-cycle of parasite for the likelihood of spreading with migration.

The role of the different hosts in the parasite cycle and the importance of the hosts in con-text of spreading is discussed in the new manuscript version.

- Is the temperature difference significant? In relation to the triggers of PKD and the para-site development and the development of the invertebrate hosts?

The importance of temperature in the context parasite development and development of the invertebrate hosts is discussed in the new manuscript version.

- Reference the lack of spore excretion during winter.

The text was adapted and references were added.

- How does the last sentence of the discussion relate to the results generatated in this ex-periment? Please tie it in better.

The last sentence was deleted.

- References are not provided in a consistent format.

The format of the references was corrected.

Concerning comments of Reviewer #3:

This is a straightforward study with only few, albeit incomplete datasets reported. It de-scribes the migratory movements of salmonids native to Wutach river in Switzerland in the context of PKD infectivity. The manuscript is generally well written, although spelling / grammar could be improved in a few places, as described under “Specific Comments” below. Although datasets are not complete due to equipment failure, the study is of a pub-lishable quality, subject to addressing specific points below.

Specific Comments

• Lines 37-39: This sentence needs to be rephrased as it, currently, isn’t very clear.

The sentence was deleted.

• Liines 49-54: This is a very long sentence. Please rephrase.

The sentence was re-written.

• Lines 69-76: It is not correct to refer to T. bryosalmonae stages as myxopsores and acti-nospores, it’s a malacosporean not a myxosporean.

This was corrected throughout the manuscript.

• Lines 103-104: Could the authors provide a clear justification for the chosen sampling period (24th Aug – 15th Sept)

An explanation was added: “This sampling period was selected due to highest probability to detect infection with T. bryosalmonae. “

• Lines 109-111: The authors need to justify why only a single electrofishing site was cho-sen on the Ehrenbach tributary and two on the Wurach river. This is important since its migration from the Wutach to the Ehrenbach that is under investigation.

A sentence explaining the reason was included: In the Wutach, two sampling sites were selected, one site above the estuary of the Ehrenbach and one below the estuary to moni-tor PKD status of possibly migrating brown trout.

• Could the authors confirm the Ehrenbach tributary-Wutach river connectivity with a bet-ter-quality image. Current map is not clear enough.

We included two pictures of the Ehrenbach in Figure 1. There is no picture of the actual mouth of the Ehrenbach into the Wutach available.

• Line 112: Define YOY

YOY are young-of-the-year. This term was introduced in line 74.

• Line 117: The authors use “condition factor” here but “condition index” elsewhere

The term was changed.

• Line 129: What are the criteria that govern each histological grading score. Please define or refer to a previously published study

The criteria were judged according to Bettge et al 2009. The reference was cited.

• Line 131-132: Also define each point in the scoring system 0-6 in the context of parasite numbers. Is it numbers of parasites counted in X number of field of views per tissue sec-tion with Y number of sections analysed per fish kidney sample? Please properly define, it is currently not very clear.

The exact description of the method and the scoring system were added.

• Line 149: What is Exo IPC. Please define.

The material and method section was corrected accordingly. Necessary information was added.

• Lines 153-157: Can the authors provide more detail justifying the why those sites were chosen for the study.

An explanation was included.

• Line 162: Figure 2 doesn’t provide real added value to the paper. Simply stating the size of tags in the Methods will suffice.

Figure 2 was deleted and the information added in the text.

• Line 169-174: Have the authors implemented the tag reading technology previously? If os, please provide a reference.

Yes we have used it before.

Peter, A., R. Mettler, N. Schölzel. 2016. Vorprojekt „PIT-Tagging Untersuchungen am Hochrhein – Kraftwerk Rheinfelden“. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Umwelt BAFU: 43 Seiten.

However, this is not published in a peer reviewed journal.

• Lines 179-181: What do the authors means in saying the logger was lifted. Why?

The sentence was changed into: “For 2019, no data were available from Ehrenbach, be-cause the logger was lost by vandalism.»

• Line 191: Line numbering ends here!

Line numbering was added

• “(table 3). One animal showed chronic active changes with interstitial fibrosis and concur-rent acute signs as described above. Severity of changes and parasite abundance are summarized in table 3”. No Table 3 provided. Presumably, this is a typo and should be Ta-ble 2.

The reviewer is correct, This was a mistake. This mistake was corrected throughout the manuscript.

• Table 2 and legend need to be clearer and the authors need to describe, in the discussion, why only fish sampled in 2013 are PCR negative yet all other signs point to parasite infec-tion / exposure. Parasite tissue distribution is unlikely to homogenous throughout the kidney and so could account for apparent differences between fixed tissue datasets versus qPCR results? Need to clarify that the “parasite abundance” and “pathology severity” columns originate from histological and parasite abundance datasets (from scores 0-6). Define “nd”.

The legend was completed by the missing information. Actually, qPCR of fish from the Ehrenbach were always negative, with the exception of one animal in 2016. The result section was also edited to make this clearer.

• “162 brown trout and two rainbow trout were PIT tagged. Length of tagged fish ranged from 90 to 471 mm (mean 270.9, median 282), weight from 9 to 1072 (mean 296.6, medi-an 269.5) g. Condition index ranged from 0. 85 to 1.78 (mean 1.19)”. What were the weights / lengths of fish per sampling site?

Calculation was performed only for brown trout:

sampling site N total length in mm weight in g condition index

min. max. mean median min. max. mean median min. max. mean median

upstream of Ehrenbach 68 90 432 247 251 9 941 251 194 0.85 1.78 1.21 1.19

down-stream of Ehrenbach 94 102 471 288 295 12 1072 329 296 1.03 1.47 1.18 1.17

The table was included in the manuscript.

• “During the investigation period, 19 tagged brown trout and one rainbow trout were mi-grating from the Wutach into the Ehrenbach (12%) (Fig. 3)” How does this level compare to similar studies? As it wasn’t possible in this study to get a real idea of the number of tagged fish remaining in the Wutach via tag detection versus fish losses / mortalities, it is important in the discussion to refer to previous datasets.

We do not have any previous data sets or references. But based on the small sample size we were surprised how many fish actually entered the Ehrenbach and went upstream more than 300 m from the mouth.

• So, only mature fish migrate with YOY fish remaining in the Wutach. Yet, the majority of mature fish also remain in the Wutach. Are there other known spawning sites within a few Kms of the study sites? Lack of PKD infectivity in mature migrating fish supports a link between fitness and migration with infected fish less inclined to migrate. This is needs to be mentioned in the discussion.

A paragraph was added in the discussin.

• 2018 NOT 2918

This was corrected.

• “Fig. 3. Temperature profiles from Ehrenbach and Wutach, 2013, 2017 and 2018. Red line marks 15°C, the temperature where PKD revealed to be clinically relevant” This is unclear, please clarify.

The figure legend was changed.

• “bryozoan, the final host”: Please correct to “definitive host”

“final host” was replaced by “definitive host” throughout the manuscript.

• “Even if the minimum necessary number of days with high water temperature for the clinical outbreak of disease is not known and…………” Please re-structure this very long sentence.

The sentence was re-written.

• “……..trout does not play a role”: In what?

The sentence was deleted.

• “Considering the technical malfunction of the PIT antenna over cumulated 91 days, be-tween October 2017 and March 2018………….” So, data was only used from one com-plete spawning season due to technical failure?

There were still two spawning seasons included, between 2018 and 2020.

• “This proves the importance of continuity…………”Change to “This supports the im-portance……”

The sentence was adapted accordingly.

• “We thank the fishermen „Oberes Wutachtal Stühlingen e.V.“ for……” Please correct.

The sentence was corrected.

• Figure 3 and 4 axes labels need to be improved re. quality.

Figures 3 and 4, now figures 2 and 3, was completey revised.

Decision Letter 1

Paolo Ruggeri

9 Feb 2021

The role of migration barriers for dispersion of Proliferative Kidney Disease – balance between disease emergence and habitat connectivity

PONE-D-20-18486R1

Dear Dr. Schmidt-Posthaus  ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paolo Ruggeri, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Paolo Ruggeri

18 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-18486R1

The role of migration barriers for dispersion of Proliferative Kidney Disease – balance between disease emergence and habitat connectivity

Dear Dr. Schmidt-Posthaus:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paolo Ruggeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-18486_comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2020_PLOS1_ms_Migration barriers_PKD_HIGHLIGHTS.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying this study are available on OSF (DOI: osf.io/ftb7m).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES