Much effort has been devoted to developing, constructing and refining fish passage facilities to enable target species to pass barriers on fluvial systems, and yet, fishway science, engineering and practice remain imperfect. In this review, 17 experts from different fish passage research fields (i.e., biology, ecology, physiology, ecohydraulics, engineering) and from different continents (i.e., North and South America, Europe, Africa, Australia) identified knowledge gaps and provided a roadmap for research priorities and technical developments. Once dominated by an engineering‐focused approach, fishway science today involves a wide range of disciplines from fish behaviour to socioeconomics to complex modelling of passage prioritization options in river networks. River barrier impacts on fish migration and dispersal are currently better understood than historically, but basic ecological knowledge underpinning the need for effective fish passage in many regions of the world, including in biodiversity hotspots (e.g., equatorial Africa, South‐East Asia), remains largely unknown. Designing efficient fishways, with minimal passage delay and post‐passage impacts, requires adaptive management and continued innovation. While the use of fishways in river restoration demands a transition towards fish passage at the community scale, advances in selective fishways are also needed to manage invasive fish colonization. Because of the erroneous view in some literature and communities of practice that fish passage is largely a proven technology, improved international collaboration, information sharing, method standardization and multidisciplinary training are needed. Further development of regional expertise is needed in South America, Asia and Africa where hydropower dams are currently being planned and constructed.

Agricultural land use is a primary driver of environmental impacts on streams. However, the causal processes that shape these impacts operate through multiple pathways and at several spatial scales. This complexity undermines the development of more effective management approaches, and illustrates the need for more in‐depth studies to assess the mechanisms that determine changes in stream biodiversity. Here we present results of the most comprehensive multi‐scale assessment of the biological condition of streams in the Amazon to date, examining functional responses of fish assemblages to land use. We sampled fish assemblages from two large human‐modified regions, and characterized stream conditions by physical habitat attributes and key landscape‐change variables, including density of road crossings (i.e. riverscape fragmentation), deforestation, and agricultural intensification. Fish species were functionally characterized using ecomorphological traits describing feeding, locomotion, and habitat preferences, and these traits were used to derive indices that quantitatively describe the functional structure of the assemblages. Using structural equation modeling, we disentangled multiple drivers operating at different spatial scales, identifying causal pathways that significantly affect stream condition and the structure of the fish assemblages. Deforestation at catchment and riparian network scales altered the channel morphology and the stream bottom structure, changing the functional identity of assemblages. Local deforestation reduced the functional evenness of assemblages (i.e. increased dominance of specific trait combinations) mediated by expansion of aquatic vegetation cover. Riverscape fragmentation reduced functional richness, evenness and divergence, suggesting a trend toward functional homogenization and a reduced range of ecological niches within assemblages following the loss of regional connectivity. These results underscore the often‐unrecognized importance of different land use changes, each of which can have marked effects on stream biodiversity. We draw on the relationships observed herein to suggest priorities for the improved management of stream systems in the multiple‐use landscapes that predominate in human‐modified tropical forests.

Mining and dams threaten protected areas