![- Species abundance for three rivers: Créanton River (top), Armançon data. River (middle), Ouanne River (bottom); in grey: historical data, in black: actual CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE rence and density). We are aware that these two methods of The CHIPS database, presented here for assessing species abundance are probably not totally equiv- the first time, compiles a considerable amount of historical alent. However, we think they are useful for highlighting data from the last two centuries about fish distribution in the major changes in fish assemblage composition. Seine River basin (see Annexe 1). Some data sources are Between the end of the 19 th century and the decade well-known, classical ichthyology books, but the majority of 2000-2010, the fish assemblage changed considerably in the the sources were difficult to access (particularly handwrit - Créanton River, the smallest river, with a significant reduc - ten papers) and most information came from very detailed tion of limnophilic species (preferring slow flowing condi - research in different archives and libraries. The data greatly tions). In the Ouanne River, the proportion of rheophilic spe - expand our knowledge of the Seine fish fauna and its history. cies (preferring high flow conditions) increased [e.g. Salmo This database project was originally developed during inter- trutta fario Linnaeus, 1758, Lampetra planeri (Bloch, 1784), disciplinary discussions with a variety of specialists: fish Leuciscus leuciscus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Squalius cephalus biologists and ecologists, historians, and archaeozoologists. (Linnaeus, 1758)]. In the Armançon, which is the largest In the future, we plan to extend CHIPS to a broader tem- river of the three, the distribution remained about the same. poral scale and, possibly, include complementary data sourc- At this point no definitive conclusion can be drawn to es, such as drawings, photographs, maps, and archaeological](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah-Beslagic/publication/259840617/figure/fig5/AS:297195770269696@1447868401084/Species-abundance-for-three-rivers-Creanton-River-top-Armancon-data-River_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Sarah Beslagic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Beslagic on Jan 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
by
Sarah BESLAGIC* (1, 2), Marie-Christine MARINVAL (1) & Jérôme BELLIARD (2)
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2): 75-93.
(1) Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Maison René Ginouvès, UMR 7041, ArScAn, Équipe archéologies environnementales,
21 allée de l’Université, 92023 Nanterre c e d e x , France. [marie-christine.marinval@mae.u-paris10.fr]
(2) Irstea, UR HBAN, 1 rue Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, CS 10030, 92761 Antony cedex, France. [jerome.belliard@irstea.fr]
* Corresponding author [sarah.beslagic@mae.u-paris10.fr]
Most studies of river ecology and particularly of fish
assemblages focus on spatial issues and frequently neglect
temporal ones. In those studies addressing temporal issues,
the time period studied is generally short, rarely exceeding
the few last years when sh sampling methods were more
or less standardized. This is often the result of limited access
to longer term data sets and to the unavoidable problem of
the heterogeneity of data from historical time periods. How-
ever, long term temporal studies are needed, notably because
ecosystem management and environmental policies are
increasingly oriented to long term approaches. For example,
the European Water Framework Directive mandates aquatic
ecosystems management measures to be implemented over
nearly thirty years (Hering et al., 2010). Moreover, global
change and its impacts on river ecosystems and on their bio-
diversity must be addressed at a scale of at least several dec-
ades or even a century (Ducharne et al., 2007; Logez and
Pont, 2013).
Several authors have proposed a statistical approach
based on present-day, sh distribution data sets to modelling
the ecological niche of species in order to predict the conse-
quences of long term environmental change on riverine sh
distribution and their assemblages. By running these models
under probable future, environmental conditions, they have
tried to assess how sh assemblages might react (Lassalle
and Rochard, 2009; Buisson et al., 2008; Logez and Pont,
2013).
These sh assemblages studies over a long range of time
(1) assessed the natural and anthropogenic causes of sh dis-
tribution change during the historical time period, (2) provid-
ed original information on the rate of assemblage change in
given contexts, and (3) tested the models mentioned above,
as well as encouraging interdisciplinary discussion about the
evolution of biodiversity.
Long-term approaches are not often applied to Euro-
pean rivers (but see Lelek, 1989; Keith, 1998; Wolter et al.,
Abstract. – The evolution of freshwater sh distribution and long term change in the composition of sh assem-
blages in rivers are currently the subject of various ecological studies. These studies usually focus on a relatively
short range of time, rarely exceeding the last few years. However, this interval is far too short to understand in
what extent human societies impact their environment. In order to study interactions between human activities
and rivers and their sh assemblages over longer periods of time, we searched the historical record to retrieve
information on sh and their distribution in streams in the Seine River basin. A database, named CHIPS (Catalo-
gue HIstorique des Poissons de la Seine), was developed to organize the information. In a rst step, we focused
data collection on the last two centuries. We present preliminary qualitative analyses using selected parts of this
database. They show notably that the distribution area has changed for some species and that a substantial evolu-
tion in sh assemblages has occurred in certain rivers since the beginning of the 19th century.
. – CHIPS : une base de données historiques sur les poissons du bassin de la Seine.
L’évolution de la distribution spatiale et les changements à long terme des peuplements de poissons en cours
d’eau sont l’objet de divers travaux en écologie. Ces travaux se concentrent généralement sur des périodes de
temps relativement courtes, excédant rarement les dernières années. Cet intervalle de temps apparaît trop court
lorsque l’on cherche à comprendre comment les sociétés humaines impactent leur environnement. Pour aborder
les interactions entre les activités humaines et les cours d’eau et leurs peuplements de poissons sur de plus lon-
gues périodes de temps, nous avons développé une base de données dénommée CHIPS (pour “Catalogue HIsto-
rique des Poissons de la Seine”). Elle rassemble les informations collectées dans les documents anciens sur les
cours d’eau et leurs peuplements ichtyologiques dans un bassin hydrographique donné, ici le bassin de la Seine.
La collecte de données a, dans un premier temps, été restreinte à la période de temps correspondant aux deux
derniers siècles. Nous présentons ici des analyses préliminaires qualitatives obtenues à partir de l’exploitation
de segments de cette base. Elles révèlent notamment que la distribution spatiale de certaines espèces a fortement
évolué et qu’il existe une évolution signicative de la composition des peuplements depuis le 19e siècle dans
certains cours d’eau.
© SFI
Received: 4 Apr. 2012
Accepted: 19 Mar. 2013
Editors: E. Dufour, O. Otero
Key words
Fish community
Historical data
Seine
Temporal evolution
Database
CHIPS
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
76 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
2000 or Carrel, 2002). A recent publication on American riv-
ers (Rinne et al., 2005) presents examples of the historical
change in fish assemblages in 27 river systems. However,
with few exceptions [see Gammon (2005), for the Wabash
River over two centuries], most studies address change in
sh assemblages over only the past few decades or only sup-
ply a compilation of native and non-native species to illus-
trate major changes.
To nd information on long term changes in sh fauna
and assemblages, we studied historical archives and older
scientic publications dealing with sh (and craysh) and
their distribution in the Seine River basin (France). Previ-
ous historical studies provided a good basis for our work
(Belliard et al., 1995; Boët et al., 1999; Costil et al., 2002;
Rochard et al., 2009). They focus on global modications
of sh fauna and, to a lesser extent, on the local evolution
of sh communities, especially in the Seine River estuary. A
database named CHIPS (Catalogue HIstorique des Poissons
de la Seine) was developed to organize the historical infor-
mation. As a beginning, we focused data collection on the
period from the end of the 18th century to the mid-20th cen-
tury. The end of the 18th century corresponds to the begin-
ning of the Industrial Revolution during which several major
anthropogenic impacts on rivers and fish were observed.
First, this paper presents the database. We outline the types
of sources consulted and the data record elds used, and we
give some general information about the extent of the data-
set currently available. Second, to illustrate how this data-
base might contribute to future research, we briey present
the results of a preliminary qualitative analysis.
The search for historical sh data was done at the French
National Archives (Archives nationales) in Paris and in Fon-
tainebleau, and the departmental archives of Eure and Yonne
(in Evreux and Auxerre Prefectures, respectively), and in dif-
ferent institutes and university libraries, such as the Muséum
national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN) in Paris, the Sainte-
Geneviève Library, and the French National Research Insti-
tute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agri-
culture (Irstea, Institut national de recherche en sciences et
technologies pour l’environnement et l’agriculture). We also
found documents on Gallica, a digital library created by the
French National Library (BnF, Bibliothèque nationale de
France).
We distinguished between different categories of docu-
ments depending on their origin and content. The rst cat-
egory includes handwritten (and also typewritten) docu-
ments. A large part of these come from official sources,
usually government archives or institutions in charge of
the national planning (e.g. the government departments of
Ponts et Chaussées and Eaux et Forêts). These documents
are normative (legislative texts, rules, etc.), administrative
(reports, correspondence, etc.) or technical documents (civil
engineering plans and projects). We looked at all individual
correspondence. The latter should be used with caution due
to their possibly subjective nature (e.g. in the case of com-
plaint). A second category includes numerous historic docu-
ments, such as naturalists’ notebooks and scientic litera-
ture, published between the end of the 18th and the beginning
of 20th centuries.
In total, we consulted several thousands of documents,
but few of them provided useful information. It should be
noted that information on rivers in general (i.e. structures
on rivers such as dams, locks, water-mills, as well as rivers
maps, etc.) was quite easily found in the historical record,
but information on sh is much more difcult to nd. There
is no research guide that references all the historical sources
on sh. Of the thousands of documents consulted, only 282
documents provided relevant information on the presence
of fish in rivers or ponds (Fig. 1). About 45% are printed
documents and the rest are handwritten papers. Administra-
tive texts (e.g. reports) represented the greatest part of the
handwritten documents (130 documents). These documents
provided information about shing legislation, shing lim-
its, river restocking, and sh protection. Ten personal state-
ments, eight technical texts, and two normative texts, that
include information on sh, were also found in the handwrit-
ten papers.
Examples of sources
To illustrate what kinds of sources were found, we chose
two examples of public inquiries led by the Ponts et Chaus-
sées department. In 1879, the Senate created a commission
to propose rules to limit sh depletion and to ensure restock-
ing. This commission collected information on river and
migratory sh stocks, best restocking practices, and evalua-
Figure 1. - Historical data: origin and percentages for observations
from all sources.
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 77
Table I. - Major information entered into the CHIPS database.
Code (numeric code automatically generated)
Taxa
(name as noted in the source)
Detail: French local name is recorded
(name as noted in the source)
Species code (code used by Onema, it allows sorting of species recorded under different names)
Watershed (in this case: Seine basin)
(stream name)
Water body (river, pond, canal, other)
(unspecied, spawning ground, growth area, transition area, migration upstream limit)
(free eld)
(free eld; when is completed it corresponds to upstream location)
(id.: downstream location)
(Bourgogne, Centre, Île-de-France, Haute-Normandie, Champagne-Ardenne, Picardie)
(free eld: department number)
City (free eld)
(free eld)
(date is noted under format dd/mm/yyyy)
Detail: when no date is specied, we gave the publication date; when only the year is given, we recorded the date under January
1st of the year
(exact date, exact month and year, exact year, some years, decades, exact century)
(exact date, period, date of knowledge, publication date, rst observation, last observation)
(present or absent)
Detail: species are noted “absent” when it is specied in the source
(free eld: as noted in the source)
(free entry + detail)
(extinction signalled or not)
Information indicated with check boxes + detail in “other information”
(free eld: every data that provides additional information, in particular details about species biometry, shing
stocks, restocking, spawning date, etc.)
(catch/direct observation, inquiry/summary, story or account)
Detail:
- catch/direct observation: author account
- inquiry/summary: in the case of inquiry led by the one who has shed or catches whom the author have heard previously.
We mentioned in the eld “Other information” if it was a catch or an observation.
- story or account: in case of an account told to the author and which could have not been checked.
(correct data, partially correct data, possible doubt, incorrect data)
Detail: in case of story or account, the observation quality is noted as “partially accurate” or “possible accuracy”
(link with a bibliographic Endnote database including all appropriate elds: author name, article/book/journal
title, publication date, etc. For sources from government archives, the archive box reference is also noted.)
(check box in case of condential source and difculty of obtaining access to the document)
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
78 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
tion measures to maintain or improve river sh production1.
A questionnaire was sent by the Ministry of Public Works
to government agency personnel, particularly to the Ponts
et Chaussées engineers. It included twenty-four questions
about rivers divided into three themes: (1) statistics: abun-
dance, species occurrence, species reduction, sh numbers;
(2) causes of depletion: direct human causes (fishing and
poaching); industrial, climatic, and accidental causes; inad-
equate legislation and/or regulation; and (3) restocking:
measures under consideration, site selection, etc.
In 1889, the Ministry of Public Works sent an addition-
al questionnaire to the French departmental governments2
regarding change in the legislation on Atlantic salmon sh-
ing. It included questions about: observation of the different
kind of salmon; migration periods; number of migrations;
upstream limit of migrations; obstacles limiting migration
(dams, factories, traps, water quality, etc.); location of sh
passages (passage type, size) and sh passage effectiveness;
spawning grounds and spawning dates; sh condition before
and after spawning (size, colour, state of health, etc.); times
when juveniles were observed, the length of their stay in
the river before migrating to the sea; local names of juve-
nile sh; size and weight of sh caught; different methods
of shing; sh markets; if the opening and closing dates for
shing differed from those set by decree.
The data collected from the different historical sources
were managed in the database CHIPS (Catalogue HIsto-
rique des Poissons de la Seine). The database is built with
“sh observation” as the key entry eld and is the presence
or absence of a given species (or taxa) in a known location
with an observation date. In order to limit the effect due to
heterogeneity of the historical documents, we paid particu-
lar attention to assessing the accuracy and the quality of the
observations (Tab. I).
The data elds were chosen to t the information required
for distribution and assemblage quality analyses. The elds
are taxa identication, hydrographical references and geo-
graphical information, temporal information, biological and
ecological information, type of data, and data reliability.
Taxa identication
For each observation, we used the vernacular and Latin
sh names given in the historical sources and assigned a tax-
onomic code. The taxonomic codes are based on those used
by Keith (1998) and by the Ofce national de l’eau et des
1 AN F14 13600: Ponts et Chaussées answers to the Senate com-
mission inquiry for the rivers restocking (1879, July 29th), 1879.
2 AN F14 13603: Ponts et Chaussées answers to the ministerial cir-
cular (1888, December 27th) about legislation on Atlantic salmon
shing, 1889.
milieux aquatiques (ONEMA, the French National Agency
for Water and Aquatic Environments). Each code is linked
to a taxon, generally at the species level, following the Euro-
pean sh list from Kottelat and Freyhof (2007). As a result,
sh that have been recorded with different local or scientic
names can be easily sorted. For some genera, the recent list
by Kottelat and Freyhof (2007) distinguishes several species
that were initially listed as a single species in older publi-
cations (e.g. in the genera Cottus, Gobio and Phoxinus). In
CHIPS, this is not a problem because, in the Seine basin,
these genera are currently represented by a single species and
we have no reason to believe that this situation has changed
during the past two centuries. For example, the former Cot-
tus gobio (Linnaeus, 1758) is now differentiated into about
ten different species distributed across Europe, but only one
species, Cottus perifretum Freyhof, Kottelat & Nolte, 2005,
is present in the Seine basin (Keith et al., 2011).
For species identied by obsolete Latin names, we used
FishBase, which provides synonyms for scientific names.
Additionally, we developed a list of local sh names used
during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century
and we included the corresponding vernacular English and
French names next to the scientic names (Tab. II). This list
is largely based on an earlier list developed in 1890 by the
Commission in Charge of River Fishing Control3 and sup-
plemented by Belloc’s work (1898).
The sh taxonomic designation depends on the accuracy
of the observation by the observer and on the understand-
ing by the document’s author (not necessarily the same per-
son). In some cases, we could only determine the genus or a
complex of species. In these cases, we added supplementary
codes. For some cyprinids, especially some “carps”, which
could not be clearly identied, we used the code “CYPR”,
which includes for instance Cyprinus kollarii (Heckel, 1836)
and C. buggenhagii (Bloch, 1784) and refers to different
cyprinid species and hybrids that are not easily differenti-
ated. For the Petromyzontidae, 39 references could not be
assigned a genus. These sh were recorded under their local
names using the code “PETR”. For craysh, 112 observa-
tions were recorded under the code “ECRE” and seven obser-
vations of Mugilidae were entered under the code “MUGI”.
We use the code “TRX” to group together all the trout for
which the genus was not known (frequently only the labels
“trout” or “salmon trout” were used in the documents and
probably referred to resident and migratory forms of Salmo
trutta (Linnaeus, 1758). In some historic sources, other sal-
monid species, such as Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill, 1815)
and Oncorhynchus mykiss (Richardson, 1836) may have
been identied as “trout” or “salmon trout”. We could not
assign any taxonomic code to 76 observations.
3 AN F14 13606: Principales espèces uviales et leurs noms locaux
Commission in charge of river shing control report, 1890.
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 79
Table II. - Species recorded with family names, English and French common names, French local names (families, species names and
French common names are mainly based on Keith et al., 2011; English common names are from Fishbase and French local names are from
Belloc, 1898).
Species
Petromyzon marinus (Linné,
1758)
Petromyzontidae Sea lamprey Lamproie
marine
Anguille, Lampresse, Grande lamproie
Lampetra planeri (Bloch, 1784) Petromyzontidae European brook
lamprey
Lamproie de
Planer
Chatouille, Lamproie sucet, Petite lamproie
Lampetra uviatilis (Linné,
1758)
Petromyzontidae River lamprey Lamproie de
rivière
Lamproie uviatile, Petite lamproie,
Chatouille, Sept-œil, Sept-œil rouge, Sept-œil
aveugle
Acipenser sturio (Linné, 1758) Acipenseridae Sturgeon Esturgeon Atargeon
Anguilla anguilla (Linné, 1758) Anguillidae European eel Anguille Cibèle, Cive, Civèle, Civelle
Alosa alosa (Linné, 1758) Clupeidae Allis shad Grande alose Hareng alose, Clupée alose
Alosa fallax (Lacepède, 1803) Clupeidae Twaite shad Alose feinte Finte, Caluyau, Feinte œuvrée, Clupée feinte,
Pucelle
Tinca tinca (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Tench Tanche Tinche, Tenca, Tenco, Beurotte
Leucaspius delineatus (Heckel,
1843)
Cyprinidae Belica Able de Heckel
Alburnus alburnus (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Bleak Ablette Abiot, Ablet, Aublet, Blanchaille, Blanchet,
Douzai, Douzain, Ovelle, Auble, Blison,
Dormelle
Barbus barbus (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Barbel Barbeau
uviatile
Barbillon, Barberin
Rhodeus amarus (Bloch, 1782) Cyprinidae Bitterling Bouvière Péteuse, Rosière
Blicca bjoerkna (Linné, 1766) Cyprinidae White bream Brème
bordelière
Petite brème, Harriot, Henrriot, Blike
Abramis brama (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Fishwater
bream
Brème
commune
Hazeau, Brenne
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
(Valenciennes, 1844)
Cyprinidae Silver carp Carpe argentée
Carassius carassius (Linné,
1758)
Cyprinidae Crucian carp Carassin Carasche, Carreau
Carassius auratus (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Goldsh Carassin doré Daurade de Chine, Cyprin doré, Poisson-
rouge
Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782) Cyprinidae Prussian carp Carassin argenté Carpe Gibèle
Cyprinus carpio (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Common carp Carpe Kèrpaille, Kèrpe
Squalius cephalus (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Chub Chevaine Meunier, Juène, Catis, Cabeda, Able meunier,
Cavergne, Cheneviot, Cherverne, Momer,
Rotisson, Vilain, Vilna, Vilnachon
Rutilus rutilus (Linné, 1758) Cyprinidae Roach Gardon Roche, Gardon rouge, Gardon blanc,
Rousseau, Able rosse, Rosse, Rossat, Rousse,
Ryssling
Gobio gobio (Linné, 1766) Cyprinidae Gudgeon Goujon Goiffon, Goiffou, Goujin, Gof, Jol, Tragnan,
Chabroua
Chondostroma nasus (Linné,
1758)
Cyprinidae Common nase Hotu Aloge, Alonge, Allonge, Ame noire, Seue
grise, Seuffre, Écrivain, Nez, Mulet, Nase
Leusicus idus (Linné, 1766) Cyprinidae Ide Ide mélanote
Scardinius erythrophtalmus
(Linné, 1758)
Cyprinidae Rudd Rotengle Charin, Roche, Rosse, Rochard, Gardon
rouge, Rousseau
Alburnoides bipunctatus (Bloch,
1782)
Cyprinidae Chub Spirlin Able grise, Éperlan de Seine, Épelan de Seine,
Able bordé, Able brodé, Able rayé, Lignotte,
Lugnotte, Lorette, Lurette, Louvotte, Rieland
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
80 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
Species
Phoxinus phoxinus (Linné,
1766)
Cyprinidae Eurasian
minnow
Vairon Arlequin, Beuzou, Véron, Woéron, Gravier
Leuciscus leuciscus (Linné,
1758)
Cyprinidae Common lace Vandoise Seuffe, Gravelet, Ventoise
Misgurnus fossilis (Linné, 1758) Cobitidae Weathersh Loche d’étang Misgurne, Grande kerliche, Palmo
Cobitis taenia (Linné, 1758) Cobitidae Spine loach Loche de rivière
Barbatula barbatula (Linné,
1758)
Nemacheilidae Stone leach Loche franche Barbotte, Barbette, Barbillon , Barbotin,
Loque, Enmantelle, Mantelle
Ameiurus melas (Ranesque,
1820)
Ictaluridae Black bullhead Poisson-chat
Silurus glanis (Linné, 1758) Siluridae Wels catsh Silure
Esox lucius (Linné, 1758) Esocidae Northern pike Brochet Aiguillon, Bécot, Bécquet, Bec-de-canne
Osmerus eperlanus (Linné,
1758)
Osmeridae Pond smelt Éperlan Épelan
Coregonus lavaretus (Linné,
1758)
Salmonidae European
whitesh
Corégone Féra, Ferra, Lavaret
Coregonus clupeoides
(Lacépède, 1803)
Salmonidae Powan Corégone
Salvelinus umbla (Linné, 1758) Salmonidae Artic char Omble chevalier Ombre
Thymallus thymallus (Linné,
1758)
Salmonidae Grayling Ombre commun
Salmo salar (Linné, 1758) Salmonidae Atlantic salmon Saumon
atlantique
Bécard, Saumon Rille
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(Walbaum, 1792)
Salmonidae Chinook salmon Saumon quinnat Quinnat, Saumon de Californie
Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill,
1815)
Salmonidae Brook trout Saumon de
fontaine
Truite de fontaine
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Richard-
son, 1836)
Salmonidae Rainbow trout Truite arc-en-
ciel
Hucho hucho (Linné, 1758) Salmonidae Huchen Huchon
Salmo trutta fario (Linné, 1758) Salmonidae Brown trout Truite fario Truite de rivière, Truite saumonée, Truitie
Lota lota (Linné, 1758) Gadidae Burbot Lote Moustèle, Moutelle, Barbote, Barbotte,
Chatoille, Alote
Gasterosteus gymnurus (Cuvier,
1729)
Gasterosteidae Three-spined
stickleback
Epinoche Picot, Savenier, Estrangla, Darselet, Arselet,
Épingale
Pungitius laevis (Cuvier, 1829) Gasterosteidae Ninespine
stickleback
Epinochette Marichand
Liza ramada (Risso, 1826) Mugilidae Thinlip grey
mullet
Mulet porc Muge capiton
Gymnochephalus cernuus
(Linné, 1758)
Percidae Ruffe Grémille Perche goujonnière, Perche goujonnée,
Grenillet, Perche à goujon, Chagrin, Grimon
Perca uviatilis (Linné, 1758) Percidae European perch Perche Perco, Hurlin, Perchat, Perchelle
Sander lucioperca (Linné, 1758) Percidae Pike-perch Sandre Sandat
Micropterus salmoides
(Lacepède, 1802)
Centrarchidae Largemouth
black bass
Black-bass
Lepomis gibbosus (Linné, 1758) Centrarchidae Pumpkinseed Perche-soleil
Cottus perifretum (Linné, 1758) Cottidae Bullhead Chabot Têtard, Séchot, Bavard, Chaboisseau,
Chabaou, Bânes, Cafard, Jacquard, Cabot,
Chamsot, Sabot, Sabotier, Chapsot, Chafaux,
Caborgne
Table II. - Continued.
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 81
Hydrographical references and geographical information
In the database, each fish observation was associated
with a corresponding water body described by three charac-
teristics: the watershed (in this case, the Seine River basin),
the water body name, and the water body type (river, pond,
canal). The name of the water body was included as it was
reported in the historical source. Because of the wide het-
erogeneity of geographic scales used in historical sources, it
was not possible to propose a unique scheme to satisfactorily
describe locations for all observations. Therefore, we used
four levels to specify the spatial location of the observations.
The coarser level is the region and the database includes a
pull-down list of the regions in the Seine basin. When pos-
sible, we also noted the department and the nearest city or
village. Some of the observations correspond to a specic
location or to a river reach with dened upstream and down-
stream limits. This is the most precise geographical informa-
tion in the database. We also used a free entry data eld for
other geographical information that cannot be included in
the four previous elds.
Temporal information
A date was given in the database for each reference and
corresponds to the date of the sh observation. All the dates
were recorded under the format dd/mm/yyyy. The date of
observation was rarely given with precision in the historical
record. In such cases, the “observation date” eld registers
the date with as much precision as possible. For instance, if
a sh was observed in May 1840, we used 01/05/1840 and if
a species was observed in 1878, we used 01/01/1878. When
the observation lacked any date, we used the publication
date, which is specied in the eld “Type of date”. A pull-
down list (exact date, period, date of knowledge, publication
date, and rst and last observation dates) gives the different
types of information.
To complete the field “observation date” and to detail
dating information, we used a “temporal detail” pull-down
list (exact date, exact month and year, exact year, several
year range, decade, and century).
Biological and ecological information
The presence or the absence of sh taxa is the key infor-
mation eld in CHIPS. Information related to species abun-
dance was also included when available in the archives. The
reason for the presence or absence of a species (stocking,
introduction, extinction) was indicated where possible.
Details about the characteristics of the river reach as they
relate to sh ecology were also noted. These details are par-
ticularly useful for migratory sh as they provide informa-
tion such as location of spawning grounds, growth areas, and
upstream migration limits.
Most of the historical archives contained complementary
ecological or biological information. Because of their con-
siderable variability, it was not possible to include them in
the main database. However, we did keep this information in
a eld where we noted if the historical source included sup-
plementary data, such as sh ecology (particularly spawning
dates), biometry (sh size), catch number, and sh health.
Type of data and reliability
Observations are often recorded in reports and public
inquiries. In CHIPS, they were separated into three cat-
egories: (1) catch/direct observation documented by an
observer: the observation is considered to be quite reliable;
(2) inquiry/summary: for example, an ofcial inquiry that
collects information from observers. In the data eld “Other
information”, we indicated if it was either a catch or an
observation; and (3) story or account: a second-hand account
told to the author but not veried. This information may not
be accurate.
To indicate the accuracy of each observation, we added a
eld called “Observation quality” that is based on our assess-
ment of data reliability. It takes into account the taxa identi-
cation, the spatial location, and the observation date. There
are four categories: (1) accurate data: taxa identification,
location, and date are precisely given; (2) partially accurate
data: location and/or date are given with some vagueness;
(3) possible inaccuracy: where we have reasons to doubt the
Species
Platichthys esus (Linné, 1758) Pleuronectidae European
ounder
Flet
Austropotamobius pallipes
(Lereboullet, 1858)
Astacidae Écrevisse à
pieds blancs
Astacus astacus (Linné, 1758) Astacidae Écrevisse à
pieds rouges
Écrevisse commune, Cancre, Craibosse,
Creuviche, Creuvisse, Écrebisse, Équeurvisse,
Greuche
Orconectes limosus (Ranesque,
1817)
Cambaridae Écrevisse
américaine
Table II. - Continued.
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
82 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
taxa identication, location or date; and (4) incorrect data:
where an observation is clearly inaccurate.
Possible links with other databases
The Sandre (Service d’administration nationale des don-
nées et référentiels sur l’eau) of Onema develops water ref-
erence data sets to promote exchanges between the French
producers of public water data. In order to enable future data
interchange with such databases developed by Onema and
improve the CHIPS database accessibility for a larger audi-
ence, we used the same taxonomic codes and references.
A total of 4283 observations were collected in histori-
cal archives and included in the database. Absence of a taxa
accounted for about 5% of observations. Presence/absence
data had some indications of species abundance for a quarter
of the observations.
Even though published sources represented less than
the half of the documents (Fig. 1), they resulted in approxi-
mately three quarters of the observations. In terms of data
quantity, published sources contained the largest part of the
data. However, handwritten archives frequently provide
obscure or totally new information. This was especially true
in governmental archives for migratory and commercial spe-
cies (for examples, see the questionnaires referenced in the
“Material and methods” section).
About 5% of the observations reported fish restocking
activities (about 1% for species introduction attempts and
2% for extinction events). Additional information about
sh ecology (13%), biometry (14%), catches (8%), and sh
health (less than 1%) was also available in archive sources.
Species and taxa
In total, 58 species or taxa were identied (Tab. II). They
included the following families (with the number of species
in parenthesis): Petromyzontidae (3), Acipenseridae (1),
Anguillidae (1), Clupeidae (2), Cyprinidae (22), Cobitidae
(2), Nemacheilidae (1), Ictaluridae (1), Siluridae (1), Esoci-
dae(1), Osmeridae (1), Salmonidae (11), Gadidae (1), Gas-
terosteidae (2), Mugilidae (1), Percidae (3), Centrarchidae
(2), Cottidae (1) and Pleuronectidae (1) and for crayfish
Astacidae (2) and Cambaridae (1). The two most diverse
families in the Seine basin are the Cyprinidae (37%) and the
Salmonidae (18%).
The species most frequently observed were those com-
mon in the Seine basin and preferentially caught by sher-
men and also in aquaculture (Fig. 2). This is the case for the
trout (mix of taxa), which accounts for more than 7% of all
observations, Salmo salar Linnaeus, 1758, Perca uviatilis
Linnaeus, 1758, and Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758. Anguilla
anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758) has a protection designation that
has changed over time, including a high value species, a par-
tially protected species or a pest species. During the last two
centuries, restocking measures and eradication campaigns
have both been conducted for A. anguilla. Between 1870 and
1890, young A. anguilla were released into many rivers in
the Seine basin. In 1888, in the Department of Aube, 190 000
A. anguilla juveniles were reintroduced into rivers4. In 1877,
thousands of A. anguilla were stocked in small tributaries
of the lower Seine River (particularly in the Cailly, Robec,
and Lézarde rivers) in order to maintain populations5. In
1964, A. anguilla was declared by decree to be undesirable
in salmonid rivers and extensive destruction of populations
was undertaken over nearly twenty years. Finally, in 1985,
4 AN F14 13609: Department of Aube, Ponts et Chaussées engi-
neer report, 1889
5 AN F14 13609: Department of Seine inférieure, Ponts et
Chaussées engineer report, 1879
Figure 2. - Main species in the database
(% of observations). Black bars refer to
taxa identication higher than species
level.
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 83
A. anguilla was removed from the French list of pest spe-
cies (Boude et al., 2007) and the species is now protected
throughout Europe (Anonyme, 2010).
Space and time
Data from more than 220 water bodies were recorded.
Most data were from rivers (80%). The rest was divided
between ponds (12%) and canals (8%). The Seine River
was the water body the most cited in historic sources (23%)
(Tab. III). Major tributaries such as the Yonne, Marne, and
Oise rivers and, to a lesser extent, the Eure and Loing riv-
ers were also cited. There were also some observations from
smaller streams (Fig. 2).
About twenty canals were identied in the documents.
The two major ones were the Bourgogne Canal (35%) and
the Nivernais Canal (15%), both in the Bourgogne region.
There were also many observations for ponds, which were
signicant shing reserves for anglers and sh farmers.
The data cover a large part of the Seine basin and all the
major rivers are mentioned (Fig. 3).
A large part of the data was assigned to the regional scale
(93%) [30% in Bourgogne, 20% in Champagne-Ardenne,
19% in Île-de-France, 16% in Haute-Normandie, 6% in
Picardie, and 2% in Centre], and at the departmental scale
(85%). Fifty-eight percent of data was associated with a city
or a village, but only 7% was precisely located on a river
reach (or a lake or pond).
Table III. - Principal waterbodies.
Major streams Data (%)
Seine 23.0
Yonne 7.5
Marne 6.7
Oise 3.5
Armançon 3.2
Eure 3.2
Bourgogne canal 3.1
Loing 3.0
Vanne 2.5
Others 44.3
Figure 3. - Waterbodies with historical sh data.
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
84 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
Because we focused our archival research on the modern
period, a large majority of data (98.5%) was from the 19th
and 20th centuries. In anticipation of a probable, future, tem-
poral extension of our database, older data were occasion-
ally recorded in CHIPS. The oldest ones date back to the 16th
century.
Data type and reliability
More than 90% of the collected data was classified as
inquiry/summary. Five percent were direct observations or
catches, and the remaining data (4%) were stories and sec-
ond-hand accounts.
Most references (90%) were considered to be accurate.
Only 10% were partially accurate or uncertain. These last
two categories contained stories or second-hand accounts
and, in some cases, were observations on extinction. Authors
may have confused extinction of a species with its absence in
a given river or location. Data in these two categories should
be used with caution.
During the past two centuries, 58 species or taxa have
been identied in the Seine basin (Tab. II). Species for which
the distribution seems to have changed the most are migra-
tory fish. Several species became extinct in the beginning
of the 20th century. Introduced species distribution changed
with on-going colonization of the Seine River system.
Non-native species
Twenty-two non-native species were referenced in the
Seine River system (Tab. IV). The introduction method var-
ied, as well as the species’ country of origin. Some species
were introduced by man and others colonized the basin using
canals connecting catchments (Nelva-Pasqual, 1985; Boët et
al., 1999).
The rediscovery by Remy and Gehin in 1842 of the arti-
cial reproduction of trout (Haxo, 1853) and the creation of
the rst sh breeding institution at Huningue (Haut-Rhin)
responsible for egg distribution to restock French rivers,
in 1853, played a major part in planned fish introductions
(Keith et al., 2011).
For several non-native species, there were contradictions
between the date of the first observation in the historical
record and the date cited in the literature for their introduc-
tion in the Seine basin (Belliard, 1994; Boët et al., 1999).
For most introduced species, the observation date was sever-
al years after their known introduction date. For some others,
such as Silurus glanis Linnaeus, 1758 and Leuciscus idus
Table IV. - List of non-native species present in the Seine basin. The rst observation date corresponds to the oldest date mentioned in the
CHIPS database. Dates of introduction cited in the literature are mainly extracted from Belliard (1994), Boët et al. (1999) and Keith and
Allardi (2001). * dates corresponding to the Seine basin.
Non-native species First observation date Date of introduction in the Seine basin or
in France cited in the literature
Carassius carassius (Linné, 1758) 1868 (De La Blanchère, 1868) 18th century
Carassius auratus (Linné, 1758) 1843 (Ray, 1843) 18th century
Carassius gibellio (Bloch, 1782) 1843 (Ray, 1843) 20th century
Cyprinus carpio (Linné, 1758) 1851 (Ray, 1851) Middle ages
Chondrostoma nasus (Linné, 1766) 1860 (Moreau, 1898) About 1860
Hypophthalmichtys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844) 1948 (Elluin, 1948) In the last part of the 20th century
Leucaspius delineatus (Heckel, 1843) 1946 (Spillmann, 1961) 20th century
Leuciscus idus (Linné, 1766) 1864 (Bert, 1986) About 1995
Ameirus melas (Ranesque, 1820) 1871 (Jeunet, 1894) 1871
Silurus glanis (Linné, 1758) 1875 (Millet, 1875) About 1980
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Richardson, 1836) 1893 (AN F* 13611-Jacob, 1896) About 1880
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum, 1792) 1878 (Jeunet, 1891) 1877 in France
Salvelinus umbla (Linné, 1758) 1863 (F* 6048-1869) Autochthonous in France, in the Alps
Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill, 1815) 1885 (Vacher, 1892) About 1880
Hucho hucho (Linné, 1758) 1864 (AN F* 13595-Coste, 1864) In the last part of the 20th century in France
Thymallus thymallus (Linné, 1758) 1965 (Spillmann, 1965) About 1960
Coregonus lavaretus (Linné, 1758) 1861 (Roger-Desgenettes, 1863) Autochthonous in France, in the Alps
Coregonus clupeoides (Lacepède, 1803) 1893 (De Confévron, 1893) (disappear) In the last part of the 20th century in France
Gymnochephalus cernuus (Linné, 1758) 1797 (Lacombe, 1797) In the beginning of 18th century
Sander lucioperca (Linné, 1758) 1827 (Baudrillart, 1827) About 1960
Lepomis gibbosus (Linné, 1758) 1948 (Elluin, 1948) About 1885
Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802) 1904 (Roger, 1906) About 1890
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 85
(Linnaeus, 1758), some observations predate the recog-
nised, successful introduction. It is possible that these
individuals were a remnant population from previous
introduction attempts thought to have failed. In 1854,
the Société impériale zoologique d’acclimatation was
created, whose mission was to introduce, acclimatize,
and domesticate useful or ornamental species (Keith et
al., 2011). Consequently, some sh were introduced for
scientic purposes (to increase diversity of sh fauna),
such as S. glanis, L. idus, Ameiurus melas (Ranesque,
1820), and Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758), and
some others for commercial purposes, such as Micro-
pterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802), Salvelinus fonti-
nalis, Oncorhynchus mykiss, and O. tshawytscha (Wal-
baum, 1792). These last species originally came from
North America and were introduced into French rivers
during the 19th century to increase stocks, and were
much valued by French fishermen. This introduction
coincided with the development of angling as a sport.
For some species, especially salmonids, introduction
attempts did not result in established populations (e.g.
O. tshawytscha, Salvelinus umbla (Linnaeus, 1758),
and Coregonus sp.). Others are still present in the basin
today, probably due to continuous stocking practices
(e.g. S. fontinalis and O. mykiss). The cases of S. glanis
and L. idus illustrate that, for some species, repeated
introduction was necessary before permanent popula-
tions became established.
There have also been some unplanned introduc-
tions, notably of Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758)
and Chondrostoma nasus (Linnaeus, 1758). In the
beginning of the 19th century, Baudrillart (1827) noted
the presence, though very rare, of S. lucioperca in the
Seine River. This rst mention for the Seine catchment
is based on an account that could not have been checked
by the author. The rst catch in France was document-
ed much later, in 1888, in the river Rhine (Armengaud,
1962 in Keith et al., 2011). At the beginning of the 20th
century, this species from central Europe extended its
range to the west and the south, colonizing the canals
connecting the Rhine River to the Marne and Rhône
Rivers (Spillmann, 1961). Around 1950, the coloniza-
tion of Seine basin was confirmed and even if canal
connections between catchments were major coloniza-
tion pathways, stocking promoted by French sheries
associations, considerably favoured the establishment
of sander (Goubier, 1975). C. nasus is a similar exam-
ple. It is probable that many sh species used the canals
Figure 4. - Distribution changes of Salmo salar in the Seine
basin during the last two centuries.
Main migratory axis; Location of active spawning
grounds; Sporadic salmon observations; Stocking
attemps.
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
86 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
connecting the different European river basins to reach the
Seine basin (Nelva-Pasqual, 1985).
Evolution of migratory sh distribution: the case of Salmo
salar
Little is known about the early distribution of S. salar
in the Seine River basin. During the 19th century, spawning
grounds were recorded only in some small tributaries of the
Seine River estuary (Gadeau de Kerville, 1897) and in the
upper basin on the Cure River (Moreau, 1898; Poplin, 1952;
Fig. 4). It was commonly thought that its distribution area
was restricted to the Seine-Yonne-Cure axis and to a lesser
extent to the mouth of the Eure, Andelle and Epte Rivers, all
situated in the Haute-Normandie region (Thibault, 1987).
Even though the Seine-Yonne-Cure axis represented the
main path for the migration of S. salar during the 19th cen-
tury, our data show that the species was also observed (but in
low numbers) in several other places throughout the Seine
basin (Fig. 4), suggesting an earlier, larger, geographical dis-
tribution.
The cause of salmon population decline during the 19th
century is often attributed to overfishing, pollution and
development of reservoirs and dams in the upper basin that
were built to oat timber downstream (Belliard, 1994). The
construction of the Settons Dam (19 m in height) on the Cure
River was completed in 1858 and closed access to upstream
spawning grounds (Moreau, 1898). The weir at Poses locat-
ed in the estuarine part of the Seine River was put in service
in 1885. It also contributed to the decline of migratory spe-
cies. In the beginning of the 20th century, the sh catch of
S. salar was only several tens of kilograms per year. During
the same period, it was about 57 tons per year in the Loire
basin (Euzenat et al., 1992).
Canalization of rivers for navigation purposes began
in 1830 in the centre of the basin and later extended to the
lower Seine River basin. It progressively increased the
number of barriers to sh migration (Lavollée, 1902). A sec-
ond phase of river canalization, starting in 1879, resulted in
higher weirs and lock systems. This precipitated the decline
of migratory stocks, particularly for Salmo salar (Mouchel
et al., 1998; Belliard et al., 2009). During the same period,
domestic and industrial pollution from Paris led to the pro-
gressive degradation of water quality in the lower Seine that
introduced a new and important negative pressure on migra-
tory sh populations (Lavollée, 1902; Belliard et al., 2009).
Our data also highlight the underestimation of the wide-
spread use of stocking starting in the second part of the 19th
century. Stocking with eggs or ngerlings was implemented
in many places in the basin (Fig. 4), including places with no
historical record of native salmon populations. Stocking did
not result in permanent populations.
Despite stocking and several attempts to reduce the neg-
ative impact of dams, the populations of S. salar declined
progressively, resulting in their extinction at the begin-
ning of the 20th century. However, relict populations may
have persisted later in some tributaries in the estuarine part
of the Seine. Between 1867 and 1895, a mean of two tons
(0.4-10.5 tons) of S. salar was still caught annually in sher-
ies in the Rouen region. Between 1896 and 1919, the total
annual catch of S. salar fell to a few tens of kilograms in the
same reach (Euzenat et al., 1992). In 1902, S. salar migra-
tions still occurred but to a much-diminished extent (Lavol-
lée, 1902) and, in 1920, regular migrations had denitively
stopped along the Seine-Yonne-Cure axis (Roule, 1920).
After the extinction of S. salar as a breeding population, the
Seine estuary still remained an attractive area for large sal-
monid sh (sea trout and, to a lesser extent, S. salar), even
during the 1960’s when the pollution level was at its highest
(Arrignon, 1967). No new upstream salmon migration was
observed until very recently (Perrier et al., 2010).
In 1970, anoxic events occurred at the waste water treat-
ment plant at Achères located just downstream of Paris
resulting in the elimination of several migratory shes (Bel-
liard et al., 2009; Rochard et al., 2009). Since the end of
the 1990’s, several migratory fish species extirpated from
the Seine catchment during the 20th century have under-
gone natural re-colonisation. This results directly from the
on-going improvement of water quality in the lower part of
the Seine River (Belliard et al., 2009). Today, S. salar swims
up the Seine at least to downstream of Paris. In 2008, 260
specimens of S. salar were counted at the Poses sh pass and
some spawning grounds have been identied in small tribu-
taries of the estuarine part of the Seine River, particularly in
the Andelle and Risle catchments.
Local assemblage evolution: three examples from the
“Département de l’ Yonne” (Seine basin)
We studied change in the sh community composition in
the three river reaches, for which historic species abundance
was the most precisely documented at the end of the 19th
century (Fig. 5). The historical data are from Moreau (1897,
1898), who specically described sh species presence and
abundance for several rivers and streams in the “Départe-
ment de l’Yonne” at the end of the 19th century. Current sh
data are from numerous electroshing sampling events. To
facilitate the comparison between historical and electrosh-
ing data, the abundance of a sh was coded from 1 to 5. His-
torical data were coded 1 for a species documented as “rare”
or “very rare”, 2 for “quite rare” or “uncommon”, 3 for
“somewhat”, 4 for “common”, and 5 for “very common”. To
assess present day species abundance, we used a recent set
of electroshing data from the same river reaches. A species
was coded 1 when it was infrequently sampled with a low
population density, and was coded 5 when it was systemati-
cally sampled with a high population density (intermediate
situations were coded 2, 3 or 4, depending on species occur-
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 87
rence and density). We are aware that these two methods of
assessing species abundance are probably not totally equiv-
alent. However, we think they are useful for highlighting
major changes in sh assemblage composition.
Between the end of the 19th century and the decade
2000-2010, the sh assemblage changed considerably in the
Créanton River, the smallest river, with a signicant reduc-
tion of limnophilic species (preferring slow owing condi-
tions). In the Ouanne River, the proportion of rheophilic spe-
cies (preferring high ow conditions) increased [e.g. Salmo
trutta fario Linnaeus, 1758, Lampetra planeri (Bloch, 1784),
Leuciscus leuciscus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Squalius cephalus
(Linnaeus, 1758)]. In the Armançon, which is the largest
river of the three, the distribution remained about the same.
At this point no definitive conclusion can be drawn to
explain the sh community change observed in
smaller streams. Instead, we propose hypoth-
eses about both large spatial scale and local
processes. If climate warming has had a sig-
nicant impact on the sh population at these
sites, we might note a general increase in warm-
water species, which was not systematically
observed. Indeed, the sh community changes
are different from one site to another, and it is
likely that they are controlled by local factors.
The local modifications of the morphology
of the streams, such as channelization, with a
consequent increase the river slope, and the
removal of low head dams, with a consequent
increase in the ow velocity and/or a reduction
of the river depth, could explain the reduction
of limnophilic sh species and/or the increase
of rheophilic species observed in the Créan-
ton and the Ouanne rivers. At a regional scale,
reduction of lakes and ponds in the catchment
area, and disruption of the connections between
small streams and large rivers, which are colo-
nisation sources for numerous sh species, may
also explain the reduction in limnophilic spe-
cies in the Créanton River. Recent improvement
of water quality might also explain part of the
change in the sh assemblage at the two small-
est sites. Finally, change in the sh assemblage
appeared to be more pronounced in smaller
rivers, suggesting that they may have suffered
more drastic environmental changes than in
larger rivers. This tendency should be conrmed
by further analysis on additional rivers experi-
encing on-going anthropogenic pressure.
The CHIPS database, presented here for
the rst time, compiles a considerable amount of historical
data from the last two centuries about sh distribution in the
Seine River basin (see Annexe 1). Some data sources are
well-known, classical ichthyology books, but the majority of
the sources were difcult to access (particularly handwrit-
ten papers) and most information came from very detailed
research in different archives and libraries. The data greatly
expand our knowledge of the Seine sh fauna and its history.
This database project was originally developed during inter-
disciplinary discussions with a variety of specialists: fish
biologists and ecologists, historians, and archaeozoologists.
In the future, we plan to extend CHIPS to a broader tem-
poral scale and, possibly, include complementary data sourc-
es, such as drawings, photographs, maps, and archaeological
Figure 5. - Species abundance for three rivers: Créanton River (top), Armançon
River (middle), Ouanne River (bottom); in grey: historical data, in black: actual
data.
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
88 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
data. We also plan to georeference the data in GIS in order
to link each historical sh observation with a site. However,
georeferencing will be a complex task, rst because the loca-
tion of historical sh observations can be very imprecise and
second because river channels and other waterbodies have
undergone considerable change during the historical time
period (for example, the ponds “du Der”, for which we have
historical data, have now disappeared and have been replaced
by a lake, “Lac du Der”, which covers a much larger area).
The types of data gathered in CHIPS might be useful to
environmental history specialists to better describe the evo-
lution of aquatic environments through historical time and
to understand the relationships between human societies and
freshwater sh communities. Our database also makes new
information available to ecologists, including such subjects
as sh community response to climate change and to anthro-
pogenic pressure over long time periods (colonization and
extinction mechanisms, their impact on their environment,
and conservation of endangered species). While recent cli-
mate warming is considered as a major driver for long term
modications in French river sh communities (Daufresne
and Boët, 2007), preliminary analysis of some of the CHIPS
data suggests, that at a local scale, other anthropogenic pres-
sures might also be decisive. Our data may contribute to the
on-going discussion on the concept of “reference condi-
tions” that is at the centre of biomonitoring tools’ develop-
ment (Hering et al., 2010).
Finally, CHIPS is a step in the development of interdisci-
plinary research, a necessary, integrative approach needed to
thoroughly understand how human societies have modied
aquatic ecosystems over years and centuries, and also show
sh communities answer to these anthropogenic pressures
on the aquatic environment. Understanding these interac-
tions will lead to improvement in sh management planning
for the restoration and preservation of species and their eco-
systems.
. – This project was nancially supported by
Onema (the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Envi-
ronments) and the PIREN-Seine Program. We are particularly
grateful to L. Beaulaton, N. Poulet, and C. Pénil (Onema) and
P. Keith, S. Corbin, and H. Dacosta (MNHN) for helpful discus-
sions. We thank Deborah Slawson who greatly helped with the
proofreading of this manuscript.
ANONYME, 2010. - Plan de gestion anguille de la France. Appli-
cation du règlement R(CE) n°1100/2007 du 18 septembre 2007.
Volet national 3 février 2010. 120 p. Onema, ministère de
l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement durable et de la
Mer, et ministère de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la
Pêche.
ARRIGNON J., 1967. - Comportement de l’espèce “Salmo trutta”
dans le bassin de la Seine. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 227: 56-71.
BAUDRILLART M., 1827. - Traité général des eaux et forêts,
chasses et pêches. Quatrième partie. Dictionnaire des pêches.
639 p. Paris: Arthus Bertrand.
BELLIARD J., 1994. - Le peuplement ichtyologique du bassin de
la Seine. Rôle et signication des échelles temporelles et spa-
tiales. PhD Thesis, 197 p. Univ. Paris 6, France.
BELLIARD J., BOËT P. & ALLARDI J ., 1995. - Évolution à long
terme du peuplement piscicole du bassin de la Seine. Bull. Fr.
Pêche Piscic., 337/338/339: 83-91.
BELLIARD J. MARCHAL J., DITCHE J.M., TALES E., SABATIÉ
R. & BAGLINIÈRE J.L., 2009. - Return of adult anadromous
allis shad (Alosa alosa L.) in the river Seine, France: a sign of
river recovery? River Res. Appl., 25: 788-794.
BELLOC E., 1898. - Nomenclature synonymique des principaux
poissons d’eau douce. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 10: 243-
429.
BOËT P., BELLIARD J., BERREBI-DIT-THOMAS R. & TALES
E., 1999. - Multiple human impacts by the City of Paris on sh
communities in the Seine river basin, France. Hydrobiologia,
410: 59-68.
BOUDE J.P., BONHOMMEAU S., CADIOU J.R., LESUEUR M.
& LE GREL L., 2007. - Analyse de la demande sociale s’adres-
sant aux espèces amphihalines : le cas de l’anguille dans le bas-
sin de la Vilaine. Rapport nal. 120 p. Agro-campus Rennes et
Institution d’aménagement de la Vilaine.
BUISSON L., THUILLIER W., LEK S., LIM P. & GRENOUIL-
LET G., 2008. - Climate change hastens the turnover of stream
sh assemblages. Global Change Biol., 14: 2232-2248.
CARREL G., 2002. - Prospecting for historical sh data from the
Rhone River basin: A contribution to the assessment of refer-
ence conditions. Arch. Hydrobiol., 155: 273-290.
COSTIL K., DAUVIN J.C., DUHAMEL S., HOCDE R., MOUNY
P., & DE ROTON G., 2002. - Patrimoine biologique et chaînes
alimentaires. Fascicule Seine-Aval, n° 7, 48 p.
DAUFRESNE M. & BOËT P., 2007. - Climate change impacts on
structure and diversity of fish communities in rivers. Global
Change Biol., 13: 2467-2478.
DUCHARNE A., BAUBIO C., BEAUDOIN N. et al. [17 authors],
2007. - Long term prospective of the Seine River system: con-
fronting climatic and direct anthropogenic changes. Sci. Total
Environ., 375: 292-311.
EUZENAT G., PÉNIL C. & ALLARDI J., 1992. - Migr’en Seine.
Stratégie pour le retour du saumon en Seine. 39 p. SIAAP-CSP.
GADEAU DE KERVILLE H., 1897. - Faune de la Normandie.
Bull. Soc. Amis. Sci. Nat. Rouen, 4e sér., 1896: 10-623.
GAMMON J.R., 2005. - Wabash river shes from 1800 to 2000.
Am. Fish. Soc. Symp., 45: 365-381.
GOUBIER J., 1975. - Biogéographie, biométrie et biologie du san-
dre Lucioperca lucioperca (L.), Osteichthyen, Percidé. PhD
thesis, 259 p. Univ. Claude Bernard Lyon, France.
HAXO, 1853. - De la fécondation articielle des œufs de poissons
et de leur éclosion au moyen des procédés découverts par MM.
Rémy et Géhin, pour assurer le repeuplement des cours d’eau.
Ann. Soc. Emul. Dép. Vosges, 8: 13-93.
HERING D., BORJA A., CARSTENSEN J. et al. [12 authors],
2010. - The European Water Framework Directive at the age of
10: a critical review of the achievements with recommenda-
tions for the future. Sci. Total Environ., 408: 4007-4019.
KEITH P, 1998. - Évolutions des peuplements ichtyologiques de
France et stratégies de conservation. PhD Thesis, 235 p. Univ.
Rennes 1, France.
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 89
KEITH P. & ALLARDI J., 2001. - Atlas des poissons d’eau douce
de France. Patrimoines Nat., 47: 1-387. Paris: MNHN.
KEITH P., PERSAT H., FEUNTEUN E. & ALLARDI J., 2011. -
Les poissons d’eau douce de France. 552 p. Paris: MNHN,
Mèze: Biotopes.
KOTTELAT M & FREYHOF J., 2007. - Hanbook of European
Freshwater Fishes. 646 p. Cornol, Switzerland: Kottelat, Ber-
lin, Germany: Freyhof.
LASSALLE G. & ROCHARD E., 2009. - Impact of twenty-rst
century climate change on diadromous sh spread over Europe,
North Africa and the Middle East. Global Change Biol., 15:
1072-1089.
LAVOLLÉE G., 1902. - Le saumon en Seine. Bull. Soc. Cent.
Aquic. Pêche, 14: 221-234.
LELEK A., 1989. - The Rhine River and Some of its tributaries
under human impact in the last two centuries. In: Proceedings
of the International Large River Symposium (Dodge D.P., ed.).
Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 106: 469-487.
LOGEZ M. & PONT D., 2013. - Global warming and potential
shift in reference conditions: the case of functional sh-based
metrics. Hydrobiologia, 704: 417-436.
MOREAU E., 1897. - Les poissons du département de l’Yonne.
Bull. Soc. Sci. Hist. Nat. Yonne, 51:143-227.
MOREAU E., 1898. - Les poissons du département de l’Yonne.
Bull. Soc. Sci. Hist. Nat. Yonne, 52:3-82.
MOUCHEL J.M., BOËT P., HUBERT G. & GUERRINI M.C.,
1998. - Un bassin et des hommes: une histoire tourmentée. In:
La Seine en son bassin. Fonctionnement écologique d’un sys-
tème uvial anthropisé (Meybeck M.,de Marsilly M. & Fustec
E. eds), pp. 77-125, Paris: Elsevier.
NELVA-PASQUAL A., 1985. - Biogéographie, démographie et
écologie de Chondrostoma nasus nasus (L., 1758) (Hotu, Pois-
son, Téléostéen, Cyprinidé). PhD thesis, 362 p. Univ. Lyon 1,
France.
PERRIER C., EVANNO G., BELLIARD J., GUYOMARD R., &
BAGLINIÈRE J.L., 2010. - Natural recolonization of the Seine
River by Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) of multiple origins.
Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci., 67: 1-4.
POPLIN R., 1952. - Le peuplement des eaux de l’Yonne moyenne.
Bull. Fr. Piscic., 164: 109-114.
RINNE J.N., HUGHES R.M. & CALAMUSSO B., 2005. - Histori-
cal changes in large river fish assemblages of the Americas.
Am. Fish. Soc. Symp., 45: 1-612.
ROCHARD E., PELLEGRINI P., MARCHAL J., BÉGUER M.,
OMBREDANE D., LASSALLE G., MENVIELLE E. &
BAGLINIÈRE J.L., 2009. - Identication of diadromous sh
species on which to focus river restoration: an example using
an eco-anthropological approach (the Seine basin, France). Am.
Fish. Soc. Symp., 69: 691-711.
ROULE L., 1920. - Les espèces d’aloses du bassin de la Seine.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 27: 124-125.
SPILLMANN J.C., 1961. - Faune de France, poissons d’eau douce.
303 p. Paris: Paul Lechevalier.
THIBAULT M., 1987. - Éléments de la problématique du saumon
atlantique en France. In: Restauration des rivières à saumon
(Thibault M. & Billard R., eds), pp. 414-425. Paris: INRA.
WOLTER C., MINOW J., VILCINSKAS A. & GROSCH U.A.,
2000. - Long-term effects of human inuence on sh commu-
nity structure and sheries in Berlin waters: an urban water sys-
tem. Fish. Manage. Ecol., 7: 97-104.
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
90 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
Fontainebleau’s archives
Versement 19770761 : transports, service des voies navigables
et du domaine public
* art. 19-21 : Pêches scientiques (1925-1975)
Versement 19890468 : agriculture, direction forêts
* art. 1-12 : Commissions de la pêche fluviale (1942-1949),
Commissions des embouchures uviales (1899) : questionnaire sur
les migrateurs, Commissions des estuaires (1924)
* art. 32 : Pêche dans les étangs, dossiers d’affaires (1899-
1941)
* art. 44 : Législation sur la pêche (1941-1961)
Versement 19920558 : environnement, direction de la pêche
* art. 1-4 : Projets de lois et décrets divers sur la pêche uviale
(1986-1939)
* art. 10-11 : Exploitation de la pêche (baux et adjudications,
circulaires, correspondances (1922-1982)
* art. 18-24 : Espèces (1877-1984)
Caran
Série F10 : agriculture
* 4361 : Pêche dans les cours d’eau non navigables ni ottables
Série F14 : travaux publics
Navigation uviale et maritime, police des eaux, hydraulique et
agriculture, industrie
* 3599 : Législation sur la pêche : révision du décret du 10 août
1875
* 13595 et 13596 : Législation de la pêche (1802-1890)
* 13598 et 13599 : Applications et révisions du décret du 10
août 1875
* 13600 à 13606 et 13609 : Révision de la législation (1879-
1911), Réglementation de la pêche du saumon (1832-1898), Echel-
les à poissons (1892-1896), Anguilles et écrevisses (1880)
* 13611 : Législation de la pêche. Pisciculture (1854-1913)
* 13613 à 13618 : Législation de la pêche, Barrages et échelles
à poisson (1843-1910),
* 13620 et 13621 : Législation de la pêche. Réserves de pêche
(1868-1934)
* 6048 : Service hydraulique des Ponts et Chaussées - Pêches-
uviales : comptes-rendus d’inspection (1860-1870)
* 16564 : Police de la pêche et de la navigation : réglementa-
tion de la pêche
Série S : travaux publics et transports
14 S Pêche uviale
* 3 : Pêche uviale, règlements
Arrêtés de la police uviale et de la préfecture de l’Eure, cor-
respondances, rapports des Ponts et Chaussées
* 6 : Pêche uviale, pisciculture
Rapports du service de la pêche des Ponts et Chaussées
Délibérations du conseil général
* 11 : Pêche sur l’Andelle et la Charentonne
Police de la pêche, rapports d’inspection des Eaux et forêts, let-
tres de plaintes
* 12 : Pêche sur l’Eure (1941-1950)
Rapports des Ponts et Chaussées, des Eaux et forêts, procès-
verbaux d’alevinage, délits de pêche
* 13 : Pêche sur la Seine
6
ALBERT-PETIT G., CUNISSET-CARNOT, JOUSSET DE BEL-
LESME, JOYEUX-LATFUIE, LAUNAY M., MAISON E. ,
MARSILLON C., CARRÉ M., MINVILLE, PÉREZ C.,
POYET G. & VOULQUIN G., 1933. - La pêche moderne.
1 vol., 590 p. Paris: Larousse
ANDRÉ M., 1935. - Sur un prétendu caractère spécique de l’écre-
visse à pieds blancs (Astacus pallipes). Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic.
Pêche, 42: 53-54.
ANDRÉ M., 1935. - Sur une écrevisse américaine pullulant aux
portes de Paris. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 42: 30-31.
ANDRÉ M., 1938. - Sur l’acclimatation en France d’une écrevisse
américaine. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 114: 42-48.
ANDRÉ M., 1939. - Les crustacés comestibles de nos eaux douces.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 46: 33-45.
ANONYME, 1889. - Séance générale du 23 mai 1889. Bull. Soc.
Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 1: 32-34.
ANONYME, 1890. - Séance générale du 21 novembre 1889. Bull.
Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 1: 158-159.
ANONYME, 1893. - La pisciculture à l’école pratique d’agricultu-
re de Saint-Bon à Champcourt (Haute-Marne). Bull. Soc. Cent.
Aquic. Pêche, 5: 51-56.
ANONYME, 1894. - Pendant la fermeture. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic.
Pêche, 6: 165-167.
ANONYME, 1898. - Élevage des écrevisses dans les eaux stagnan-
tes. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 10: 114-115.
ANONYME, 1898. - La station aquicole du Nid-de-Verdier, dirigée
par M. Raveret-Wattel. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 10: 139-
140.
ANONYME, 1910. - Repeuplement du Loing en Salmonides. Bull.
Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 22: 290-291.
ANONYME, 1911. - Une invasion de carassins dorés. Bull. Soc.
Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 23: 175-176.
ANONYME, 1928. - Le plus gros brochet. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 6: 141.
ANONYME, 1930. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 20: 185-186.
ANONYME, 1931. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 32: 240.
ANONYME, 1932. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 44: 244.
ANONYME, 1933. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 56: 262.
ANONYME, 1935. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 81: 230.
ANONYME, 1936. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 94: 225-226.
6 : “For some references (historical data), initial
of author’s name are not mentioned, as they do not appear in
books and library contents lists.”
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 91
ANONYME, 1937. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 104: 206.
ANONYME, 1937. - Procès-verbal de la séance du 5 novembre
1936. Bull. Soc. Nat. Acclim., 84: 105.
ANONYME, 1938. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 111: 106.
ANONYME, 1939. - Gros poissons. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 116: 159.
ANONYME, 1945. - Analyses bibliographiques. Bull. Fr. Piscic.,
139: 82.
BAUDRILLART M., 1827. - Traité général des Eaux et Forêts,
Chasses et Pêches. 4e partie [II], Dictionnaire des pêches. 638 p.
Paris: Arthus Bertrand.
BELLOC E., 1898. - Noms scientiques et vulgaires des princi-
paux poissons d’eau douce. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 10:
233-304.
BELON P., 1555. - La nature et la diversité des poissons, avec leurs
pourtraicts, representez au plus près du naturel. 448 p. Paris:
Chez Charles Estienne.
BERT P., 1986. - Le catalogue des vertébrés de l’Yonne de Paul
Bert. Réedit., 150 p. Dijon: Centre régional de documentation
pédagogique.
BLANCHARD E., 1866. - Les poissons des eaux douces de Fran-
ce : anatomie, physiologie, description des espèces, moeurs,
instincts, industrie, commerce, ressources alimentaires, pisci-
culture, législation concernant la pêche. 656 p. Paris: Baillière.
BOISSET (DE) L., 1948. - Poissons des rivières de France, histoire
naturelle pour les pêcheurs. 2 tomes en 1 vol. Paris: Librairie
des Champs-Élysées.
BREHM A.E., 1885. - Les poissons et les crustacés. 836 p. Paris:
Baillière & Fils.
BRÉQUEVILLE (DE), 1894. - Correspondance : extraits de lettres
de M. de Bréqueville. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 6: 111-
113.
BRÉQUEVILLE (DE), 1904. - Procès-verbaux des séances du
Congrès national d’aquiculture. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche,
16: 189-213.
BROCCHI P., 1889. - Note sur l’état actuel de la pisciculture d’eau
douce. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 1: 6-11.
BROCCHI P., 1896. - La pisciculture dans les eaux douces. 328 p.
Paris: Max et Motteroz.
BRUNET, 1959. - Les poissons carnassiers de repeuplement. Bull.
Fr. Piscic., 193: 162-171.
CHIMITS P., 1947. - Aménagement piscicole des étangs du Der
(Haute-Marne). Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 54: 2-12.
CONFÉVRON (DE), 1893. - Extrait d’une lettre de M. De Confé-
vron. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 5: 39-41.
CONFÉVRON (DE), 1894. - De quelques bassins articiels fran-
çais propres à la pisciculture, 2e note, la Mouche et la Liez.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 6: 128-134.
CONFÉVRON (DE), 1894. - Quelques mots sur la pisciculture
dans la Haute-Marne. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 6: 219-
220.
CUVIER G. & VALENCIENNES A., 1828-1849. - Histoire natu-
relle des poissons. 22 Vol. Paris: F.G. Levrault.
DAMAIN, 1904. - Procès-verbaux des séances. Congrès national
d’aquiculture, Paris. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 16:189-
213.
DELPEUCH A., 1894. - Correspondance : extrait d’une lettre du
R.P. A. Delpeuch. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 6: 110-111.
DEMORLAINE T., 1937. - La pêche dans les lacs parisiens. Bull.
Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 44: 44-48.
DESVAUX A.N., 1851. - Essai d’ichtyologie des côtes océaniques
et de l’intérieur de la France ou diagnose des poissons obser-
vés. 175 p. Angers: Cosnier & Lachèse.
DROUIN DE BOUVILLE (DE) R., 1905. - Les repeuplements en
écrevisses. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 17: 182-190; 209-
239; 257-293; 305-319.
DROUIN DE BOUVILLE (DE) R., 1906. - L’assainissement des
rivières. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 18: 3-15.
DROUIN DE BOUVILLE (DE) R., 1910. - La pratique des repeu-
plements en écrevisses. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 22:
17-32.
DROUIN DE BOUVILLE (DE) R., 1929. - Le roman du saumon.
Bull. Fr. Piscic., 15: 54-57.
DUHAMEL DU MONCEAU H.L., 1769. - Traité général des pes-
ches et histoire des poissons qu’elles fournissent, tant pour la
subsistance des hommes que pour plusieurs autres usages qui
ont rapport aux arts et au commerce. 4 tomes en 3 vol. Paris:
Saillant & Nyon.
ELLUIN J., 1948. - La France du pêcheur. 2e edit., 438 p. Paris:
Seteca.
EMPIRE G., 1936. - La lotte de rivière. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic.
Pêche, 43: 33-44.
EMPIRE G., 1938. - Observation sur l’accouplement et la mue
chez les Cambarus. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 45: 51-54.
EMPIRE G., 1940. - Sur les moeurs de la brème de Buggenhagen.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 47: 56-57.
EMPIRE G., 1943. - Nanisme et gigantisme chez nos poissons
d’eau douce. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 50: 19-21.
GADEAU DE KERVILLE H., 1885. - Aperçu de la faune actuelle
de la Seine et de son embouchure (depuis Rouen jusqu’au
Havre). In: L’estuaire de la Seine. Mémoires, notes et docu-
ments (Lennier G., ed.), pp. 168-287.
GADEAU DE KERVILLE H., 1897. - Faune de la Normandie.
Bull. Soc. Amis. Sci. Nat. Rouen, 4e sér., 32e année, 1er sem.,
1896: 10-623.
GALLOIS C., 1946. - L’alose du Rhône. Bull. Fr. Piscic., 143:
72-79.
GEORGE M., 1881. - Commission de repeuplement des eaux :
résumé de l’enquête. 99 p. Imprimerie du Sénat P. Mouillot.
GERDIL H. & LEFEBVRE A., 1910. - Les résultats du réempois-
sonnement articiel : l’œuvre de la “truite châtillonnaise”. Bull.
Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 22: 192-193.
GERVAIS H. &. BOULART R., 1897. - Les poissons d’eau douce :
synonymie - description - mœurs - fraie - pêche - iconographie.
233 p. Paris: J. Rotschild.
GIRARD M., 1860. - Note sur les écrevisses et sur leur reproduc-
tion pour l’usage alimentaire. Bull. Soc. Imp. Zool. Acclim.,
7:187-189.
GRANDCHAMP P., 1911. - Le goujon et l’ablette en étang. Bull.
Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 23: 238-239.
GRANDJEAN, 1926. - Les établissements de pisciculture de la
ville de Paris : leur origine, leur consistance, leur but. Bull. Soc.
Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 33: 65-80.
GRIFFE J., 1959. - Une opération de sauvegarde dans la Seine.
Bull. Fr. Piscic., 194: 33.
CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database Beslagic e t a l .
92 Cybium 2013, 37(1-2)
HUËT P., 1900. - Recherches aquicoles faites dans la bassin de la
Seine pendant les années 1898, 1899 et 1900. Bull. Soc. Cent.
Aquic. Pêche, 12: 269-282.
JANNETTAZ E., 1862. - Histoire naturelle : les poissons. 46 p.
Paris: N.-J. Philippart.
JEUNET M., 1889. - Réappartition de la maladie des écrevisses.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 4: 128.
JEUNET M., 1891. - Note sur le saumon quinnat. Bull. Soc. Cent.
Aquic. Pêche, 3: 112-113.
JEUNET M., 1894. - Note sur le cat-sh. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic.
Pêche, 6: 251-252.
JOUSSET DE BELLESME G., 1892. - Acclimatation du saumon
de Californie dans le bassin de la Seine. Bull. Soc. Nat. Acclim.,
39: 633-639.
KARR A., 1860. - La pêche en eau douce et en eau salée : histoire,
mœurs, habitudes des poissons, crustacés, testacés, etc. Lois,
usages, procédés, ruses et secrets des pêcheurs. 320 p. Paris:
Michel Levy frères.
LA BLANCHÈRE (DE) H., 1868. - La pêche et les poissons : nou-
veau dictionnaire général des pêches. 589 p. Paris: C. Delagra-
ve & Cie.
LA BLANCHÈRE (DE) H., 1877. - L’aquiculture en France, en
Europe et en Amérique. Bull. Soc. Acclim., 4: 617-640.
LACEPÈDE (DE) E., 1798-1803. - Histoire naturelle des poissons.
5 Vol. Paris: Plassan.
LACOMBE J., 1797. - Dictionnaire de toutes les espèces de pêches.
2 parties en 1 vol. (XII-323-[1bl.] p. ; 27-[1] p., 114 f. de pl.
gr.s.c.). Padoue.
LAVOLLÉE G., 1902. - Le saumon en Seine. Bull. Soc. Cent.
Aquic. Pêche, 14: 221-234.
LAVOLLÉE G., 1902. - Les échelles à poissons : étude du système
Caméré. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 14: 285-313.
LAVOLLÉE G., 1906. - Contribution à l’étude du poisson-chat,
son acclimatation dans le réservoir de Saint-Fargeau (Yonne).
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 18: 289-298.
LE CLERC J., 1941. - Notes sur des essais de multiplication arti-
cielle de l’alose dans le bassin de la Loire. Bull. Fr. Piscic.,
123: 27-37.
LEFÈVRE M., 1941. - Recherches hydrobiologiques sur les riviè-
res, mares et étangs du domaine de Rambouillet. Bull. Fr. Pis-
cic., 122: 89-143.
LESOURD, 1902. - L’établissement de pisciculture de Saint-Dizier.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 14: 198-206.
LEUSSE (DE) M., 1913. - Note sur un nouvel essai d’acclimata-
tion du black bass à grande bouche (Micropterus salmoides,
Lacepède) dans la rivière d’Eure. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche,
25: 6.
MARCHAL, 1911. - Les résultats du réempoissonnement artifi-
ciel : l’œuvre de la Gaule régionale Auberivienne. Bull. Soc.
Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 23: 172-173.
MÉGNIN P., 1890. - Note sur quelques maladies des poissons. Bull.
Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 2: 177-182.
MEUNIER V., 1871. - Les grandes pêches. 328 p. Paris: Hachette
& Cie.
MILLET C., 1857. - Pisciculture pratique appliquée à l’empoisson-
nement des cours d’eau. Bull. Soc. Nat. Acclim., 3: 77-83.
MILLET C., 1875. - Les merveilles des euves et des ruisseaux.
360 p. Paris: Hachette.
MILLET C., 1881 - Les poissons. 210 p. Tours: Alfred Mame &
Fils.
MONTGAUDRY (DE), 1854. - Observations sur la pisciculture.
Bull. Soc. Zool. Acclim., 1: 80-87.
MOREAU E., 1881-1891. - Histoire naturelle des poissons de la
France. 3 Vol. Paris: G. Masson.
MOREAU E., 1892. - Manuel d’ichtyologie française. 650 p. Paris:
G. Masson.
MOREAU E., 1897. - Les poissons du département de l’Yonne.
Bull. Soc. Sci. Hist. Nat. Yonne, 51: 143-227.
MOREAU E., 1898. - Les poissons du département de l’Yonne.
Bull. Soc. Sci. Hist. Nat. Yonne, 52: 3-82.
PELLEGRIN J., 1940. - La pêche du lac des Minimes au bois de
Vincennes. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 47: 38-41.
PESSON-MAISONNEUVE & MORICEAU, 1929. - Nouveau
manuel complet du pêcheur ou traité général de toutes les
pêches d’eau douce et de mer. 481 p. Paris: Edgar Malfère.
PETIT G.H., 1895. - Catalogue synoptique des poissons du dépar-
tement de la Marne. Châlons.
PION-GAUD P. & LAVAUDEN L., 1904. - L’acclimatation et
l’élevage du poisson-chat dans les étangs du Bas-Dauphiné.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 16: 130-136.
POPLIN R., 1952. - Le peuplement des eaux de l’Yonne moyenne.
Bull. Fr. Piscic., 164: 109-114.
RABÉ F., 1889. - Extrait d’une lettre adressée par le Dr. Rabé. Bull.
Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 1: 113.
RAVERET-WATTEL C., 1885. - Résumé des réponses au question-
naire sur la maladie des écrevisses. Bull. Soc. Nat. Acclim., 2:
614-633.
RAVERET-WATTEL C., 1896. - Station aquicole du Nid de Ver-
dier (76) : travaux du second semestre de 1895. Bull. Soc. Nat.
Acclim., 43: 83-84.
RAVERET-WATTEL C., 1898. - La station aquicole du Nid de Ver-
dier. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 10: 139-140.
RAVERET-WATTEL C., 1904. - Procès-verbaux des séances.
Congrès national d’aquiculture, Paris. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic.
Pêche, 16: 189-213.
RAY J., 1843. - Catalogue de la faune de l’Aube. 148 p. Troyes:
Bouquot.
RAY J., 1851. - Rapport sur la pêche uviale dans le département
de l’Aube. Soc. Agric. Sci. Arts Belles Lett. Aube, 38.
ROGER-DESGENETTES, 1863. - De la possibilité d’acclimater
dans les eaux de la Marne la famille des saumons et plus parti-
culièrement des truites. Bull. Soc. Imp. Zool. Acclim., 10: 258-
260.
ROGER E., 1906. - L’acclimatation du Black Bass. Bull. Soc. Cent.
Aquic. Pêche, 18: 223-224.
RONDELET G., 1558. - L’Histoire entière des poissons avec leurs
pourtraits au naïf. 2 volumes en 1. 1e partie, 431 p. Lyon: Bon-
homme.
ROULE L., 1920. - Les espèces d’aloses du bassin de la Seine.
Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 27: 124-125.
ROUX L., 1894. - Le pêcheur à l’épervier. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic.
Pêche, 6: 213-215.
ROY R., 1952. - Biogéographie des poissons dans la région de
Nevers. Ann. Stn. Cent. Hydrobiol. Appl., 4: 287-317.
Be s l a g i c e t a l . CHIPS: a Seine basin historical database
Cybium 2013, 37(1-2) 93
ROYER C., 1902. - Observations sur le saumon de Californie et sur
son acclimatation en France. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 14:
17-21.
SINETY (DE), 1855. - Notes pour servir à la faune du département
de Seine-et-Marne, ou liste méthodique des animaux vivant à
l’état sauvage qui se rencontrent, soit constamment, soit pério-
diquement ou accidentellement dans ce département. Rev. Mag.
Zool., 7: 231-238.
SPILLMANN J.C., 1961. - Faune de France, poissons d’eau douce.
303 p. Paris: Paul Lechevalier.
SPILLMANN J.C., 1965. - Excursion organisée par la société. Bull.
Fr. Piscic., 219: 80.
UNION DES FÉDÉRATIONS DES SYNDICATS D’INITIATI-
VES “ESSI”, 1934. - La Pêche en France : près de deux mille
lieux de pêche en France. 3e édit., 526 p. Paris.
URBAIN, 1889. - Note sur les travaux de pisciculture effectués de
1885 à 1889 inclusivement à Vitry-le-François. Bull. Soc. Cent.
Aquic. Pêche, 1: 54-63.
VACHER, 1892. - Acclimatation du saumon de Californie dans le
bassin de la Seine. Bull. Soc. Nat. Acclim., 39: 264-267.
VACHER, 1892. - De la migration du saumon et de la grande truite
dans le bassin de la Seine. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic. Pêche, 4:
36-38.
VALETTE L., 1948. - Poissons des rivières de France, histoire
naturelle pour les pêcheurs. 2 tomes en 1 vol. Paris: Librairie
des Champs-Élysées.
VALLOT J.N., 1836. - Histoire naturelle des poissons du départe-
ment de la Côte-d’Or. 325 p. Dijon: Frantin.
VALLOT J.N., 1837. - Ichtyologie française ou histoire naturelle
des poissons d’eau douce de la France. 321 p. Dijon: Frantin.
VIBRAYE (DE), 1854. - Observation sur la pisciculture. Bull. Soc.
Zool. Acclim., 1: 331-339.
VIEILLOT, 182. - Faune française, Vol. 1 : les poissons. 6 vol.
Paris: F.G. Le Vrault.
VINCENT P.B., 1890. - Extrait d’un rapport adressé au ministre de
l’agriculture sur l’organisation d’un établissement destiné à la
reproduction artificielle de l’alose. Bull. Soc. Cent. Aquic.
Pêche, 2: 17-27.
VINCENT P.B., 1894. - Note sur l’alose. Rev. Mar. Colon., 122:
667-681.
WURTZ-ARLET J., 1952. - Le Black-Bass en France. Ann. Stn.
Cent. Hydrobiol. Appl., 4: 203-286.
