4.6 Article

Fish responses to flow velocity and turbulence in relation to size, sex and parasite load

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
Volume 11, Issue 91, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0814

Keywords

riverine habitat; acoustic Doppler velocimetry; turbulence; Poecilia reticulata; Gyrodactylus turnbulli

Funding

  1. BBSRC
  2. CASE partner the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science [BB/F016557/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Riverine fish are subjected to heterogeneous flow velocities and turbulence and may use this to their advantage by selecting regions that balance energy expenditure for station holding while maximizing energy gain through feeding opportunities. This study investigated microhabitat selection by guppies Poecilia reticulata in terms of flow characteristics generated by hemisphere boulders in an open channel flume. Velocity and turbulence influenced the variation in swimming behaviour with respect to size, sex and parasite intensity. With increasing body length, fish swam further and more frequently between boulder regions. Larger guppies spent more time in the areas of high-velocity and low-turbulence regions beside the boulders, whereas smaller guppies frequented the low-velocity and high-turbulence regions directly behind the boulders. Male guppies selected the regions of low velocity, indicating possible reduced swimming ability owing to hydrodynamic drag imposed by their fins. With increasing Gyrodactylus turnbulli burden, fish spent more time in regions with moderate velocity and lowest turbulent kinetic energy which were the most spatially and temporally homogeneous in terms of velocity and turbulence. These findings highlight the importance of heterogeneous flow conditions in river channel design owing to the behavioural variability within a species in response to velocity and turbulence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available