4.3 Article

Effects of size and sex on swimming performance and metabolism of invasive mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki

期刊

ECOLOGY OF FRESHWATER FISH
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 424-433

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eff.12286

关键词

critical swimming speed; invasive species; maximum aerobic capacity; Poeciliidae; swim tunnel

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CGL2013-43822-R]
  2. Government of Catalonia [2014 SGR 484]
  3. European Commission (COST Action) [TD1209]
  4. Brazilian Ministry of Education (CAPES) [88881.068352/2014-01]
  5. European Commission [204323-1-2011-1-FR-EMA21]
  6. Generalitat de Catalunya [2013 BP_B 00172]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In freshwater ecosystems, abiotic factors such as flow regime and water quality are considered important predictors of ecosystem invasibility. The aim of this study was to investigate the critical swimming capacity and metabolism of the eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki, focusing on sex and size effects, to evaluate the influence of water flow on its invasive success. Specimens of mosquitofish were captured from the Ter Vell lagoon (L'Estartit, north-eastern Spain) in July 2014, and we measured the critical swimming speed (U-crit) and oxygen consumption of individual fish (30 females and 30 males) using a mini swim tunnel. The mean U-crit of this poeciliid fish was estimated at 14.11cms(-1) (range=4.85-22.26), which is lower than that of many other fishes of similar size and confirms that this species is limnophilic and its invasive success might be partially explained by hydrologic alterations. However, the U-crit and maximal metabolic rate vary markedly with fish size and sex, with males having much higher values for the same body mass, and thus probably being more resistant to strong water flows. Multiple regression models illustrate that multivariate analyses might increase the predictive power and understanding of swimming performance and metabolic traits, compared to results from conventional simple regressions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据