4.7 Article

Evidence for a consistent use of external cues by marine fish larvae for orientation

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-04137-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine - Gulf research Program NASEM-GRP award [2000007703]
  2. Paris Lab of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
  3. Partner University Fund (PUF)
  4. Binational Science Foundation BSF Grant [2008144]
  5. Australia Research Council (ARC) [DP110100695]
  6. National Science Foundation [NSF-OCE 1459156]
  7. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  8. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations [2008144] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research finds that most larval fish use external cues for directional movement and exhibit straighter paths. This finding can improve larval dispersal models and promote sustainable management of marine resources.
The larval stage is the main dispersive process of most marine teleost species. The degree to which larval behavior controls dispersal has been a subject of debate. Here, we apply a cross-species meta-analysis, focusing on the fundamental question of whether larval fish use external cues for directional movement (i.e., directed movement). Under the assumption that directed movement results in straighter paths (i.e., higher mean vector lengths) compared to undirected, we compare observed patterns to those expected under undirected pattern of Correlated Random Walk (CRW). We find that the bulk of larvae exhibit higher mean vector lengths than those expected under CRW, suggesting the use of external cues for directional movement. We discuss special cases which diverge from our assumptions. Our results highlight the potential contribution of orientation to larval dispersal outcomes. This finding can improve the accuracy of larval dispersal models, and promote a sustainable management of marine resources.

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

4.7
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