4.5 Article

Swimming activity and energetic expenditure of captive rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) estimated by electromyogram telemetry

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 495-505

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2109.2000.00470.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) are usually cultured at high densities to maximize production, but little is known about the physiological and behavioural consequences of high-density fish culture. The purpose of this study was to develop quantitative correlates of activity for fish held under conditions of increasing density, Fifteen hatchery-reared rainbow trout (mean fork length = 432.3 +/- 9.2 mm) were implanted with activity (electromyogram; EMGi) transmitters and randomly assigned to each of three replicate tanks. Original tank densities (15 kg m(-3)) were then increased to 30 and finally to 60 kg m(-3) at weekly intervals by adding additional fish. Remote telemetry signals indicated that activity increased with increasing stocking density. Fish were relatively inactive during the middle of the day, with diel activity patterns not differing among treatments. Fish were more active during periods of darkness, with activity increasing with increasing stocking density. Relationships between swimming speed, EMGi activity and oxygen consumption were developed using a respirometer and used to estimate oxygen consumption of the fish in the density treatments. Average oxygen consumption estimates increased with increasing density treatments as follows: low density = 75.6 mg kg(-1) h(-1): medium density = 90.0 mg kg(-1) h(-1); and high density = 102.6 mg kg(-1) h(-1). Telemetry permits quantification of the effects of increasing density on fish activity. Physiological telemetry devices may provide a useful tool for remotely monitoring animal welfare correlates under controlled conditions for fish exposed to different husbandry conditions and may prove a valuable tool for the aquaculture industry.

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

4.5
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