Field swimming behavior in largemouth bass deviates from predictions based on economy and propulsive efficiency

Abstract

Locomotion is energetically expensive. This may create selection pressures that favor economical locomotor strategies, such as the adoption of low-cost speeds and efficient propulsive movements. For swimming fish, the energy expended to travel a unit distance, or cost of transport (COT), has a U-shaped relationship to speed. The relationship between propulsive kinematics and speed, summarized by the Strouhal number (St=fA/U, where f is tail beat frequency, A is tail tip amplitude in m and U is swimming speed in m s ), allows for maximal propulsive efficiency where 0.2<St<0.4. Largemouth bass adopted field speeds that were generally below the range predicted to minimize their COT. This may reflect speed modulation to meet competing functional demands such as enabling effective prey detection and capture. St exceeded the optimal range for the lowest observed swimming speeds. Mechanical and physiological constraints may prevent adoption of efficient St during low-speed swimming.

Swimming from coast to coast: a novel fixed-gear swimming gait in fish

“…This stems in part from the scarcity of data for unconstrained, volitional swimming. The combined availability of large-volume calibration techniques recently applied to quantify avian flight performance in the field [11] and low-cost underwater cameras has enabled the collection of field performance data for fish [5,12] with higher temporal and spatial resolution than has previously been possible [1]. This approach has revealed the use of intermittent propulsion during routine, sustained locomotion at aerobically sustained speeds and propulsive cycle frequencies, but with insufficient detail to indicate why this swimming style is used [5].…”

Cost of transport is a repeatable trait but is not determined by mitochondrial efficiency in zebrafish (Danio rerio)

“…However, animals rarely travel at these maximal speeds, for example, assuming a slower speed when moving undisturbed through their environment while foraging or during dispersal (Wilson et al, 2015). Locomotion is costly (Di Santo et al, 2017;Han et al, 2017), and the energetic cost (cost of transport, CoT) associated with moving at different speeds may impact the speed adopted by an individual (Claireaux et al, 2006;Halsey, 2016). Limited resources may lead to an allocation trade-off so that allocation of energy to locomotion can constrain energy available for other functions (Lailvaux and Husak, 2014).…”

Group swimming behaviour and energetics in bluegillLepomis macrochirusand rainbow troutOncorhynchus mykiss

“…For instance, intermittent swimming in fishes is an example of a potentially energy‐saving behaviour at steady, sustainable swimming speeds (Floryan et al ., 2017; Zhao & Dou, 2020). Field and laboratory observations of volitional swimming fish have demonstrated that fish routinely employ intermittent swimming behaviour during aerobically sustainable swimming (Cathcart et al ., 2017; Ellerby et al ., 2018; Gellman et al ., 2019; Han et al ., 2017; Noda et al ., 2016). Modelling suggests that sustained swimming in an intermittent manner ( i.e ., short duration pulpulsive periods of two to three tailbeats interspersed with ~1.0 s glide periods) reduces the energy costs of locomotion (Floryan et al ., 2017; Zhao & Dou, 2020).…”