MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2119120761 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01636.x

Effects of morphology on swimming performance in wild and laboratory crosses of brook trout ecotypes

2009· article· en· W2119120761 sur OpenAlex
Sébastien Rouleau, Hélène Glémet, Pierre Magnan

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueFunctional Ecology · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueFish Ecology and Management Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Organismes subventionnairesUniversitaire Stichting
Mots-clésPelagic zoneBiologyEcotypeLittoral zoneTroutSalvelinusHabitatEcologyZoologyBrown troutSalmonidaeEcomorphologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Salmo

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Summary 1. Trophic polymorphism is common in fish and is manifested by individual differences in habitat use, food preference, and morphology. The significance of morphological variations among ecotypes is thought to reflect individual specializations in habitat use, however, their functional relationship has rarely been examined. 2. The objectives of this study were to determine if littoral and pelagic ecotypes of brook trout differ in their swimming performances, and if so to investigate the functional significance of morphological variations on their swimming performances. 3. One‐year‐old laboratory‐raised littoral and pelagic individuals (and hybrids), as well as wild individuals were forced to swim in respirometers at 10, 15, and 20 °C, and 16 morphological characters were measured on each fish. 4. The critical swimming test ( U crit ) revealed that pelagic trout reared in the wild are better swimmers than littoral ones. In addition, both laboratory‐raised littoral and pelagic individuals had higher U crit performances than their hybrids. High U crit. was associated with short pectoral, anal, caudal and dorsal fins (wild fish) as well as with high body width (both wild and laboratory‐raised) and body height (laboratory‐raised). Wild littoral individuals had a steeper power curve (i.e. higher energy expenditure due to swimming) than pelagic ones; however, this was compensated by a lower standard metabolic rate for the former, resulting in comparable minimum transport cost for ecotypes. The swimming performances of laboratory‐raised ecotypes were more homogenous than those of wild fish, suggesting an important environmental effect on the performances themselves. Water temperature seemly had little influence on the difference between swimming performances of ecotypes. 5. The results of the present study only partially support our hypothesis that critical swimming speed of pelagic individuals will be higher than that of littoral individuals due to their shorter pectoral and dorsal fins and streamlined body shape; high U crit was associated with short fins but not with streamlined body shape. Because brook trout is not considered a fast swimmer, it is possible that a higher muscular mass provides higher benefits related to thrust for swimming in the pelagic zone than costs due to drag, usually associated with a high aspect ratio. 6. Our results also support the cost reduction strategy hypothesis (that higher energy expenditure due to swimming is compensated by a lower standard metabolic rate). This implies that the lower performance, due to the higher energy expenditure, of a given ecotype can be compensated by a low standard metabolic rate, a phenomenon that could apply to all species exhibiting morphological plasticity. 7. While previous studies developed conceptual models and predictions relating morphological differences to swimming performance in fishes, this study is one of the first to test such a model. Collectively, our results show that morphological differentiation, associated with trophic polymorphism, have important functional consequences on the swimming energetics of ecotypes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,270

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,181
Écart entre enseignants0,178 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle