Collective movement of schooling fish reduces the costs of locomotion in turbulent conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ecological and evolutionary benefits of energy-saving in collective behaviors are rooted in the physical principles and physiological mechanisms underpinning animal locomotion. We propose a turbulence sheltering hypothesis that collective movements of fish schools in turbulent flow can reduce the total energetic cost of locomotion by shielding individuals from the perturbation of chaotic turbulent eddies. We test this hypothesis by quantifying energetics and kinematics in schools of giant danio (Devario aequipinnatus) and compared that to solitary individuals swimming under laminar and turbulent conditions over a wide speed range. We discovered that, when swimming at high speeds and high turbulence levels, fish schools reduced their total energy expenditure (TEE, both aerobic and anaerobic energy) by 63% to 79% compared to solitary fish (e.g., 228 versus 48 kj kg-1). Solitary individuals spend approximately 22% more kinematic effort (tail beat amplitude•frequency: 1.7 versus 1.4 BL s-1) to swim in turbulence at higher speeds than in laminar conditions. Fish schools swimming in turbulence reduced their three-dimensional group volume by 41% to 68% (at higher speeds, approximately 103 versus 33 cm3) and did not alter their kinematic effort compared to laminar conditions. This substantial energy saving highlights that schooling behaviors can mitigate turbulent disturbances by sheltering fish (within schools) from the eddies of sufficient kinetic energy that can disrupt locomotor gaits. Therefore, providing a more desirable internal hydrodynamic environment could be one of the ecological drivers underlying collective behaviors in a dense fluid environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".