Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The influence of flow velocity on the response of rheophilic fish to visual cues
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The influence of flow velocity on the response of rheophilic fish to visual cues
Do you wish to request the book?
The influence of flow velocity on the response of rheophilic fish to visual cues
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The influence of flow velocity on the response of rheophilic fish to visual cues
2023
Overview
The strong association with visual cues exhibited by fish that prefer to inhabit flowing water (rheophilic species) may help reduce the energetic costs of maintaining position due to the provision of spatial points of reference. If this “Station Holding Hypothesis” is true, a positive relationship between the association with visual cues and flow velocity is expected. This hypothesis was tested experimentally by quantifying the response of common minnow (
Phoxinus phoxinus
) and brown trout (
Salmo trutta
) to visual cues under three flow velocities. In contradiction to the prediction, there was no evidence that the association with strong visual cues was positively related to flow velocity when fish were presented with vertical black stripes in an open channel flume, although interspecific variation in response was observed. The association with visual cues was relatively weak in trout, compared to minnow that spent 660% more time associated with the zone in which visual cues were present during the treatment, than the control when visual cues were absent. Trout tended to be more exploratory and made short visits to the area where visual cues were present, whereas minnow associated with the cues for longer. The strong association with visual cues independent of flow velocity exhibited by minnow and the weak association across all velocities by trout suggest that this behaviour is unlikely to reflect a strategy to minimise the energetic cost of maintaining position in flowing water. Minnow may have used the visual cues as a proxy indicator of physical structure that provides alternative benefits, such as refuge from predators. Trout may have employed alternative cues (e.g. mechanosensory) to seek more energetically favourable regions of the experimental area, reducing the importance of stationary visual stimuli.
