Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 201–212 | Cite as

Do viscous forces affect survival of marine fish larvae? Revisiting the ‘safe harbour’ hypothesis

Research Paper
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

Aquatic organisms physically interact with the water that surrounds them, and this interaction is fundamental in shaping many aspects of their biology. General characteristics of the hydrodynamic interactions between organisms and the flow around them can be captured by the dimensionless Reynolds number (Re), depicting the ratio between inertial and viscous forces operating on the organism. The characteristic flow regime of larval fish that cruise at slow speeds is a regime of low Re, where viscous forces dominate. In this study, we experimentally test the ‘safe harbour’ hypothesis, which proposes that increasing larval body size facilitates an ‘escape’ from the detrimental effects of low Re. Larval gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) were reared during early ontogeny under artificially manipulated water viscosities to expose larvae to low Re regimes. Larval survival decreased significantly with increasing water viscosity, and increased with increasing standard length. Surviving larvae exceeded the mean length of mortalities by ~1 mm, on average. Our findings provide direct experimental support for the ‘safe harbour’ hypothesis, indicating that marine larvae incur a fitness cost when operating under low Re conditions. Moreover, the results highlight the need to recognize the hydrodynamic environment when considering the a-biotic characteristics that may influence organismal performance and fitness.

Keywords

Feeding Foraging Hydrodynamic starvation Morphology Sparus aurata Swimming 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank ARDAG Red Sea Mariculture Ltd. for providing seabream larvae, T. Gurevich for her laboratory assistance, O. Mann for his assistance with statistical analysis, and M. Ohevia for his technical help. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. This study was supported by European Union Seventh Framework Programme IRG SFHaBiLF and the Israel Science Foundation grant numbers 158/11 and 695/15. SY was supported by the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences (Eilat) in the form of a Shoshana Fidler Post Doctoral Fellowship, and by Tel Aviv University in the form of a George S. Wise Post Doctoral Fellowship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical standards

The experimental protocol followed the IACUC-approved ethical guidelines, and was approved by the Hebrew University Committee for Animal Care and Use (protocol NS-12-13338-2).

References

  1. Abramoff MD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biol Med Phys Biomed 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Amari T, Nakamura M (1973) Flow properties of aqueous solution of methylcellulose. J Appl Polym Sci 17:3439–3456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aya FA, Corpuz MNC, García LMB (2015) Diet composition, feed preferences and mouth morphology of early stage silver therapon (Leiopotherapon plumbeus, Kner 1864) larvae reared in outdoor tanks. J Appl Ichthyol 31:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake RW (2004) Fish functional design and swimming performance. J Fish Biol 65:1193–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. China V, Holzman R (2014) Hydrodynamic starvation in first-feeding larval fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:8083–8088CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. China V, Levi L, Elmaliach T, Liberzon A, Holzman R (2017) Hydrodynamic regime affects feeding success and encounter rates with prey to determine feeding rates of larval fish during the critical period. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 284:20170235.  https://doi.org//10.1098/rspb.2017.0235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowles TJ, Strickler JR (1983) Characterization of feeding activity patterns in the planktonic copepod Centropages typicus Kroyer under various food conditions. Limnol Oceanogr 28:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danos N, Lauder GV (2012) Challenging zebrafish escape responses by increasing water viscosity. J Exp Biol 215:1854–1862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Alessandro EK, Sponaugle S, Cowen RK (2013) Selective mortality during the larval and juvenile stages of snappers (Lutjanidae) and great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 474:227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day SW, Higham TE, Holzman R, Van Wassenbergh S (2015) Morphology, kinematics, and dynamics: the mechanics of suction feeding in fishes. Integr Comp Biol 55:21–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Drucker EG, Lauder GV (2000) A hydrodynamic analysis of fish swimming speed: wake structure and locomotor force in slow and fast labriform swimmers. J Exp Biol 203:2379–2393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuiman LA, Rose KA, Cowan JH, Smith EP (2006) Survival skills required for predator evasion by fish larvae and their relation to laboratory measures of performance. Anim Behav 71:1389–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fyhn HJ (1989) First feeding of marine fish larvae: are free amino acids the source of energy? Aquaculture 80:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glasby TM (2001) Development of sessile marine assemblages on fixed versus moving substrata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 215:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gorsky D, Zydlewski J (2013) Experimental evaluation of size-dependent predation by adult post-spawned rainbow smelt on larval lake whitefish. North Am J Fish Manag 33:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herbing I (2002) Effects of temperature on larval fish swimming performance: the importance of physics to physiology. J Fish Biol 61:865–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hernandez LP (2000) Intraspecific scaling of feeding mechanics in an ontogenetic series of zebrafish, Danio rerio. J Exp Biol 203:3033–3043PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Holzman R, China V, Yaniv S, Zilka M (2015) Hydrodynamic constraints of suction feeding in low Reynolds numbers, and the critical period of larval fishes. Integr Comp Biol 55:48–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Houde ED (1989) Comparative growth, mortality, and energetics of marine fish larvae: temperature and implied latitudinal effects. Fish B NOAA 87:471–495Google Scholar
  20. Kaufmann A, Mickoleit M, Weber M, Huisken J (2012) Multilayer mounting enables long-term imaging of zebrafish development in a light sheet microscope. Development 139:3242–3247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiørboe T, Jiang H, Gonçalves RJ, Nielsen LT, Wadhwa N (2014) Flow disturbances generated by feeding and swimming zooplankton. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:11738–11743CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Koehl MAR, Strickler JR (1981) Copepod feeding currents: food capture at low Reynolds number. Limnol Oceanogr 26:1062–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lauder GV (1980) Hydrodynamics of prey capture in teleost fishes. In: Schenck D (ed) Biofluid mechanics, vol II. Plenum, New York, pp 161–181Google Scholar
  24. Mass T, Genin A, Shavit U, Grinstein M, Tchernov D (2010) Flow enhances photosynthesis in marine benthic autotrophs by increasing the efflux of oxygen from the organism to the water. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:2527–2531CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. May RC (1974) Larval mortality in marine fishes and the critical period concept. In: Blaxter JHS (ed) The early life history of fish. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCoy MW, Bolker BM, Osenberg CW, Miner BG, Vonesh JR (2006) Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments. Oecologia 148:547–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Müller UK, Videler JJ (1996) Inertia as a ‘safe harbour’: Do fish larvae increase length growth to escape viscous drag? Rev Fish Biol Fish 6:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller UK, Stamhuis EJ, Videler JJ (2000) Hydrodynamics of unsteady fish swimming and the effects of body size: comparing the flow fields of fish larvae and adults. J Exp Biol 203:193–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Osse JWM, Van den Boogaart JGM (1995) Fish larvae, development, allometric growth, and the aquatic environment. ICES Mar Sci Symp 201:21–34Google Scholar
  30. Parra G, Yúfera M (2000) Feeding, physiology and growth responses in first-feeding gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.) larvae in relation to prey density. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 243:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Purcell EM (1977) Life at low Reynolds number. Am J Phys 45:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruzicka JJ, Gallager SM (2006) The importance of the cost of swimming to the foraging behavior and ecology of larval cod (Gadus morhua) on Georges Bank. Deep Sea Res Part II 53:2708–2734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shine R (1978) Propagule size and parental care: the “safe harbor” hypothesis. J Theor Biol 75:417–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Simensen LM, Jonassen TM, Imsland AK, Stefansson SO (2000) Photoperiod regulation of growth of juvenile Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.). Aquaculture 190:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, PrinctonGoogle Scholar
  37. van Duren LA, Videler JJ (2003) Escape from viscosity: the kinematics and hydrodynamics of copepod foraging and escape swimming. J Exp Biol 206:269–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Villamizar N, Blanco-Vives B, Migaud H, Davie A, Carboni S, Sanchez-Vazquez FJ (2011) Effects of light during early larval development of some aquacultured teleosts: a review. Aquaculture 315:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vogel S (1994) Life in moving fluids. Princeton Univ Press, PrinctonGoogle Scholar
  40. Wainwright PC, Day SW (2007) The forces exerted by aquatic suction feeders on their prey. J R Soc Interface 4:553–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Webb PW (1984) Form and function in fish swimming. Sci Am 251:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Webb PW, Weihs D (1986a) Functional locomotor morphology of early life history stages of fishes. Trans Am Fish Soc 115(115):127Google Scholar
  43. Webb PW, Weihs D (1986b) Functional locomotor morphology of early life history stages of fishes. Trans Am Fish Soc 115(115):127Google Scholar
  44. Westerfield M (2007) The Zebrafish book: a guide for the laboratory use of zebrafish (Danio rerio). University of Oregon Press, EugeneGoogle Scholar
  45. Wood S (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  46. Yaniv S, Elad D, Holzman R (2014) Suction feeding across fish life stages: flow dynamics from larvae to adults and implications for prey capture. J Exp Biol 217:3748–3757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Yaseen EI, Herald TJ, Aramouni FM, Alavi S (2005) Rheological properties of selected gum solutions. Food Res Int 38:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yavno S, Fox MG (2014) Morphological plasticity of native and non-native pumpkinseed sunfish in response to habitat type. Evol Ecol Res 16:373–395Google Scholar
  49. Yavno S, Fox MG, Vila-Gispert A, Bhagat Y (2013) Morphological differences between native and non-native pumpkinseed in traits associated with locomotion. Environ Biol Fish 96:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yen J (2000) Life in transition: balancing inertial and viscous forces by planktonic copepods. Biol Bull 198:213–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life SciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Interuniversity Institute for Marine SciencesEilatIsrael

Personalised recommendations