nrc.nl
Hovering Fish Expend Twice the Energy of Resting
A new study in PNAS reveals that hovering, or stationary positioning, in fish unexpectedly doubles their energy consumption compared to resting, irrespective of swim bladder presence; elongated fish expend even more energy due to body shape.
- What is the energy cost of hovering in fish, and what are the immediate implications for their physiology and behavior?
- A recent study published in PNAS reveals that hovering, a behavior where fish remain stationary in the water column, requires significantly more energy than previously thought. Researchers found that hovering typically doubles a fish's oxygen consumption compared to resting, increasing energy needs and food requirements. This higher energy expenditure is consistent across various fish species, despite differences in body shape and the presence of a swim bladder.
- How does the position of the swim bladder relative to the center of mass affect the energy expenditure during hovering in different fish species?
- The study challenges the assumption that fish with swim bladders, which aid buoyancy, would expend minimal energy while hovering. Instead, the difference between the center of buoyancy (determined by the swim bladder) and the center of mass (determined by body structure) makes fish vulnerable to external disturbances. To maintain stability, they constantly adjust their position using fins and tails, increasing energy consumption.
- What are the long-term implications of the high energy costs of hovering for fish populations in changing environmental conditions, such as increased water flow or reduced food availability?
- The findings highlight the energetic costs of hovering, particularly for elongated fish species. Their body shape results in less stable hovering, necessitating greater adjustments using their tails, further increasing energy expenditure. This has implications for understanding foraging strategies and species vulnerability in dynamic environments where maintaining position requires substantial energy investment. The study suggests future research should investigate the energetic trade-offs of hovering in relation to prey capture and predation risk.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing is largely neutral, presenting the findings of the research in a factual manner. The headline, if any, would heavily influence the perception; however, no headline was provided.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and scientific. Terms like "hangvissen" (hanging fish) could be considered slightly informal, but it does not significantly skew the overall presentation.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the energy expenditure of hovering fish, but omits discussion of potential ecological implications of this energy cost. It doesn't explore how this impacts their prey selection, predator avoidance, or overall fitness within their ecosystems. Further, the study only included 13 species, limiting generalizability.
Sustainable Development Goals
The research reveals that hovering, a common behavior for many fish species, requires significantly more energy than previously thought. This increased energy expenditure has implications for fish populations, particularly in the context of environmental changes and resource availability. Increased energy consumption necessitates a higher food intake, potentially impacting the overall health and sustainability of fish populations and disrupting the balance of aquatic ecosystems.