Ecology and ethology of fishes: Proceedings of the 2nd biennial symposium on the ethology and behavioral ecology of fishes, held at Normal, Ill., U.S.A., October 19–22, 1979 PDF
Preview Ecology and ethology of fishes: Proceedings of the 2nd biennial symposium on the ethology and behavioral ecology of fishes, held at Normal, Ill., U.S.A., October 19–22, 1979
Ecology and ethology of fishes Developments in environmental biology of fishes 1 Series Editor EUGENE K. BALON Ecology and ethology of fishes Proceedings of the 2nd biennial symposium on the ethology and behavioral ecology off ishes, held at Normal, Ill., U.S.A., October 19-22, 1979 Edited by DAVID L.G. NOAKES AND JACK A. WARD Reprinted from Environmental biology off ishes 6 (1), 1981 with addition of selected material from the symposium SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. 1981 This volume is listed in the Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data ISBN 978-90-481-8523-8 ISBN 978-94-017-1341-2 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-1341-2 Copyright © 198!. Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1981 Softcover reprint of the hardcover I st edition 1981 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers, Springer-Science+Business Media, B. V Preface This collection of articles is a sampling of papers vironmental Toxicants and their Effects on the from the second biennial symposium for the 'Etho Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Fishes', or logy and Behavioral Ecology of Fishes'. This con ganized by Mary Henry and Jack Ward featured ference was also the first North American Meeting invited papers by: John B. Sprague; Mary G. Henry of the 'International Association of Fish Etholog & Gary J. Atchison; as well as contributed papers ists' and was held October 19-22, 1979 ·on the Il by Robert A. Drummond, Daniel Abel & Chris linois State University campus in Normal. Illinois, topher C. Koenig; C.G. Prewitt & C.B. Stalnaker; U.S.A., the site for the first conference in 1977 Kenneth S. Lubinski; J. Doerzbacher & C. F. Bryan; and the proposed site for the third biennial con Michael A. Barry; Allen E. Bingham & Robert G. ference scheduled for May 1981. The organiza White. tional committee for these conferences is Jack The symposium 'Reproductive Tactics' was or Ward, Chairman, Illinois State University (Biology, ganized by Luther Brown, Jeff Baylis and David Normal, IL 61761); Jeffrey Baylis, University of Noakes, and featured invited papers by: Jerry F. Wisconsin (Zoology, Madison, WI 53706); Luther Downhower, Luther Brown, R. Pederson & G. Brown, George Mason University (Biology, Fair Staples; Roger Thibault; George Barlow; Richard fax, VA 22030); Mike Fitzsimmons, Louisiana State Borowsky & John Diffley; Jack Ward & J.I. Sama University (Zoology, Baton Rouge, LA 70893; Mary rakoon; J.R. Shute, P.W. Shute & D.G. Lindquist; Henry, Iowa State University (Animal Ecology, James W. Grant & Patrick W. Colgan; B.D. Steel Ames, IA 50010); David Noakes, University of & W.D. Pearson; Wallace Dominey; Frank Meri Guelph (Zoology, Guelph, Ontario NlG 2Wl); Wil wether & William L. Shelton. liam Rowland, Indiana University (Biology, Bloo General contributed papers were presented by: mington, IN 47401); Benoni Seghers, University of Colin Barnett, Eric Brinsfield & Melvin T. Huish; Western Ontario (Zoology, London, Ontario N6A Lorraine Madsen & John Michael Fitzsimmons; 5B7); Chris Thoms, Mt. Mercy College (Biology, Kathleen S. Cole; Robert A. Bachman; George C. Cedar Rapids, IA 52402); Richard Wyman, Lawler Mitchell & Carl Quertermus; John M. Green & Matusky & Skelly Engineers (Pearl River, NY William David Martin; Gerard J. FitzGerald; Mar 10965). tin R. Meisler, JosephS. Balsano, Ellen M. Rasch, There were 189 registered participants for these Paul J. Monaco, Edward J. Randle & Kristine cond conference and a total of 49 papers by almost Kucharski; Miles H.A. Keenleyside & Brian F. Bietz; 100 authors were given in a single plenary session Tim Shears; Lin J. Kozlowski; Lawrence M. Page; over a three day period. Each morning was devoted G. Thomas Chandler & David Lindquist; John S. to a special symposium; afternoons consisted of Stephens & Kim Zerba; Carol Luckner; Harm P. contributed papers. Gross & Dierck Franck; John Janssen; Drew B. Bu The symposium 'Schooling of Fishes', organized chanan, A. Bradley Eisenberg & Gerard R. Jos by Ben Seghers featured invited papers by: Law wiak; Jean-Guy J. Godin; Michael H. Figler; Kathy rence M. Dill, Robert L. Dunbrack & Peter E. Ma Fusner Vail; Paul M. Bronstein; Don Townsend; jor; R. Wassersug, M. Potel & L. Katz; Ann C. Bill R. Heugel; Heather V. Roberts; David L. Be Hurley; Brian L. Partridge; Gene S. Helfman; Be chler; Robert E. Muller; R. Craig Sargent, Joseph noni H. Seghers; Lillian E. Roth & Benoni H. Seg B. Gebler, Michael Brown & George C. Williams. hers; Scott L. Ralston; Terrance M. Lim; Eva J. All who presented papers had the option of Heczko & Faye D. Algranati. The symposium 'En- submitting manuscripts to be considered for 5 this special issue. All papers in this issue were sub chison, Colin Barnett, Jeffrey Baylis, Richard Bor jected to the normal editorial review process. This owsky, Luther Brown, David Chiszar, Patrick Col collection represents about one-third of the papers gan, George Constantz, Victor DeVlaming, submitted and a reasonable cross-section of the con Wallace Dominey, Robert Drummond, James Grant, tributions to the conference. Our selection ranges Harm Gross, Eugene Helfman, Mary Henry, Lin from detailed biochemical studies to the most wide Kozlowski, Miles Keenleyside, Boyd Kynard, Da ranging theoretical considerations in the evolution vid Linquist, George Losey, Carol Luchner, Mark of reproductive strategies, from the most recent in Matus, William Moore, Randy Moss, Brian Par novative technology so basic to the study of fish tridge, Lawrence Page, Robert Phillips, Carl Quer schools to discussions of community relationships. termus, William Rowland, J. Samarakoon, Benoni We have placed the papers in a sequence from Seghers, John Sprague, Carrie Stafford, Roger Thi schooling behavior, to courtship and mating, par bault, Richard Wassersug and Richard Wyman. ental behavior, and finally to community rela We also thank the College of Continuing Edu tionships. These do not correspond to the major cation, Illinois State University for making all the symposia organized for the conference, but rather physical arrangements for the conference. In parti emerged as themes with the final selection of pa cular, we give special thanks to Dean Edward An pers. derson, and Olive Aldrich and Marie Malinauskas. It is perhaps the best indication of the state of We also give our thanks to an untiring force of stu interest and activity in this field that we had so dents at Illinois State University who made all as many contributors to the conference, and such an pects of the conference run smoothly. They included overwhelming number and diversity of manuscripts Ron Allmand, Tom Ardelt, Tom Bell, Kathy Bohn, from which to make our final selection. It was in Darin Collins, Marian Girardi, Ann Gould, deed an embarassment of riches, and we think it Shamelle Grabill, Douglas Hart, Mark Lamon, portends well for the future, both of this continuing Mark Matus, Elaine McGuffin, David Meyers, biennial conference, and for investigations on the Vicki Miller, William Prynnes, J. Samarakoon, Sue environmental ethology of fishes. Schaus, Carrie Stafford, Daryle Waechter and Mark We would like to thank all the authors who con Zorn. They acted as projectionists, receptionists, tributed to this issue for their cooperation and pa taxi drivers, hosts and hostesess. tience during the review and revision process. The David L.G. Noakes following individuals reviewed one or more manus Jack A. Ward cripts: Faye Algranati, Thomas Ardelt, Gary At- 6 Env. Bioi. Fish. Vol. 6, No. I, pp. 7-13, 1981 A new stereophotographic technique for analyzing the three-dimensional structure of fish schools Lawrence M. Dill, Robert L. Dunbrack & Peter F. Major1 Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S 6, Canada Keywords: Photogrammetry, Nearest-neighbour distance, Bearing, Elevation, Coho salmon Synopsis A technique using two downward-directed 35 mm cameras has been modified to measure the three-dimen sional structure of fish schools. The resulting stereo pairs of photographs are analyzed, producing the 3- coordinate location of each fish's nose, after correction for lens distortion and refraction. Separation angles (bearing and elevation) and distance can then be determined for any pair offish in the school. The technique's high level of accuracy is demonstrated for an underwater calibration field. It is then applied to the measure ment of the 3-D structure of schools of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) swimming in a hatchery trough. Although the fish were not organized in a rigid crystal lattice, the analysis provided some evidence of struc ture. Introduction spacing with actual measurements in the labora Precise, quantitative data on the structure of fish tory. schools allow the testing of hypotheses concerning Many workers have attempted to measure the in the school's adaptive significance or sensory inte ternal structure of fish schools. Studies by Breder gration. For example, Partridge & Pitcher (1980) (1954, 1959), Hunter (1966) and Van Olst & Hunter have provided convincing evidence that schooling (1970) examined the spacing between neighbours in saithe (Pollachius virens) use information provided two-dimensional projections (dorsal photographs). by the lateral line, by examining changes in school However, most schools are three-dimensional enti structure that followed lateral line section. Par ties; two-dimensional measurements will provide tridge & Pitcher (1979) have also effectively refuted interfish distances which are considerably under Weihs' (1973) model of the hydrodynamic advan estimated, and the nearest-neighbour may even be tages of schooling by comparing its predictions on incorrectly identified. Symons (1971b) discusses these difficulties. Several techniques for three-dimensional mensu 1 Present address: Marine Mammal Commission. ration of school structure have also been developed. Washington, D.C .. U.S.A. Apart from the method of Graves (1977), which Received 1.2.1980 Accepted 18.8.1980 assumes invariant fish size and uses the size of each 7 © Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers. The Hague. individual's image on the photograph as a measure of its distance from the camera (i.e. the third dimen sion). these techniques have been of two major ty pes: stereo and shadow. The stereo method requires obtaining two simultaneous photographs from dif ferent angular positions, using either a stereo prism lens (Cullen et al. I 965) or an arrangement of mir rors (Symons 1971a, b, Healey & Prieston 1973, Pit cher 1973, 1975). The shadow method uses the sha dows of the fish projected onto the substrate as the second view of the school and has been applied by Dambach ( 1963), Cullen et al. (1965), Partridge ( 1980), Partridge & Pitcher (I 980), and Partridge et al. (1980). The above techniques are for the most part highly sophisticated, requiring apparatus which effectively restricts their use to a laboratory situation. There is a great need for a technique which can be used in Fig. I. The camera apparatus used in this study. Two motor the field to obtain measurements rapidly of the driven 35 mm cameras are mounted on separate levelling plat structures of schools of a variety of species in a forms, and fired simultaneously (see text for further details). range of environmental circumstances. Our group had previously developed a stereo method for The entire apparatus was placed on a ladder measurements of the three-dimensional structure of spanning a hatchery trough, with the cameras poin airborne bird flocks (Major & Dill 1978). This tech ted downward, their lenses projecting through holes nique, which obtains pairs of photographs simul in the aluminum plates. A plexiglass box (open at taneously with two cameras, is here modified and the top) was suspended below the ladder with its applied to fish schools. Following a description of bottom plate a few em below the water surface. This the technique and a check on its degree of accuracy, provided an air-plexiglass-water interface a known we provide some preliminary data on the three-dim distance (462 mm) below the lens faces and elim ensional structure of schools of juvenile coho sal inated any surface ripple. It was also levelled to an mon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) swimming in a hat accuracy of 20 s. A black curtain draped over the chery raceway. cameras eliminated excessive surface glare. Water depth (below the plexiglass) was 725 mm. Methods The cameras were fired simultaneously from a common electronic shutter release box (single frame Apparatus only; simultaneity checked with a photocell beam through the two camera apertures mounted in tan Stereo pairs of photographs were taken with two dem). Kodak Plus-X (ASA 125) film was exposed identical motor driven 35-mm cameras (Nikon for the minimum time possible given ambient light Photomic F2) with 28 mm lenses. The cameras were conditions, and developed according to manu mounted side-by-side (32 em between lens centres) facturer's instructions. on an aluminum plate (Fig. I). Each camera 'float ed' on a spring-loaded three-point levelling device, Analysis and could be independently levelled to an accuracy of 20 s with a level bubble. Care was taken that the The resulting left and right stereo pairs of photo two film platens were in the same plane by levelling graphs were analyzed, using a Zeiss-Jena Topocart a plate placed across both of them after removal of Analyzer, by Integrated Resources Photography the camera backs. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. Standard photogrammetric 8 methods were used to determine the three-coor these pairs of measurements was 2. 74 mm or 0.67% dinate position of the tip of the snout of each fish in of the true distance (Fig. 2), and there was no ap a school. The procedure incorporated corrections parent tendency for percentage error to increase for radial lens distortion characteristics (based on with distance (Fig. 3). This level of accuracy was photographs taken of a calibration field in air using deemed adequate for the present study. the same fooal distance and aperture settings as were used in the field) and for refraction (from physical principles and the known geometry of the situation). Numbering the fish on enlarged prints rz.fJ 20 0 prior to analysis allowed subsequent identification i= <( 15 of individuals. >a: w From the three-coordinate data, the following r.fJ 0CD 10 spatial characteristics of each fish's three nearest u.. 0 neighbours were calculated on an IBM 370/148 ci 5 z computer: Distance = [ (.1.X)2 + (.1. Yf + (.1.Z)2]~ ... (1) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ERROR (mm) Bearing = TAN-1 (.1. Y I .1.X) ... (2) ... [((~X)2 ~Z(~Y)2)t] Elevation= TAN-1 (3) rz.fJ 20 0 Axis 'X' is the snout-to-tail axis of the fish, but i= ><( 15 a mean value, taken to be parallel to the walls of the cc w trough, was used in this analysis. Axis 'Y' is per rC.fDJ 0 pendicular to the 'X' axis in the same plane, and 'Z' u.. 0 is vertical and perpendicular to the 'X-Y' plane. ci z Mean angle vectors and angular deviations were de termined using the methods of Batschelet ( 1965). 4 ERROR(%) Accuracy Fig. 2 Frequency distribution of absolute (above) and relative A variety of possible sources of error (discussed in (below) errors in measurements between points on the test lat tice. Major & Dill 1978) can reduce the accuracy of measurements obtained using the methods describ ed here. We checked the reliability of our technique by photographing an object whose spatial structure 4 could be independently determined; a lattice struc ture constructed oflaboratory bench hardware. Six 2 teen black spots (8 mm diameter) were placed at .. ....... : various points on the structure, and the distances ~ 0~----------------·~-·-·~·~~·~--~.-.---- between the centres of all possible pairs of spots cc • -. ·.. ···: ffi -1 measured by hand. The lattice was then placed in -2 the water beneath the cameras, photographed, and -3 the three-coordinate position of each spot deter mined photogrammetrically. Thirteen spots were 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 visible in both photographs, providing 78 'neigh TRUE DISTANCE (mm) bour distances' to compare with those measured di Fig. 3. Percentage measurement error as a function of the dis rectly from the lattice. The average discrepancy in tance separating two points on the test lattice. 9
The list of books you might like
