Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-956mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T10:54:09.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the locomotion of post-larval and juvenile flying fish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

John Davenport
John Davenport
Affiliation:
School of Ocean Sciences, Marine Science Laboratories (University College of North Wales), Menai Bridge, Gwynedd, LL59 5EH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Post-larval specimens of Hirundichthys affinis are capable of jumping out of water, but the pectoral and pelvic fins are not extended when in air. Penetration through the air/ water interface demands a force to overcome surface tension which is similar in magnitude to the force required for the jump itself. However, post-larvae do not produce the single propulsive tail flick which powers the jump until most of the animal has passed through the interface. The post-larva emerges at an angle close to 45°, thus maximising the horizontal distance travelled before re-entry.

Whether swimming slowly (4 body lengths s-1), or at maximum speed (36 body lengths s-1), post-larvae swim with the pectoral and pelvic fins extended. Calculations show that fast swimming post-larvae operate at Reynolds’ numbers of about 4×103, where surface roughness and projections decrease rather than increase drag.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , May 1990 , pp. 311 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blake, R.W. 1981. Mechanics of drag based mechanisms of propulsion in aquatic vertebrates. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 48,29–52.Google Scholar
Breder, Cm. Jr, 1930. On the structural specialization of flying fishes from the standpoint of aerodynamics. Copeia, 4,114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breder, Cm. Jr, 1937. The perennial flying fish controversy. Science, New York, 86,420–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, G.S. & Mander, J.A.H., 1935. The flight of the flying fish Exocoetus. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 105, 383–384.Google Scholar
Edgerton, H.E. & Breder, Cm. Jr, 1941. High speed photographs of flying fishes in flight. Zoologica, New York, 26,311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel, H. 1966. Structure-form-movement. New York: Reinhold.Google Scholar
Hubbs, C.L., 1918. The flight of the California flying fish. Copeia, no. 62,85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbs, C.L., 1933. Observations on the flight of fishes, with a statistical study of the flight of the Cypselurinae and remarks on the evolution of flight of fishes. Papers from the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 17,575–611.Google Scholar
Hubbs, C.L., 1937. Further observations and statistics on the flight of fishes. Papers from the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 22,641–660.Google Scholar
Wu, T.Y., 1977. Introduction to the scaling of aquatic animal locomotion. In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion (ed. T.J., Pedley), pp. 203–232. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar