First published online May 5, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 1775-1784 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01587
Linking swimming performance, cardiac pumping ability and cardiac anatomy in rainbow trout
Guy Claireaux1,
David J. McKenzie1,
A. Gaylene Genge2,
Aurélien Chatelier1,
Joël Aubin3 and
Anthony P. Farrell4,*
1 Centre de Recherche sur les Écosystèmes Marins et Aquacoles,
Place du Séminaire, BP 5, 17137 L'Houmeau, France
2 Ocean Sciences Centre, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Logy Bay, NL,
A1C 5S7 Canada
3 Station Expérimentale Mixte IFREMER-INRA, Barrage du Drennec, 29450
Sizun, France
4 UBC Centre for Aquaculture and the Environment, Faculty of Agricultural
Sciences and Department of Zoology, 2357 Main Mall, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada
View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. A schematic diagram illustrating the measurements made during the
echo-Doppler examination of the hearts. Ventricle length (L),
ventricle width (W) and the angle ( ) subtended between the
ventral aorta and the ventral surface of the ventricular wall.
|
|
View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. A comparison of mean MO2 and cardiovascular
variables during sustained swimming in adult rainbow trout that had been
screened as good or poor swimmers 9 months earlier. The mean values are shown
only for those speeds at which measurements were collected for all of the
animals in each group, i.e. up to 80 cm s-1 in poor swimmers and up
to 110 cm s-1 in good swimmers. Values are means ±
S.E.M., N=6. Asterisks above the
abscissa denote a significant change in the variable relative to a swimming
speed of 30 cm s-1 within either the good (blue) or bad (red)
swimmers. There were no significant differences in any variable when compared
between good and bad swimmers at any common swimming speed.
|
|
View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Comparison of maximum cardiac performance of in situ perfused
hearts from rainbow trout that had been screened as good or poor swimmers 9
months earlier. *A significant effect of increasing adrenaline
(ADR) within a group;  significant difference
(P<0.05) between two groups of fish under common conditions.
Values are means ± S.E.M.,
N=8 good swimmers; N=7 poor swimmers.
|
|
View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Comparison of maximum power output as output pressure was raised in rainbow
trout in situ perfused hearts from rainbow trout that had been
screened as good or poor swimmers 9 months earlier. Both swim group and output
pressure are significant determinants of power output (ANOVA;
P<0.05) and no interaction between the factors was found.
Pairwise multiple comparisons confirmed the significant
difference between good (blue) and poor (red) swimmers at the highest output
pressure (9 kPa) as well as the significant drop in power output between 8 and
9 kPa in the poor swimmer group. Values are means ±
S.E.M., N=8 good swimmers;
N=7 poor swimmers.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Relationship between ventricle length/width ratio and condition factor (CF)
in rainbow trout that had been screened as good or poor swimmers 9 months
earlier. Regression line: L/W ratio=-0.87CF+2.23,
r2=0.78. The black symbol for wild rainbow trout
population (Poppe et al.,
2003 ) was not included in the regression analysis.
|
|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005
