|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online March 17, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 1217-1230 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02128
Swim speeds and stroke patterns in wing-propelled divers: a comparison among alcids and a penguin
1 Graduate School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Minato-cho
3-1-1, Hakodate, 041-8611, Japan
2 NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Banchory, Aberdeenshire AB31 4BW,
UK
3 Department of Zoology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071,
USA
4 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag
3105, Hamilton, New Zealand
5 National Institute of Polar Research, 1-9-10 Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8515,
Japan
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: ywata{at}fish.hokudai.ac.jp)
Accepted 10 January 2006
 |
Summary |
|---|
 TOP Summary IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Key words: acceleration, buoyancy, data-logger, swimming mode, wing stroke
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
;
Boyd et al., 1995;
Wilson et al., 1996). During
dives, endotherms retain much air in their respiratory systems, and birds and
many mammals also retain air layers in their plumage or fur
(Lovvorn and Jones, 1991;
Wilson et al., 1992). As a
result, they must work against buoyancy as well as drag under hydrodynamic
constraints during descent or ascent
(Bannasch, 1995;
Williams et al., 2000;
Lovvorn, 2001;
Sato et al., 2002;
Miller et al., 2004). Also,
physiological constraints on muscle efficiency and power output may affect
swim speeds against varying buoyant resistance (Biewener and Gills, 1999;
Lovvorn et al., 2004). A key
question is: how are dive angle, swim speed and stroke patterns adjusted as
buoyancy changes with depth due to compression of air volumes?
Comparison of diving behaviour among wing-propelled alcids and penguins
should help answer this question. First, alcids and penguins exhibit several
dive profiles with different body angles, such as U-shaped vertical dives and
V-shaped oblique dives (Croll et al.,
1992; Wilson et al.,
1996; Falk et al.,
2000; Benvenuti et al.,
2001). Second, being free from the need to fly in air, penguins
have developed a number of unique physiological and morphological adaptations
for diving, including high blood haemoglobin and muscle myoglobin and small
wings (Mill and Baldwin, 1983;
Pennycuick, 1987;
Croll et al., 1992). However,
after accounting for differences in body mass, alcids dive deeper and for
longer periods than penguins (Burger,
1991; Watanuki and Burger,
1999). Differences in wing stroke patterns
(Watanuki et al., 2003) might
be an important aspect of these different strategies of underwater swimming
and should be compared between alcids and penguins of similar size.
Wing stroke patterns have been well studied for captive alcids and penguins
swimming horizontally at shallow depths, where they experience large constant
buoyancy (Clark and Bemis,
1979; Hui, 1988;
Johansson and Aldrin, 2002).
However, free-ranging alcids and penguins do not just swim horizontally as
they do in shallow tanks; they also dive to depths that may exceed 100 m
(Croll et al., 1992;
Schreer and Kovacs, 1997), and
their buoyancy changes dramatically with depth as their air spaces are
compressed (Lovvorn and Jones,
1991; Wilson et al.,
1992). Recent development of small data-loggers has allowed
studies of the body angles, swim speeds and stroke acceleration patterns of
free-ranging seabirds and marine mammals via high-frequency sampling
of depth change and acceleration (Nowacek
et al., 2001; Watanuki et al.,
2003). To date, however, stroke patterns and swim speeds of
free-ranging birds as measured by standardized methods have not been compared
between penguins and alcids.
In this study, we measured body angles, swim speeds and acceleration patterns during dives to depths of 20–30 m by four species of alcids and a single species of penguin. Despite interspecific differences in dive depth, individuals of all five species dived to about 20 m depth, the depth range over which effects of buoyancy are greatest. For these alcid species of a range of body sizes (generally 0.6–1.0 kg), and a penguin whose mass (1.2 kg) is often similar to that of the larger alcids, we determined how body angle, swim speed and wing stroke frequency changed as buoyancy decreased with depth.
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
)],
razorbill [RAZO; Alca torda L.; 0.62–0.73 kg
(Gaston and Jones, 1998)],
rhinoceros auklet [RHAU; Cerorhinca monocerata Pallas;
0.57±0.04 kg, N=7 (present study)] and little penguin [LIPE;
Eudyptula minor J. R. Forester; 1.21±0.07 kg, N=5
(this study)]. Guillemot species (Uria spp.; Alcidae) typically make
vertical dives and forage on the bottom or in horizontal prey layers. The
other alcids and most penguins usually make oblique dives and forage
epipelagically, although penguins sometimes forage benthically
(Croll et al., 1992;
Wilson et al., 1996;
Bethge et al., 1997;
Falk et al., 2000;
Kuroki et al., 2003). To
minimize potential effects of body size on swimming and wing stroke behaviour
(Clark and Bemis, 1979;
Pennycuick, 1996), we chose
the smallest penguin species that has a similar mass to these alcids.
Buoyancy
Buoyancy was estimated based on the lipid, protein and ash content of each
species and equations relating respiratory and plumage air volumes (before
diving) to body mass (for details of methods, see
Lovvorn et al., 1999). Body
composition was determined from birds collected in the field for all species
except RAZO, for which values were linearly extrapolated from data for COGU.
Specimens included RHAU obtained as chicks in British Columbia and raised in
captivity, COGU collected in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA, LIPE collected
at the Phillip Island Penguin Reserve, Victoria, Australia, and BRGU collected
near the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. For RHAU, we also used data on lipid and
water content of wild birds (Oka and
Okuyama, 2000). The buoyancy of LIPE might be overestimated, owing
to lack of data on plumage air volume and the likelihood that this volume is
relatively lower than in the other species
(Wilson et al., 1992).
Field studies
Field studies were conducted on BRGU at Ny-Ålesund (78°54'
N, 12°13' E), Svalvard, Norway in July 2001; COGU and RAZO at the
Isle of May (56°11' N, 2°33' W), Scotland in June 2003;
RHAU at Teuri Island (44°25' N, 141°19' E), Japan in June
2001; and LIPE at Oamaru (45°06' S, 170°58' E), New
Zealand in October 2003, under permits from the Norwegian Animal Authority
(#980/01) and Governor of Svalbard, the Environmental Agency and Department of
Culture of Japan (#131/2-24
29), the Scottish Natural Heritage
(#MON/PRO/60) and the Department of Conservation in New Zealand
(#OT-13650-FAU).
Adults with small chicks were captured with a noose-pole or by hand. The
data-loggers (15 mm diameter, 60 mm length, 16 g including battery; M190-D2GT;
Little Leonardo Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) were attached to the feathers on the centre
of the lower back with quickset glue, a plastic net and either cable ties for
alcids or TesaTM tape (Charlotte, NC, USA) for LIPE. The longitudinal
axis of the loggers was along the birds' tail-to-head axis, while the vertical
axis was along the birds' dorsal-to-ventral axis
(Fig. 1) (see
Watanuki et al., 2003). The
loggers recorded depth with a pressure sensor (±1 m accuracy; FPBS-82A;
Fujikura, Tokyo, Japan) every second. Acceleration along the tail-to-head axis
(surge) and dorsal-to-ventral axis (heave) was measured with capacitive
accelerometers (ADXL202E; Analog Devices, Norwood, MA, USA) at 32 Hz for BRGU
and RHAU and at 64 Hz for COGU, RAZO and LIPE.
|
|
Logger attachment angle, heave, surge, dive angle and swim speed
The attachment angle (
) of a logger was estimated based on heave
acceleration when the bird was at the water surface (see Watanuki et al.,
2003,
2005) and was –2.1°
to +19°. Average heave accelerations recorded when the birds were at the
water surface (9.1–9.8 m s–2) were close to the
expected accelerations (9.8 m s–2 x cos),
indicating that the heave axes of data-loggers fitted on the birds' backs were
almost perpendicular to the body axes of the birds. A single LIPE (LIPE/5 in
Table 1) had mean heave
acceleration of 8.6 m s–2 when the bird was at the water
surface, indicating that the heave axis was not vertical to the body. Thus,
this bird was excluded from analyses.
Along the surge axis of the data-logger, high-frequency components of the
fluctuations of surge acceleration should be caused by wing stroking, and
low-frequency components by gravity. The low-frequency component was
determined by removing the high-frequency component with a two-band low-pass
filter (IFDL Igor Pro version 4; Wave Metrics, Portland, OR, USA) (following
Watanuki et al., 2003). This
filter started at 1 Hz, which was well below the minimum stroke frequency, and
ended at 1.5 Hz. This range allowed us to analyze rapid body-angle changes at
the start of dives but minimized the risk of misidentifying low-frequency
body-angle changes as strokes (Watanuki et
al., 2005). The contribution of low-frequency components caused by
a change in the mean speed is very small and negligible in this study. For
example, if a bird accelerates speed from 1 m s–1 to 2 m
s–1 by 10 s (probably the fastest acceleration observed in
this study), the bird is accelerated by 0.1 m s–2. If this
bird dives with a body angle of 30° (the shallowest body angle observed),
the surge caused by gravity is 4.9 m s–2. In this case, the
low-frequency component caused by a change of mean speed was 2% (0.1/4.9) of
that caused by gravity. Usually, this value could be smaller. Surge and heave
of the data-loggers caused by wing strokes were determined by subtracting the
components of gravity from recorded surge and heave accelerations. Heave and
surge of a bird's body trunk were corrected for the logger attachment angle
(see appendix in Watanuki et al.,
2003).
The angle of the bird's body axis relative to horizontal (
) was
determined by adding the logger attachment angle () to the logger axis
angle (arcsine of the low-frequency component of surge). To smooth variations
in body angle presumably caused by wing strokes, we used a 1-s moving average
for body angle, corresponding to the sampling interval of the depth. Swim
speed was estimated from body angle and the rate of change in depth for each
1-s sample. LIPE (the fastest of our study species) cruise at 1.5–1.7 m
s–1 and rarely exceed 2.5 m s–1
(Barton, 1979;
Clark and Bemis, 1979;
Bethge et al., 1997). Anomalous
swim speeds of >2.5 m s–1 or <0 m s–1,
possibly resulting from errors in calculating body angle and a very small
depth change rate, were excluded from analyses (29% of 1-s samples for BRGU,
17% for COGU, 12% for RAZO, 14% for RHAU and 28% for LIPE).
Wing strokes from filming vs data-loggers
To check the reliability of estimates of wing-stroke patterns and body
angles based on accelerations, we video-taped a left-side view of a RHAU using
a Sony Hi-8 video camera in an underwater housing at Teuri Island. The bird
was fitted with a data-logger and dove to 2–3 m depth along a pier in a
harbour. For this experiment, the bird was freely swimming with a 20-m
lightweight line attached to its foot. Video-recording and acceleration
measurements started at exactly the same time. Displacements of the left eye
and the carpal joint of the left wing were plotted from the video image at
0.06-s intervals using PhotoShop (Adobe Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). We
plotted the position of the carpal joint relative to the trajectory of the eye
to analyze wing movement.
Definition of upstroke, downstroke and glide
Based on a single dive to 3 m depth by the RHAU that was also video-taped,
the body angle (measured from horizontal) determined from surge acceleration
(19°) was very close to the angle (around 20°) of the approximate
trajectory of the eye in the video sequence
(Fig. 2C). Therefore, we
assumed that a bird's forward progress is parallel to the axis of the body and
that swim speed can be estimated from body angle and the rate of change in
depth.
|
|
Between the end of descent and the start of ascent (`bottom' in Fig. 3), when swimming was generally horizontal, both heave and surge sometimes stayed at around zero for a period after the downstroke, which we interpreted as a glide (Fig. 3). In such cases, we defined the start of the upstroke as the time when heave started to decrease steadily (–12.8 m s–3 for samples at 64 Hz, and –16.0 m s–3 for samples at 32 Hz). All upstrokes and downstrokes were longer than 0.1 s. Since the sampling interval was 0.03125 s for recordings at 32 Hz and 0.015625 s for 64 Hz, glides shorter than 0.1 s could not be discriminated reliably. The durations of upstroke and downstroke and the maximum heave and surge acceleration on upstroke and downstroke were obtained with a macro program in Igor Pro version 4.
Effects of attached loggers
Externally attached devices sometimes affect the behaviour of alcids and
penguins (Wanless et al.,
1988; Watanuki et al.,
1992; Wilson and Culik,
1992; Paredes et al.,
2005). Because of logistic constraints, a formal assessment of
device effects was not attempted as part of this research. Loggers of the same
size and shape as those in this study did not change the duration of foraging
trips by BRGU (Watanuki et al.,
2001), but both BRGU and RHAU decreased meal delivery rates to
chicks (Watanuki et al., 2001;
Kuroki et al., 2003). For all
species in this study, the mass of our loggers represented <2% of the mass
of adults. Assuming that the density of salt water at 10°C was 1.0269 g
ml–1, buoyancy of the logger (16 g mass in the air and 10.6
ml volume) was only –0.05 N, which seems negligible at depths of <20
m where the buoyancy of birds without devices was much larger (0.9–5.0
N).
Because of drag, as the frontal cross-sectional area of attached devices
becomes larger relative to that of the birds, birds dive shallower, swim
slower and expend more energy than those without devices
(Wilson et al., 1986;
Culik and Wilson, 1991;
Wilson and Culik, 1992). The
cross-sectional area of our loggers (1.77 cm2) was 3.2% and 6.1% of
the maximum cross-sectional area of BRGU (54.77 cm2) and RHAU
(28.99 cm2) (Osa,
1994). The girth at the base of the wings of LIPE was
39.9±0.6 cm (N=5 birds), so the cross-sectional area of the
device was 1.4% of that of LIPE (126.69 cm2). African penguins
(Spheniscus demersus) are expected to reduce swim speed by 4%, 9% and
18% if they carry devices having cross-sectional areas of 1.4%, 3.2% and 6.1%,
respectively, of that of the birds (Wilson
et al., 1986). The total wetted surface area and the interaction
with the body also affect drag. Even a small structure can have important
effects on the flow. Although our devices had a rounded head and we attached
them to the lower back of the birds to minimize drag
(Fig. 1)
(Bannasch et al., 1994), we
could not rule out drag effects of loggers in our data for small alcids.
Sample dives and analyses
BRGU and COGU made much deeper dives (maximum individual depths of
107–120 m for BRGU and 63–67 m for COGU) than RAZO (25–31
m), RHAU (34–60 m) and LIPE (17–23 m)
(Table 1). Penguins and
guillemots adjust dive angle and stroke rate according to the maximum depth of
each dive (Wilson et al.,
1996; Watanuki et al.,
2003). For comparing species, we therefore selected dives to
depths of 20–30 m. Our aim was to describe changes in dive angle, swim
speed and stroke frequency during steady swimming, so we also selected dives
with no abrupt changes of depth during descent and ascent. This protocol
minimized the possibility of including dives in which the birds chased prey
during these phases. Mean depths (±1 s.d.) of sample dives were
27±1 m for BRGU (N=8), 27±1 m for COGU (N=14),
25±1 m for RAZO (N=9), 24±1 m for RHAU (N=16)
and 21±0 m for LIPE (N=7). Data collected at depths of <1 m
were excluded, as they were within the error range of the depth sensor.
Birds descended (descent phase) with a large negative depth change rate, stayed there for a while (bottom phase) with a small depth change rate, and then ascended to the surface (ascent phase) with a large positive depth change rate (Fig. 4). To define the bottom phase, we used the distribution of depth change rate. The distribution of rates of change in vertical depth showed gaps at –0.4 to –1 m s–1 and at 0.4 to 1 m s–1. Therefore, birds were defined as descending if their rate of change in depth was lower than –0.6 m s–1 and as ascending if it was higher than 0.6 m s–1.
|
=0.05. We used 1-s samples
for analyses of body angle and swim speed, and used each wing stroke (as
defined by heave) as the sample unit for analyzing maximum acceleration on
upstroke and downstroke, duration of upstrokes and downstrokes, frequency of
wing strokes, and peaks of positive surge acceleration during descent and
ascent phases of sample dives (to maximum depths of 20–30 m).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
). At 20 m
depth, all species studied here were positively buoyant: 1.1 N for BRGU, 1.0 N
for COGU, 1.0 N for RAZO, 0.9 N for RHAU and 1.2 N for LIPE.
Body angle and swim speed during descent and ascent
Body angle and swim speed during descent differed among species
(P<0.001 for body angle, P<0.01 for swim speed).
During descent, the mean body angles of BRGU and COGU were steeper than for
RAZO and RHAU, with LIPE having the shallowest body angle
(Table 2;
Fig. 5). Body angle was
affected by current depth and the interaction between species and current
depth (in both cases, P<0.001). BRGU, COGU, RAZO and RHAU
decreased their body angles as they descended, whereas LIPE maintained their
shallow body angle within a relatively narrow range
(Fig. 5).
|
|
During descent, mean swim speed did not differ significantly between LIPE, COGU and RAZO, but that of LIPE was faster than BRGU; RHAU had the slowest swim speed (Table 2). Swim speed was significantly affected by current depth (P<0.001) and species x current depth interaction (P<0.001). BRGU, COGU and RAZO increased swim speed during descent, whereas RHAU and LIPE maintained swim speed within a relatively narrow range (Fig. 5).
During ascent, both body angle and swim speed differed among species (P<0.05). Both BRGU and COGU had steeper body angles than RHAU, while no significant difference was found for other pairwise comparisons (Table 2). Body angle was significantly affected by current depth (P<0.001) and species x current depth interaction (P<0.001). BRGU, COGU, RAZO and RHAU slightly increased body angle, while LIPE decreased body angle, within 15 m of the water surface (Fig. 5).
During ascent, post-hoc tests showed no significant pairwise differences in swim speed among species (Table 2). Swim speed was affected by current depth (P<0.001) and species x current depth interaction (P<0.01): COGU, RAZO and RHAU increased swim speed during ascent, while BRGU and LIPE did not (Fig. 5).
Mean depths (±1 s.e.m.) at which the birds stopped stroking their wings during ascent (see Fig. 4) were 18±1 m (N=8 dives) for BRGU, 23±1 m (N=14) for COGU, 20±1 m (N=10) for RAZO, 19±1 m (N=16) for RHAU and 18±1 m (N=7) for LIPE (see Fig. 2). Being positively buoyant, birds ascended passively above 78–87% of maximum dive depths for dives to 20–30 m. Stroke patterns during ascent were not analyzed further.
Duration and frequency of stroke and forward acceleration during descent
During descent, duration of the upstroke did not vary among species
(Table 2). Upstroke duration
was significantly affected by both current depth and species x depth
interaction (P<0.001). BRGU, COGU and RHAU slightly increased
upstroke duration during descent, while RAZO and LIPE did not
(Fig. 6). Duration of the
downstroke did not vary among species and was not affected by current depth,
so all species maintained essentially constant downstroke durations while
descending. The species x depth interaction was significant
(P<0.001), although no obvious patterns were apparent
(Fig. 6).
|
Mean (±1 s.e.m.) duration of glides, when those shorter than 0.1 s were excluded, was 0.441±0.029 s (N=145 glides) for BRGU, 0.276±0.020 s (N=321) for COGU, 0.289±0.025 s(N=75) for RAZO, 0.324±0.010 s (N=781) for RHAU and 0.628±0.053 s (N=45) for LIPE. Although gliding was common during bottom swimming in alcids (145 of 262 strokes for BRGU, 321 of 555 strokes for COGU, 781 of 1211 strokes for RHAU, 75 of 149 strokes for RAZO but only 45 of 280 strokes for LIPE), glides were rare or absent in all species during descent (two strokes for BRGU, three strokes for RAZO, and no strokes for other species).
The frequency of wing strokes was defined as the inverse of the sum of the durations of upstrokes, downstrokes and glide phases. During descent, the frequency of wing strokes did not vary statistically among species (Table 2).Stroke frequency was affected by current depth (P<0.001) and species x current depth interaction (P<0.001). RAZO and LIPE maintained relatively constant stroke frequency during descent, while BRGU, COGU and RHAU slightly decreased stroke frequency as they descended to 20 m depth (Fig. 6).
Typical changes of heave and surge accelerations of free-ranging COGU and LIPE during descent (Fig. 3) show that COGU had peaks of positive (forward) surge acceleration during both upstroke and downstroke at 2 m depth, but at 20 m had a single peak of positive surge only during the downstroke. LIPE showed peaks of positive surge during both upstroke and downstroke at both 2 and 20 m depth. During descent, the frequency of the peaks of positive surges did not differ among species (Table 2). The frequency of the peaks of positive surges was affected by current depth and species x depth interaction (P<0.001). COGU and RAZO decreased the frequency of the peaks of positive surges more quickly as depth increased than did BRGU and RHAU, since these alcids did not show forward surge on upstrokes in deep water. LIPE maintained high frequency of the peaks of positive surges during descent (Fig. 6), possibly by making thrusts on both upstroke and downstroke over the entire depth range.
Maximum heave and surge during strokes
We also measured the maximum downward and upward heave accelerations
recorded on upstroke and downstroke, respectively. Strokes with extreme heave
accelerations, presumably because of prey pursuit or rapid depth undulations,
were considered outliers and were deleted (3.1% of all strokes for BRGU, 0.6%
for COGU, 7.9% for RAZO, 0.8% for RHAU and 1.9% for LIPE).
Maximum downward heave on the upstroke varied among species (P<0.05), although post-hoc tests showed no significant pairwise differences. Maximum downward heave on the upstroke was not affected by current depth but was affected by species x depth interaction (P<0.001). RAZO and BRGU seemed to decrease maximum upstroke heave slightly as depth increased, but the other species did not (Fig. 7). Maximum upward heave on the downstroke did not differ among species (Table 2). Maximum upward heave on the downstroke was affected by current depth and species x depth interaction (P<0.001). BRGU, RHAU and RAZO increased maximum upward heave on the downstroke with increasing depth while COGU and LIPE did not (Fig. 7).
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
;
Falk et al., 2000). Typical
dive depths of COGU are 20–60 m
(Gaston and Jones, 1998;
Daunt et al., 2003). RAZO
usually make V-shaped dives to mean depths of 8–24 m
(Benvenuti et al., 2001). RHAU
made V-shaped dives, with median depths of 12–17 m and maximum depths of
35–57 m (Kuroki et al.,
2003). LIPE usually make V-shaped dives to mean depths of
1–4 m and maximum depths of 15–50 m
(Gales et al., 1990;
Bethge et al., 1997).
Deeper-diving species (BRGU and COGU) did not always swim faster, stroke
more frequently (Table 2) or
stop stroke at deeper depths than shallower divers (RAZO, RHAU, LIPE).
However, species-specific dive profiles corresponded to patterns of body angle
in our study. Thus, the deeper-diving BRGU and COGU had steep body angles
while descending (–76° and –78° on average) and ascending
(57° on average). During the `bottom' (mostly horizontal) phase of dives,
BRGU and COGU are believed to feed on epibenthic prey or on epipelagic prey in
predictable layers (Coyle et al.,
1992; Croll et al.,
1992; Bryant and Jones,
1999); thus, they may maximize foraging time by descending and
ascending with steeper body angles. COGU on the Isle of May eat mainly
0-year-class lesser sandeels (Ammodytes marinus) and feed their
chicks either on larger, adult sandeels or sprats (Sprattus sprattus)
(Wilson et al., 2004).
Comparison of dive depths with local hydrography indicates that birds are
predominantly feeding below the themocline close to the seabed
(Daunt et al., 2006). Among
obliquely diving species, LIPE descended with shallower (–37°) and
ascended with steeper (51°) body angles, while RHAU descended with steeper
(–43°) and ascended with shallower (26°) body angles. RAZO
descended (–45°) and ascended (46°) with similar angles. How
these interspecific differences in body angle during descent and ascent relate
to foraging ecology is currently uncertain.
Buoyancy and regulation of stroke patterns
The estimated buoyancy of our study species at the water surface ranged
from 3.6 for RHAU to 5.0 N for LIPE. Based on body masses obtained in this
study or reported in the literature, mass-specific buoyancy is estimated as
greater for RHAU (6.3 N kg–1) and RAZO (5.7 N
kg–1) than for BRGU (4.9 N kg–1) and COGU
(4.7 N kg–1), and that of LIPE is smallest (<4.1 N
kg–1). The buoyancy of tissues does not change with depth;
however, owing to compression of air volumes in the respiratory system and
plumage, buoyancy decreases rapidly with increasing depth to a depth of about
20 m. Below 20 m, the air spaces are mostly compressed and buoyancy changes
only gradually. This pattern of buoyancy change with depth is the same
regardless of variations in the magnitude of air volumes in different species
(Lovvorn and Jones, 1991;
Lovvorn et al., 1999;
Lovvorn et al., 2004). Because
the buoyancy of birds of all alcid species, and presumably that of LIPE, was
positive at 20 m depth and buoyancy increases rapidly above this depth, ascent
from 20 m depth could occur passively (without stroking). All species
responded to this pattern by ceasing strokes at about 20 m depth during
ascent.
During descent, alcids decreased the frequency of peaks of positive surge
acceleration (those based on upstroke and downstroke considered as separate)
between 5 and 15 m depth (Fig.
6), possibly to reduce thrust as buoyancy decreased
(Watanuki et al., 2003;
Lovvorn et al., 2004),
although the pattern was not so obvious in BRGU. Stroke frequency also
decreased with depth in BRGU, COGU and RHAU, but the decrease was small
(5–19%) compared with the decrease in frequency of the peaks of positive
surge accelerations (49–54%; Fig.
7). RAZO maintained the same stroke frequency as depth increased.
Therefore, in alcids, the decrease in the frequency of forward acceleration
was achieved mainly by a decrease in surge acceleration on the upstroke as
depth approached 20 m (Fig. 7).
This pattern also occurred in BRGU diving to 100 m depth
(Watanuki et al., 2003). Our
present study provides additional evidence that this mechanism is widespread
across alcids exhibiting a range of dive profile types and foraging patterns,
even for species with relatively shallow dives.
In contrast to alcids, LIPE did not decrease the frequency of peaks of
positive surge acceleration as depth increased during descent but instead
reduced the amplitude of surge acceleration during both upstroke and
downstroke as buoyancy decreased (Fig.
7). An analogous decrease in the amplitude of wing strokes with
increasing depth was observed in Magellanic penguins (Pygoscelis
magellanicus) (Wilson and Liebsch,
2003). Our present study found that LIPE accelerated forward
during both upstroke and downstroke throughout descent to 20 m depth, whereas
alcids accelerated forward during the upstroke and downstroke at shallow
depths and mainly on downstroke at deeper depths.
Similar patterns of acceleration during both upstroke and downstroke have
been reported for various species of penguins
(Clark and Bemis, 1979;
Hui, 1988) and Atlantic
puffin, Fratercula arctica
(Johansson and Aldrin, 2002),
swimming horizontality in a tank. Observed surge acceleration results from the
sum of forward thrust by the birds and resistance by buoyancy, drag and
inertia. At the same mean speed and stroke frequency during descent, shallower
dive angles against buoyancy might result in greater acceleration during
strokes due to less work against buoyancy (less vertical distance moved
against buoyancy during a stroke). However, this effect should not alter one
of the major differences we found in comparing alcids and penguins. With
increasing depth during descent, alcids generally decreased relative surge
acceleration on the upstroke vs downstroke, whereas LIPE decreased
surge acceleration similarly on upstroke and downstroke. Downstrokes are
powered mainly by the pectoral muscles and upstrokes by the supracoracoideus
muscles. The mass proportion of pectoral to supracoracoideus muscles is
greater in BRGU (3.5), COGU (3.5) and RHAU (3.3) than in LIPE (2.1)
(Mill and Baldwin, 1983),
emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri; 2.3) and king penguins
(A. patagonicus; 1.8) (values calculated from
Osa, 1994). These values
suggest that penguins rely more on the upstroke. Relatively large
supracoracoideus muscles may allow LIPE to distribute thrust more evenly
between upstroke and downstroke (Fig.
7), thereby reducing peak instantaneous speeds and associated
higher drag (Lovvorn,
2001).
Wing stroke frequency of 1.2 kg LIPE (3.4 Hz) did not differ significantly
from those of 0.6–1.0 kg alcids (2.3 to 2.8 Hz), although the trend was
for LIPE to stroke more frequently. This pattern was not expected, given the
general observation that larger animals stroke less frequently than smaller
ones both in water (Clark and Bemis,
1979) and in air (Pennycuick,
1996). Proportionally greater wing area of alcids than penguins
(Pennycuick, 1987;
Osa, 1994) might explain this
trend, although more data are needed on wing stroke frequency of larger
penguins and the wing geometry of penguins and diving alcids.
Despite this difference in stroke patterns between alcids and penguins,
duration of the downstroke did not change with depth during descent for either
alcids or penguins. During descent, alcids had slightly lower maximum heave on
downstroke at depths of 2–5 m, where buoyancy was very high, than at
greater depths. By contrast, LIPE showed no change in maximum heave on
downstroke with depth. Given that downstroke duration (and thus contraction
frequency) did not change with depth, changing heave with depth indicates that
the alcids exhibited some variation in power output against load during
descent when these shallow depths are included. Guillemots diving to 105 m
expended greater work per stroke in the top 5–10 m of dives when
overcoming high buoyancy, after which work per stroke became relatively
constant (Lovvorn et al.,
2004). Muscle is presumed to have maximum efficiency over a
relatively narrow range of contraction speeds and loads
(Goldspink, 1977;
Lovvorn, 2001). The width of
this range for load is unknown for the pectoralis muscles of alcids, which
must also fly in air at much higher stroke frequencies (8.7 Hz in air
vs 1.9–2.8 Hz in water for murres) in a far less dense medium
(salt water is 800 times denser than air) (see
Lovvorn et al., 1999). The
means by which alcids accommodate these widely varying demands on muscle
function, and the extent to which variations in power output affect the
efficiency of wing muscles, are intriguing but unclear (cf.
Biewener and Gillis, 1999).
Speed change with depth and its regulation
In our study, mean swim speed of LIPE (1.8 m s–1) was
within the range of speeds reported in the wild
(Bethge et al., 1997). As BRGU
dive almost vertically, their swim speed is almost identical to descent and
ascent rates. Our values of swim speeds of descending BRGU accorded closely
with previously reported descent rates (1.4–1.6 m s–1)
(Lovvorn et al., 1999;
Lovvorn et al., 2004). During
horizontal swimming, guillemot species attain variable speeds ranging from 1.0
m s–1 (see appendix in
Watanuki et al., 2003) to 2.18
m s–1 (Swennen and
Duiven, 1991), probably depending on feeding activity. Maximum
speeds of RAZO were 1.9 m s–1 during descent and 2.5 m
s–1 during ascent
(Benvenuti et al., 2001). Thus,
swim speeds during descent in our study were similar to those in previous
reports.
For dives to 20 m depth, our study shows that free-ranging alcids often
increased swim speed during descent and ascent by 0.2–0.5 m
s–1. During passive ascent, COGU, RAZO and RHAU increased
their speed as buoyancy rapidly increased above 20 m. BRGU did not increase
speed as much, indicating that effects of buoyancy might be smaller for
shallow dives by this species. When BRGU approached the surface after diving
to 100 m depth, they increased swim speed to 2.3 m s–1
without stroking their wings (Watanuki et
al., 2003). During descent, BRGU, COGU and RAZO slightly increased
swim speed (Fig. 5). RHAU and
LIPE maintained a relatively narrow range of speeds while descending. Increase
of speed during descent to 20 m (18%, 8%, 10% and 34% for COGU, RAZO, RHAU and
LIPE, respectively) seemed to be smaller than increases during ascent (28%,
39%, 30% and 20% for COGU, RAZO, RHAU and LIPE, respectively), although BRGU
increased speed by 21% during descent but by only 13% during ascent. Note that
these speed changes were over a depth range of rapidly changing buoyancy,
whereas speed changes at deeper depths may be far less
(Lovvorn et al., 2004).
What determines swim speed as buoyancy changes with depth? At depths
greater than 5–10 m, work against buoyancy has declined and work against
drag becomes the main mechanical cost of swimming
(Lovvorn, 2001;
Lovvorn et al., 2004). At
depths over 10 m, BRGU diving to over 100 m swam at a narrow range of speeds
(1.4–1.8 m s–1) at the upper end of the mostly linear
part of the drag curve before major increases in drag occurred
(Lovvorn et al., 2004). In the
present study, BRGU also kept within this range of speeds during dives to
20–30 m depth (Fig. 5).
However, for guillemots, there are no obvious thresholds of the increase in
drag with speed that would predict the observed speeds beyond depths at which
buoyancy is negligible (Lovvorn et al.,
2004). Similarly, the curve of drag vs speed in frozen
LIPE (Lovvorn et al., 2001)
does not indicate a clear threshold to explain their choice of 1.8–2 m
s–1 observed in this study
(Fig. 5). Lacking clear
thresholds in drag, it appears that constraints on power output or endurance
of muscles may be more important than patterns of drag in determining swim
speed of these birds, even when drag is the main determinant of the power
those muscles must deliver. Data presented here and elsewhere
(Lovvorn et al., 2004) suggest
that guillemots may exceed optimum work rates at depths less than 5–10 m
when overcoming very high buoyancy but reduce work rates to more constant and
sustainable levels once they reach deeper depths.
Another possibility is that birds swim at speeds that minimize the cost of
transport (COT), or the oxygen consumption required to transport a unit mass a
unit distance. Pygoscelid penguins swimming horizontally chose to swim at
speeds near their minimum COT (Culik et
al., 1991; Culik et al.,
1994), whereas spheniscid penguins and cormorants chose to swim at
speeds below their minimum COT (Schmid et
al., 1995; Luna-Jorquera and
Culik, 2000). In LIPE swimming horizontally, COT decreased with
increasing speed and seemed to approach a minimum at 1.8 m
s–1 (Bethge et al.,
1997); our LIPE swam at 1.8–1.9 m s–1. At
present, there are no respirometry data for alcids swimming at different
speeds to indicate how COT changes with speed. Mechanical power required to
overcome buoyancy changes substantially with depth
(Lovvorn et al., 2004), so the
speed that minimizes COT during descent is expected to change with depth and
may not be apparent from studies in shallow tanks. Predictions of swim speed
based on COT during horizontal swimming may apply better to LIPE with their
oblique dive angles and low specific buoyancy
(Wilson et al., 1992) than to
guillemots with their more vertical dive angles and higher specific air
volumes. Aerobic efficiencies (mechanical power output/aerobic power input)
and COT may also be affected by thermoregulation costs and the potential for
substitution of heat from the inefficiency of exercise to reduce costs of
thermogenesis (Schmid et al.,
1995; Lovvorn,
2006). Determining if small increases of swim speed in descending
alcids can be explained in terms of COT will require detailed respirometry of
work rates relative to mechanical costs at relevant water temperatures
(Lovvorn, 2006).
In conclusion, as buoyancy declined during descent to 20 m depth, alcids
decreased acceleration on the upstroke while LIPE maintained more equal
distribution of acceleration between upstroke and downstroke. This pattern in
alcids occurred despite variation in dive angle. The range of acceleration
during strokes was much smaller for LIPE than alcids, which may reduce
nonlinear increases in drag at higher instantaneous speeds
(Lovvorn, 2001;
Lovvorn and Liggins, 2002).
This difference in stroke patterns, which corresponds to a proportionally
greater mass of upstroke muscles in penguins than alcids, may result from
constraints of aerial flight in alcids.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Present address: 3-328-A202, Matsudo, Chiba, 270-0034, Japan 
Present address: International Coastal Research Center, Ocean Research
Institute, University of Tokyo, Otsuchi, Iwate, 012-1102, Japan
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Bannasch, R. (1995). Hydrodynamics of penguins – an experimental approach. In The Penguins: Ecology and Management (ed. P. Dann, I. Norman and P. Reily), pp.141 -176. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Bannasch, R., Wilson, R. P. and Culik, B. (1994). Hydrodynamic aspects of design and attachment of a back-mounted device in penguins. J. Exp. Biol. 194, 83-96.[Abstract]
Barton, D. (1979). Swimming speed of a little penguin. Emu 79,141 -142.
Benvenuti, S., Dall'Antonia, L. and Lyngs, P. (2001). Foraging behaviour and time allocation of chick-rearing razorbills Alca torda at Græsholmen, central Baltic Sea. Ibis 143,402 -412.
Bethge, P., Nicol, S., Culik, B. M. and Wilson, R. P. (1997). Diving behaviour and energetics in breeding little penguins (Eudyptula minor). J. Zool. 242,483 -502.
Biewener, A. A. and Gillis, G. B. (1999). Dynamics of muscle function during locomotion: accommodating variable conditions. J. Exp. Biol. 202,3387 -3396.[Abstract]
Boyd, I. L., Reid, K. and Bevan, R. M. (1995). Swimming speed and allocation of time during the dive cycle in Antarctic fur seals. Anim. Behav. 50,769 -784.[CrossRef]
Bryant, R. and Jones, I. L. (1999). Food resource use and diet overlap of common and thick-billed murres at the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Waterbirds 22,392 -400.
Burger, A. E. (1991). Maximum diving depths and underwater foraging in alcids and penguins. In Studies of High-Latitude Seabirds. 1. Behavioural, Energetic and Oceanographic Aspects of Seabird Feeding Ecology (ed. W. A. Montevecchi and A. J. Gaston), pp. 9-15.Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper.
Clark, B. D. and Bemis, W. (1979). Kinematics of swimming of penguins at the Detroit Zoo. J. Zool. 188,411 -428.
Coyle, K. O., Hunt, G. L., Decker, M. B. and Weingartner, T. J. (1992). Murre foraging, epibenthic sound scattering and tidal advection over a shoal near St. George Island, Bering Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 83, 1-14.
Croll, D. A., Gaston, J. A., Burger, A. E. and Konnoff, D. (1992). Foraging behavior and physiological adaptation for diving in thick-billed murres. Ecology 73,344 -356.[CrossRef]
Culik, B. and Wilson, R. P. (1991). Swimming
energetics and performance of instrumented Adélie penguins
(Pygoscelis adeliae). J. Exp. Biol.
158,355
-368.
Culik, B. M., Wilson, R. P., Dauufeld, R., Adelung, D., Spairani, H. J. and Coria, N. R. C. (1991). Pygoscelid penguins in a swim canal. Polar Biol. 11,277 -282.
Culik, B. M., Wilson, R. P. and Bannasch, R. (1994). Underwater swimming at low energetic cost by Pygoscelid penguins. J. Exp. Biol. 197, 65-78.[Abstract]
Daunt, F., Peters, G., Scott, B., Gremillet, D. and Wanless, S. (2003). Rapid-response recorders reveal interplay between marine physics and seabird behaviour. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 255,283 -288.
Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Peters, G., Benvenuti, S., Sharples, J., Gremillet, D. and Scott, B. (2006). Impacts of oceanography on the foraging dynamics of seabirds in the North Sea. In Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems: Their Role in Monitoring and Management (ed. I. L. Boyd, S. Wanless and C. J. Camphuysen). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, K., Benvenuti, S., Dall'Antonia, L., Kampp, K. and Ribolini, A. (2000). Time allocation and foraging behaviour of chick rearing Brünnich's guillemots Uria lomvia in high-arctic Greenland. Ibis 142, 82-92.
Gales, R., Williams, C. and Ritz, D. (1990). Foraging behaviour of little penguin, Eudyptula minor: initial results and assessment of instrument effect. J. Zool. 220, 61-85.
Gaston, A. J. and Jones, I. L. (1998). The Auks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldspink, G. (1977). Mechanics and energetics of muscle in animals of different sizes, with particular reference to the muscle fibre composition of vertebrate muscle. In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion (ed. T. J. Pedley), pp.37 -66.London: Academic Press.
Houston, A. I. and Carbone, C. (1992). The
optimal allocation of time during the diving cycle. Behav.
Ecol. 3,255
-265.
Hui, C. A. (1988). Penguin swimming. I. Hydrodynamics. Physiol. Zool. 61,333 -343.
Johansson, L. C. and Aldrin, B. S. W. (2002).
Kinematics of diving Atlantic puffins (Fratercula arctica L.):
evidence for an active upstroke. J. Exp. Biol.
205,371
-378.
Kuroki, M., Kato, A., Watanuki, Y., Niizuma, Y., Takahahsi, A. and Naito, Y. (2003). Diving behavior of epipelagically-feeding alcid, rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata). Can. J. Zool. 81,1249 -1256.[CrossRef]
Lovvorn, J. R. (2001). Upstroke thrust, drag effects, and stroke-glide cycles in wing-propelled swimming by birds. Am. Zool. 41,154 -165.[CrossRef]
Lovvorn, J. R. (2006). Thermal substitution and aerobic efficiency: measuring and predicting effects of heat balance on endotherm diving energetics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. (in press).
Lovvorn, J. R. and Jones, D. R. (1991). Body mass, volume, and buoyancy of some aquatic birds, and their relation to locomotor strategies. Can. J. Zool. 69,2888 -2892.
Lovvorn, J. R. and Liggins, G. A. (2002). Interactions of body shape, body size and stroke-acceleration patterns in costs of underwater swimming by birds. Funct. Ecol. 16,106 -112.[CrossRef]
Lovvorn, J. R., Croll, D. A. and Liggins, G. A. (1999). Mechanical versus physiological determinants of swimming speeds in diving Brünnich's guillemots. J. Exp. Biol. 202,1741 -1752.[Abstract]
Lovvorn, J. R., Liggins, G. A., Borstat, M. H., Calisal, S. M. and Mikkelsen, J. (2001). Hydrodynamic drag of diving birds: effects of body size, body shape and feathers at steady speeds. J. Exp. Biol. 204,1547 -1557.[Abstract]
Lovvorn, J. R., Watanuki, Y., Kato, A., Naito, Y. and Liggins,
G. A. (2004). Stroke patterns and regulation of swim speed
and energy cost in free-ranging Brünnich's guillemots. J. Exp.
Biol. 207,4679
-4695.
Luna-Jorquera, G. and Culik, B. M. (2000). Metabolic rates of swimming Humboldt penguins. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 203,301 -309.
Mill, G. K. and Baldwin, J. (1983). Biomechanical correlates of swimming and diving behavior in the little penguin, Eudyptula minor. Physiol. Zool. 56,242 -254.
Miller, P. O., Johnson, M. P., Tyack, P. L. and Terray, E.
A. (2004). Swimming gaits, passive drag and buoyancy of
diving sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus. J. Exp.
Biol. 207,1953
-1967.
Nowacek, D. P., Johnson, M. P., Tyack, P. L., Shorter, K. A., McLellan, W. A. and Pabst, D. A. (2001). Buoyant balaenids: the ups and downs of buoyancy in right whales. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268,1811 -1826.[Medline]
Oka, N. and Okuyama, M. (2000). Nutritional status of dead oiled rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata) in the Southern Japan Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40,340 -347.[CrossRef]
Osa, Y. (1994). Functional morphology of diving and flying seabirds. Ph.D. thesis, Tokyo Fisheries University, Japan.
Paredes, R., Jones, I. L. and Boness, D. J. (2005). Reduced parental care, compensatory behaviour and reproductive costs of thick-billed murres equipped with data loggers. Anim. Behav. 69,197 -208.[CrossRef]
Pennycuick, C. J. (1987). Flight of seabirds. In Seabirds: Feeding Ecology and Role in Marine Ecosystems (ed. J. P. Croxall), pp.43 -62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycuick, C. J. (1996). Wingbeat frequency of birds in steady cruising flight: new data and improved predictors. J. Exp. Biol. 199,1613 -1618.[Abstract]
Sato, K., Naito, Y., Kato, A., Niizuma, Y., Watanuki, Y.,
Charrassin, J. B., Bost, C.-A., Handrich, Y. and Le Maho, Y.
(2002). Buoyancy and maximal diving depth in penguins: do they
control inhaling air volume? J. Exp. Biol.
205,1189
-1197.
Schmid, D., Grémillet, D. J. H. and Culik, B. M. (1995). Energetics of underwater swimming in the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis). Mar. Biol. 123,875 -881.[CrossRef]
Schreer, J. F. and Kovacs, K. M. (1997). Allometry of diving capacity in air-breathing vertebrates. Can. J. Zool. 75,339 -358.
Swennen, C. and Duiven, P. (1991). Diving speed and food-size selection in common guillemots, Uria aalge. Neth. J. Sea Res. 27,191 -196.
Wanless, S., Harris, M. P. and Morris, J. A. (1988). The effect of radio transmitters on the behaviour of common murres and razorbills during chick rearing. Condor 90,816 -823.
Watanuki, Y. and Burger, A. E. (1999). Body mass and dive duration in alcids and penguins. Can. J. Zool. 77,1838 -1842.[CrossRef]
Watanuki, Y., Mori, Y. and Naito, Y. (1992). Adélie penguin parental activities and reproduction: effects of device size and timing of its attachment during chick rearing period. Polar Biol. 12,539 -544.
Watanuki, Y., Mehlum, F. and Takahashi, A. (2001). Water temperature sampling by foraging Brünnich's guillemots with bird-borne data loggers. J. Avian Biol. 32,189 -193.[CrossRef]
Watanuki, Y., Niizuma, Y., Gabrielsen, G. W., Sato, K. and Naito, Y. (2003). Stroke and glide of wing-propelled divers: deep diving seabirds adjust surge frequency to buoyancy change with depth. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270,483 -488.[Medline]
Watanuki, Y., Takahashi, A., Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Harris, M.,
Sato, K. and Naito, Y. (2005). Regulation of stroke and glide
in a foot-propelled avian diver. J. Exp. Biol.
208,2207
-2216.
Williams, T. M., Davis, R. W., Fuiman, L. A., Francis, J., Le
Boeuf, B. J., Horning, M., Calambokidis, J. and Croll, D. A.
(2000). Sink or swim: strategies for cost-efficient diving by
marine mammals. Science
288,133
-136.
Wilson, L. J., Daunt, F. and Wanless, S. (2004). Self-feeding and chick provisioning diet differ in the common guillemot Uria aalge. Ardea 92,197 -207.
Wilson, R. P. and Culik, B. M. (1992). Packages on penguins and device-induced data. In Wildlife Telemetry (ed. I. G. Preid and S. Swift), pp.573 -580. New York: Ellis Horwood.
Wilson, R. P. and Liebsch, N. (2003). Up-beat motion in swinging limbs: new insights into assessing movement in free-living aquatic vertebrates. Mar. Biol. 142,537 -547.
Wilson, R. P., Grant, W. S. and Duffy, D. C. (1986). Recording devices on free-ranging marine animals: does measurement affect foraging performance? Ecology 67,1091 -1093.[CrossRef]
Wilson, R. P., Hustler, K., Ryan, P. G., Burger, A. E. and Noldeke, E. C. (1992). Diving birds in cold water: do Archimedes and Boyle determine energy cost? Am. Nat. 140,179 -200.[CrossRef]
Wilson, R. P., Culik, B. M., Peters, G. and Bannasch, R. (1996). Diving behaviour of Gentoo penguins, Pygoscelis papua; factors keeping dive profiles in shape. Mar. Biol. 126,153 -162.[CrossRef]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. Sato, Y. Watanuki, A. Takahashi, P. J.O Miller, H. Tanaka, R. Kawabe, P. J Ponganis, Y. Handrich, T. Akamatsu, Y. Watanabe, et al. Stroke frequency, but not swimming speed, is related to body size in free-ranging seabirds, pinnipeds and cetaceans Proc R Soc B, February 22, 2007; 274(1609): 471 - 477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Watanabe, E. A. Baranov, K. Sato, Y. Naito, and N. Miyazaki Body density affects stroke patterns in Baikal seals J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2006; 209(17): 3269 - 3280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
