Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Routine metabolic rate and aquatic oxygen uptake in juvenile Clarias gariepinus. Routine metabolic rate (white symbols) and aquatic oxygen uptake (green symbols) measured over 24 h in (A) normoxia (squares, N=29) or (B) aquatic hypoxia at 20% air saturation (diamonds, N=25). The difference between aquatic oxygen uptake and RMR is due to oxygen uptake from air. Shaded blue areas represent night-time hours. The dotted line is mean standard metabolic rate. Values are means±s.e.
- Fig. 2.
The percentage of routine metabolic rate derived from air (%ṀO2,air) over 24 h in juvenile Clarias gariepinus, in either normoxia (N=29) or aquatic hypoxia at 20% air saturation (N=25). The shaded blue areas represent night-time hours. Values are means±s.e.
- Fig. 3.
Relationship between individual standard metabolic rate and time to resume air breathing after a simulated predator attack in juvenile Clarias gariepinus. Scatterplot of the relationship between SMR and time to resume air breathing after a simulated predator attack (Tres). There was a significant negative Spearman rank correlation (R=−0.391, P=0.036, N=29). The line is a least-squares linear fit. Fish with bold Tres phenotypes resumed air breathing in less than 75 min (see text for further details).
- Fig. 4.
The dependence of individual percentage of oxygen uptake obtained from air on standard metabolic rate of juvenile Clarias gariepinus. Scatterplots of the relationship between individual SMR and %ṀO2,air in (A) normoxia (N=29) and (B) aquatic hypoxia at 30% air saturation (N=24). For normoxic daytime, %ṀO2,air=7.64+8.45×SMR, R2=0.063, P=0.187; for normoxic night-time, %ṀO2,air=43.90–6.11×SMR, R2=0.030, P=0.395; for hypoxic daytime, %ṀO2,air=20.86+25.22×SMR, R2=0.318, P=0.017 (B, solid line); for hypoxic night-time, %ṀO2,air=45.42+19.27×SMR, R2=0.231, P=0.017 (B, dotted line).
- Fig. 5.
The dependence of individual percentage of oxygen uptake obtained from air on time to resume air breathing after a simulated predator attack of juvenile Clarias gariepinus. Scatterplots of the relationship between log Tres and %ṀO2,air in (A) normoxia (N=29) or (B) aquatic hypoxia at 25% air saturation (N=24) in the day or night. For normoxic daytime, %ṀO2,air=49.83–17.28×log Tres, R2=0.285, P=0.002 (A, solid line); for normoxic night-time, %ṀO2,air=27.08+4.91×log Tres, R2=0.013, P=0.431; for hypoxic daytime, %ṀO2,air =92.23–23.71×log Tres, R2=0.206, P=0.015 (B, solid line); for hypoxic night-time, %ṀO2,air =83.46–9.03×log Tres, R2=0.028, P=0.211.
Article navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
Welcome to JEB’s new Editor Monica Daley
We are pleased to welcome Monica Daley to JEB’s Editorial team. Monica has had a long association with JEB before taking up her new role, overseeing peer review of neuromuscular physiology, terrestrial biomechanics and integrative physiology of locomotion.
In the field with Robyn Hetem
Continuing our fieldwork series, Robyn Hetem reflects on working with species ranging from aardvark to zebra, and the impact COVID-19 has had on fieldwork.
Read & Publish participation continues to grow
“It is particularly encouraging for early career researchers, as it allows them to display their research globally without the need to find costs to cover the open access option.”
Professor Fernando Montealegre-Z (University of Lincoln) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 150 institutions in 15 countries and four library consortia taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.
Nocturnal reef residents have deep-sea-like eyes
Fanny de Busserolles and colleagues from The University of Queensland have discovered that the eyes of nocturnal reef fish have multibank retinas, layers of photoreceptors, similar to the eyes of deep-sea fish that live in dim light conditions.
Mechanisms underlying gut microbiota–host interactions in insects
In their Review, Konstantin Schmidt and Philipp Engel summarise recent findings about the mechanisms involved in gut colonisation and the provisioning of beneficial effects in gut microbiota–insect symbiosis.