Submit a preprint

Direct submissions to PCI Ecology from bioRxiv.org are possible using the B2J service

101

The dynamics of spawning acts by a semelparous fish and its associated energetic costsuse asterix (*) to get italics
Cédric Tentelier, Colin Bouchard, Anaïs Bernardin, Amandine Tauzin, Jean-Christophe Aymes, Frédéric Lange, Charlotte Recapet, Jacques RivesPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2020
<p>1. During the reproductive season, animals have to manage both their energetic budget and gamete stock. In particular, for semelparous capital breeders with determinate fecundity and no parental care other than gametic investment, the depletion of energetic stock must match the depletion of gametic stock, so that individuals get exhausted just after their last egg is laid and fertilized. Although these budgets are managed continuously, monitoring the dynamics of mating acts and energy expenditure at a fine temporal scale in the wild is challenging. 2. This study aimed to quantify the individual dynamics of spawning acts and the concomitant energy expenditure of female Allis shad (Alosa alosa) throughout their mating season. 3. Using eight individual-borne accelerometers for one month, we collected tri-axial acceleration, temperature, and pressure data that we analysed to i) detect the timing of spawning acts, ii) estimate energy expenditure from tail beat frequency and water temperature, and iii) monitor changes in body roundness from the position of the dorsally-mounted tag relative to the vertical plane. 4. Female shad had a higher probability to spawn during warmer nights, and their spawning acts were synchronized (both individually and inter-individually) within each active night. They experienced warmer temperature, remained deeper, swan more slowly and spent less energy during daytime than night time. Over one month of spawning, they performed on average 15.75 spawning acts, spent on average 6 277 kJ and died with a significant portion of residual oocytes. The acceleration-based indicator of body roundness was correlated to condition coefficient measured at capture, and globally decreased through the spawning season, although the indicator was noisy and was not correlated to changes in estimated energy expenditure. 5. Despite significant individual variability, our results indicate that female shad exhausted their energetic stock faster than their egg stock. Water warming will increase the rate of energy expenditure, which might increase the risk that shad die with a large stock of unspent eggs. Although perfectible, the three complementary analyses of acceleration data are promising for in situ monitoring of energy expenditure related to specific behaviour.</p>
https://doi.org/10.15454/NTFYCCYou should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://doi.org/10.15454/NTFYCCYou should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://doi.org/10.15454/NTFYCCYou should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Accelerometer, biologging, clupeid, egg retention, energy budget, reproductive effort, semelparity, temperature, thinning
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Behaviour & Ethology, Freshwater ecology, Life history
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
2020-06-04 15:18:56
Francois-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont