The ontogenetic scaling of hydrodynamics and swimming performance in jellyfish (Aurelia aurita)
1 The Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford St,
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
2 The Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley,
CA 94720, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: mchenry{at}fas.harvard.edu)
Accepted 6 August 2003
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: swimming, morphology, scaling, jetting, scyphomedusae, locomotion, jellyfish, Aurelia aurita
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The ontogenetic scaling of swimming performance
Although it is generally appreciated that a fully grown aquatic animal will
swim faster than when it was smaller, the precise relationship between speed
and body size over a life history is dictated by scale-dependent
hydrodynamics. Much of our understanding for this scale dependency comes from
comparisons between species that differ in body mass by many orders of
magnitude (e.g. Daniel et al.,
1992; Lighthill,
1975
; Wu, 1977
).
These comparisons illustrate that thrust is generated primarily by viscous
force at the size of spermatozoa, inertial force at the size of adult fish and
a combination of these forces at intermediate sizes. Such broad comparisons
are useful for understanding the major fluid forces that play a role in the
hydrodynamics of a growing animal but cannot provide predictive explanations
for how swimming performance (e.g. speed and cost of transport) should change
over the ontogeny of individual species.
Ontogenetic changes in swimming kinematics have been most thoroughly
explored in larval fish (e.g. Batty,
1984; Fuiman,
1993
; Fuiman and Webb,
1988
; Hale, 1999
;
Hunter, 1972
;
Hunter and Kimbrell, 1980
;
Osse and van den Boogaart,
2000
), which propel themselves by lateral tail undulation. During
routine swimming, larval fish generally beat their tails with greater
length-specific amplitude but propel themselves at lower speed than adults of
the same species. Although it is appreciated that force generated by the
inertia of water increases in importance relative to viscous force as fish
grow larger (Fuiman and Batty,
1997
; McHenry et al.,
2003
; Muller et al.,
2000
; Webb and Weihs,
1986
), few investigators have tested whether a hydrodynamic model
is capable of predicting the scaling of swimming performance in fish (although
Vlymen, 1974
is an exception).
Such an approach would allow an investigator to explore the relative
contribution of inertial and viscous forces to thrust and drag and to evaluate
whether alternative larval morphology or tail kinematics could improve on
swimming performance.
Although the scaling of swimming performance is not as well characterized
for aquatic invertebrates as for larval fish, some investigators have used a
combination of modeling and experimentation in order to understand the
hydrodynamic mechanisms that explain the scaling of performance in
invertebrate species. Using such an approach, Williams
(1994) demonstrated that the
serial addition of developing limbs along the abdomen of the brine shrimp
(Artemia sp.) initially does not contribute to propulsion when larvae
are small, but the additional limbs generate thrust in later life history
stages when unsteady forces play a greater role in the hydrodynamics of
swimming. Using a combination of kinematics and force measurements, Nauen and
Shadwick (2001
) found that the
tail of the spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) generates most of
its force with a paddle mechanism and that maximum force production scales
according to a paddle model. Dadswell and Weihs
(1990
) determined that giant
scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) swim with the greatest speed at a
medium body size range, when they attain the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of
their life history.
Jellyfish are a potentially useful group for exploring the ontogenetic
scaling of hydrodynamics because their swimming is easily modeled. Daniel
(1983) proposed a mathematical
model that suggested that the hydrodynamics of prolate (bullet-shaped)
hydromedusae are dominated by the thrust generated by jetting, the
acceleration reaction (i.e. the force generated by accelerating the water
around the body) and the drag resisting the forward motion of the body. This
model replicated observed oscillations in swimming speed
(Daniel, 1983
), and Colin and
Costello (2002
) found the model
to accurately predict body acceleration in prolate, but not oblate
(plate-shaped), jellyfish. They proposed that oblate jellyfish generate thrust
primarily by paddling the flexible margins of their bell instead of using a
jet mechanism. We tested this hypothesis by comparing measurements of speed in
Aurelia, an oblate jellyfish, with predictions from mathematical
models of swimming that assume thrust generation by either paddling or
jetting.
Geometric and kinematic similarity
Changes in the shape or relative motion of an animal's body during growth
should be reflected in the allometric scaling of morphometric and kinematic
parameters (Huxley, 1932;
McMahon, 1984
). An allometric
relationship is defined as a deviation from isometry
(Schmidt-Nielsen, 1984
) and
therefore requires the formulation of an a priori null hypothesis as
predicted by isometry. In complex biomechanical systems, these predictions are
not always obvious and therefore merit careful consideration (e.g.
Hernandez, 2000
;
Nauen and Shadwick, 2001
;
Quillin, 2000
;
Rome, 1992
).
If a jellyfish grows isometrically, then its bell height, h,
scales linearly with bell diameter, d, and medusae at all sizes will
be geometrically similar (i.e. hd). Geometric
similarity implies that the volume of the body scales as
d3, which means that bell diameter scales with body mass
(m) as m1/3 (assuming constant tissue density).
During swimming, the shape of the bell changes with time. Bell height rapidly
increases and bell diameter rapidly decreases over a pulse phase
(Gladfelter, 1973
). To achieve
kinematic similarity (Quillin,
1999
), a jellyfish must maintain the speed of height change in
proportion to the speed of diameter change at all body sizes. In geometrically
similar jellyfish, kinematic similarity is maintained if the pulse frequency,
duty factor (the proportion of the propulsive cycle spent pulsing) and range
of motion remain constant. Kinematic similarity also requires that a jellyfish
moves through the water at a speed that is directly proportional to d
and therefore scales as m1/3. This form of kinematic
similarity has been observed in fish made to swim steadily at the same
frequency (Bainbridge,
1958
).
Geometric and kinematic similarity suggest predictions for the scaling of
hydrodynamic forces in jetting jellyfish. Drag scales with the area of the
bell (d2) and the square of swimming speed
(
d2; Daniel,
1983
), which suggests that this force scales as
d4 and m4/3. Thrust scales with the
inverse of the area of the subumbrellar opening through which water jets
(
d-2) and the square of the rate of change in bell
volume (
d6), suggesting that thrust also scales as
d4 and m4/3. The acceleration reaction
varies with the volume of the body (
d3) and its rate
of change in velocity (
d, assuming sinusoidal changes in
velocity), which implies that this force also scales as d4
and m4/3. Since all three hydrodynamic forces are
predicted to scale with mass in the same way, we predict that the
hydrodynamics of swimming should not change if jellyfish maintain geometric
and kinematic similarity. Conversely, scaling that deviates from this null
hypothesis implies that the hydrodynamics of jetting changes with size. These
scaling predictions assume that the jellyfish operate at relatively high,
inertia-dominated, Reynolds numbers.
The present study
We pursued three objectives in order to address how ontogenetic changes
affect the swimming performance of Aurelia. (1) The hydrodynamics of
swimming were modeled with paddle and jet mechanisms in separate simulations
in order to test which mechanism more accurately predicts swimming speed. (2)
The scaling of relationships of parameters that play a role in the dynamics of
swimming were measured. (3) The performance of swimming in Aurelia
was compared with that predicted for model jellyfish exhibiting different
patterns of growth.
Aurelia is a marine scyphozoan with an oblate medusa stage that
spans over an order of magnitude in bell diameter
(Meinkoth, 1995). This large
change in body size makes Aurelia an ideal system for examining the
scaling of swimming performance. The swimming of medusae such as
Aurelia is thought to affect their position in the water column and
thereby influence dispersal and movement into areas of high prey density and
favorable environmental conditions within the plankton
(Buecher and Gibbons, 1999
;
Johnson et al., 2001
;
Mutlu, 2001
;
Nicholas and Frid, 1999
). The
bell pulsing used by Aurelia to swim also facilitates mass transport
and prey capture by increasing with flow over the bell and tentacles
(Costello and Colin, 1994
;
Daniel, 1983
;
Mills, 1981
).
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The motion of jellyfish was measured by following the movement of landmarks
on the bell using NIH Image on an Apple Macintosh G3 computer
(Fig. 1A). We tracked the
movement of the exumbrellar and subumbrellar surfaces along the central axis
and defined the bell margin as the ring of flexible tissue running from the
distal margin of the bell (where the tentacles begin) to a proximal line of
high bending. From these data, we calculated the bell height, h, as
the distance between the exumbrellar surface and the opening of the
subumbrellar cavity along the central axis; the cavity height,
hcav, as the distance between the subumbrellar surface and
the opening of the subumbrellar cavity; the diameter of the bell, d,
as the distance between lateral surfaces of the bell; and the margin angle,
, as the angle between the central axis and the margin of the bell
(Fig. 1A). We described the
passive shape of the bell by measuring the diameter,
drest, and height, hrest, of each
animal while at rest from video images. The height-to-diameter ratio for each
individual was calculated as the quotient of these quantities. The pulse
frequency, f, and the duty factor, q, which is the ratio of
the period of the pulse phase and the period of the whole propulsive cycle,
were measured over a duration of three to five propulsive cycles. The range of
values in margin angle,
range, cavity height,
hrange, and bell diameter, drange,
were also recorded.
|
We described the scaling of individual kinematic and morphological
parameters, y, with body mass, m, using the scaling
constant, a, and scaling exponent, b, of an exponential
function (y=amb). These values were found from
the intercept and slope of a reduced major axis regression fit to
log-transformed data. We rejected the null hypothesis, bo,
in cases where predictions fell outside of the lower, L1,
and upper, L2, 95% confidence intervals about the slope of
the regression (Rayner, 1985;
Sokal and Rohlf, 1995
). This
form of Type II regression was appropriate because the scale and dimensions of
our independent and dependent variables were not equal and the error for each
variable was unknown. The coefficient of determination,
r2, was used to assess the degree of variation explained
by reduced major axis regressions.
Hydrodynamic forces
As in Daniel (1983), we
modeled the hydrodynamics of jellyfish swimming as the sum of thrust,
T, drag, D, the acceleration reaction force, A, and the
force acting to change the inertia of the body, F. This model is
expressed in an equation of motion as:
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
![]() | (3) |
![]() | (4) |
![]() | (5) |
![]() | (6) |
![]() | (7) |
![]() | (8) |
![]() | (9) |
![]() | (10) |
Computational modeling
Numerical solutions for swimming speed were calculated using the equation
of motion (equation 1) with the measured kinematics of the bell and its margin
as input variables. Speed was calculated with a variable order
Adams-Bashforth-Moulton solver for integration
(Shampine and Gordon, 1975)
programmed in MATLAB (version 6.0; Mathworks). Our kinematic equations used a
sawtooth function, k(t), which increased linearly over time,
t, from values of 0 to 1 over the duration of the pulse phase, then
decreased linearly from 1 to 0 over the recovery phase. This function provided
an input to the following equations, which we used to describe the motion of
the margin angle, bell height and bell diameter:
![]() | (11) |
![]() | (12) |
![]() | (13) |
The accuracy of models was tested by comparing the mean swimming speed
measured for each jellyfish with the mean speed predicted by simulations run
with the same bell and margin kinematics. Experimental sequences were rejected
if the mean swimming speed of individual pulses differed by more than 10%. We
determined the relationship between measured speed and the speed predicted by
simulations with a major axis regression
(Rayner, 1985). A model was
considered perfectly accurate if the 95% confidence intervals of the slope of
this regression, e, included a value of 1. Furthermore, we tested
whether models accurately predicted the scaling of speed with body mass by
finding the reduced major axis regression for predictions of speed for both
models. Models were considered accurate if the 95% confidence intervals of
predictions included the measured values for the scaling constant and scaling
exponent (Sokal and Rohlf,
1995
).
In addition to measuring speed, the hydrodynamic cost of transport,
THCOT, was calculated to assess the performance of each
simulation. The hydrodynamic cost of transport is a measure of the total
energy invested in jetting to propel a unit mass of the body over a unit
distance. It was calculated with the following equation:
![]() | (14) |
In order to examine the effects of bell shape and body mass on swimming performance, we ran numerous simulations of our jet model over a range of height-to-diameter ratio and body mass values. Using our data for the scaling of kinematics, we animated the bell with the kinematics appropriate to the body mass used in each simulation. To investigate the effects of ontogenetic changes in behavior on performance, we ran simulations at varying pulse frequency and body mass values. For these simulations, we used the measured values for bell height, bell diameter and pulse frequency specific to body mass. From the results of these simulations, we generated parameter maps describing the effects of body mass, pulse frequency and the height-to-diameter ratio on swimming speed and the hydrodynamic cost of transport. From these parameter maps, we calculated the mean speed and hydrodynamic cost of transport predicted for jellyfish that are geometrically and kinematically similar over the range of measured body mass values.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
The scaling of morphology, kinematics, hydrodynamics and
performance
Our morphometric data suggest that Aurelia medusae do not maintain
geometric similarity over ontogeny. Jellyfish of high body mass had a bell
height that was disproportionately small (b=0.27;
Fig. 5A) and a bell diameter
that was disproportionately large (b=0.40) compared with jellyfish of
low body mass (Fig. 5B;
Table 1). This resulted in a
significant decrease in the height-to-diameter ratio with increasing body mass
(b=-0.16; Fig. 5C).
Furthermore, the length of the bell margin scaled by a factor significantly
greater than isometry (b=0.43;
Table 1).
|
|
Aurelia medusae of different body sizes moved with different swimming kinematics. Large jellyfish pulsed at a lower frequency than small jellyfish (b=-0.35), but they maintained similar values for duty factor and the range of margin angle at all sizes (Fig. 6; Table 1). The range of bell diameter scaled by a greater factor (b=0.42) than predicted by kinematic similarity, but the range of bell height did not (bo=0.33; Table 1). Despite the changes in pulse frequency and the range of bell diameter with body mass, acceleration reaction and thrust scaled with body mass as predicted by kinematic similarity (bo=1.33; Table 1; Fig. 7A,B). By contrast, drag scaled by a factor (b=0.87) significantly lower than predicted by kinematic similarity (Table 1; Fig. 7C).
|
|
Despite pulsing at a lower frequency, larger jellyfish moved with a faster swimming speed than did smaller jellyfish (Fig. 8A). However, the increase in speed with body mass was significantly lower (b=0.17) than predicted by kinematic similarity (Table 1). The jet model consistently overestimated the speed of swimming, which was reflected in its scaling constant (a=-1.4) being significantly greater than the measured value. However, the scaling factor predicted for speed by the jet model was statistically indistinguishable from the measured value (b=0.17; Fig. 8A; Table 2). The paddle model greatly underestimated speed (a=-3.0), but overestimated the scaling factor of speed (bpaddle=0.33; Table 2). The hydrodynamic cost of transport decreased with body mass (b=-0.62), but we formulated no null hypothesis for its scaling factor (Table 1; Fig. 8B) and its variation was not well described by a reduced major axis regression (r2=0.05).
|
|
The effects of morphology and behavior on performance
We examined the effects of allometric and isometric growth on swimming
performance with parameter maps for body mass and the height-to-diameter ratio
(Fig. 9A,B). These parameter
maps suggest that relatively large and prolate jellyfish swim faster than
small and oblate jellyfish. If Aurelia maintained a prolate bell
shape (as seen in the early medusa stage) over their entire ontogeny, then
their mean swimming speed would be faster (2.7 cm s-1) than the
speed that we observed (1.9 cm s-1) but they would swim with a
higher hydrodynamic cost of transport (0.05 J kg-1 m-1,
compared with 0.04 J kg-1 m-1). If they maintained an
oblate bell shape (as seen in the late medusa stage), then jellyfish would
swim slightly slower (1.6 cm s-1) than what we observed but would
have a lower hydrodynamic cost of transport (0.03 J kg-1
m-1, Fig. 9A,B).
|
According to our parameter maps of pulse frequency and body mass, larger jellyfish with a relatively high pulse frequency move at faster speeds but with a dramatically greater hydrodynamic cost of transport compared with smaller jellyfish swimming with lower pulse frequencies (Fig. 9C,D). If Aurelia maintained a high pulse frequency (as seen in the early medusa stage) over ontogeny, they would swim faster (19.0 cm s-1) but with a much greater hydrodynamic cost of transport (1.39 J kg-1 m-1) than the swimming that results from the changes in pulse frequency that we observed (with a speed of 2.0 cm s-1 and a hydrodynamic cost of transport of 0.07 J kg-1 m-1; Fig. 9C,D). Alternatively, if these jellyfish maintained a low pulse frequency (as seen in the late medusa stage) over ontogeny, then they would swim slower (0.01 cm s-1) but with a much lower hydrodynamic cost of transport (0.01 J kg-1 m-1).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The hydrodynamics of jellyfish swimming
Prior to the present study, there was evidence suggesting that
Aurelia does not generate thrust by jetting. Colin and Costello
(2002) reported that Daniel's
(1983
) model of jetting
underestimated maximum acceleration in hydromedusae with an oblate bell shape
similar to that of Aurelia. Furthermore, Aurelia lacks the
velum used by hydromedusae to force the water ejected from the bell cavity
through a small hole. Lacking this membrane, it appeared unlikely that
Aurelia transports water from the subumbrellar cavity as a
cylindrical jet, which violates an assumption of the jet model
(Daniel, 1983
). Furthermore,
flow visualization around the bodies of oblate jellyfish like Aurelia
suggests that vortices are generated in close proximity to the bell during the
pulse phase, which is an observation consistent with the hypothesis that the
margin generates thrust (Colin and
Costello, 2002
; Costello and
Colin, 1994
). However, our results explicitly refute this
hypothesis and lend support to the idea that thrust is generated by jetting
(Figs 4,
8;
Table 2).
Although not perfectly accurate, a jet model provides the best
approximation of the hydrodynamics of swimming in oblate jellyfish like
Aurelia. Unlike the paddle model, the jet model consistently
predicted oscillations in speed with time that followed measured changes
(Fig. 4C,D) and mean speed
values that were within measured values by a factor of three
(Fig. 4A,B). Furthermore, the
jet model accurately predicted the scaling factor for swimming speed
(Fig. 8A; Table 2).These successful
predictions suggest that Aurelia generates thrust by jetting, as
found in other jellyfish species (Colin and
Costello, 2002; Daniel,
1983
) and that the same hydrodynamic principles operate for all
jellyfish species, regardless of bell morphology. However, the jet model did
generally predict speeds that were greater than measured values (Figs
4B,
8A;
Table 2), which is a result
consistent with previously reported high estimates of maximum acceleration
(Colin and Costello, 2002
).
Discrepancies between performance measurements and jet model predictions
suggest a need for refinement of our understanding of the hydrodynamics of
oblate jellyfish. Daniel (1983)
calculated the drag on the bell of prolate jellyfish using the drag
coefficient for a sphere, but the shape of oblate species may be better
approximated by a hemisphere, as in the present study. Furthermore, neither
the present study nor Daniel
(1983
) considers the drag
generated by the tentacles. Although we intuitively understand that the
acceleration reaction should vary with the Reynolds number of a swimming
animal (Daniel et al., 1992
;
Jordan, 1992
;
McHenry et al., 2003
), we lack
an equation that describes the relationship between the acceleration reaction
coefficient (equation 6) and Reynolds number. Furthermore, flow visualization
studies (Colin and Costello,
2002
; Costello and Colin,
1994
) suggest that the jet of oblate jellyfish has a more complex
wake pattern than the cylindrical column of water assumed in the present
study. Future models should become more predictive as they incorporate more of
this hydrodynamic complexity.
The scaling of swimming performance
The hydrodynamic changes over the growth of Aurelia are reflected
in the different scaling relationships of the three fluid forces considered
(Fig. 7). Although maximum
values of thrust and the acceleration reaction scale at rates consistent with
kinematic similarity, swimming speed scales at a rate below that predicted by
kinematic similarity (Fig. 8A).
Therefore, larger jellyfish swim disproportionately slower than smaller
jellyfish, and drag consequently scales at a lower factor than predicted by
kinematic similarity (Fig. 7C).
This low scaling factor for drag occurs despite the fact that the projected
area of the bell scales with a higher factor than predicted by geometric
similarity (Table 1). According
to our model, the scaling of speed is influenced by the ontogenetic decrease
in pulse frequency (Fig. 6B).
When pulse frequency was held constant in our simulations, speed increased
rapidly with increasing body mass (Fig.
9C). This suggests that it is the rate, not the magnitude, of
force production that caused speed and drag to scale by a factor below that
predicted by kinematic similarity.
Although fish swim by lateral undulation instead of jetting, their swimming
speed is also strongly dependent on the frequency of the propulsive cycle.
Speed increases linearly with tail beat frequency in a diversity of species
(Jayne and Lauder, 1995; Long
et al., 1994
,
1996
;
Webb, 1986
). However, when
fish of different size within a species are made to swim at the same
frequency, they move at the same length-specific speed
(Bainbridge, 1958
). Such
kinematic similarity could exist in jellyfish if they maintained the same
pulse frequency over a range of body size.
Our results suggest that ontogenetic changes in the body shape and pulse frequency of Aurelia influence a tradeoff between swimming speed and the cost of transport. By changing from a prolate to oblate bell shape, Aurelia grows from a shape of relative high speed and high cost to one of low speed and low cost (Fig. 9A,B). However, the difference in mean performance between allometric and isometric growth is subtle, when compared to the effects of pulse frequency. By reducing pulse frequency over ontogeny, Aurelia avoids the dramatically high cost of transport predicted for large jellyfish that maintain a high pulse frequency (Fig. 9D), but this decrease in frequency comes at a cost to speed (Fig. 9C).
Our results support the hypothesis that medusae change their behavior and
morphology to maintain a moderate speed while avoiding a high cost of
transport. However, it is difficult to weigh the relative importance of speed
and the cost of transport to the ecology and evolution of Aurelia
without an understanding of how these aspects of performance influence fitness
(Koehl, 1996). Furthermore,
ontogenetic changes in behavior and morphology may influence other aspects of
organismal performance that have a greater effect on fitness than does
locomotion. For this reason, it would be interesting to explore how these
ontogenetic changes affect prey capture and mass transport.
Performance and growth
The effect that the shape of an organism has on its mechanical performance
is likely to change during growth because biomechanical forces are typically
scale dependent. Therefore, changes in shape may reflect a shift in the
mechanical demands of larger structures. Alternatively, morphology may change
in order to meet other physiological demands or because of developmental
constraints. In the interest of understanding why organisms change or preserve
shape during growth, it is useful to compare the ontogenetic changes in
morphology that organisms exhibit to alternate patterns of growth. For
example, Gaylord and Denny
(1997) used a mathematical
model to examine how different patterns of growth in seaweeds (Eisenia
arborea and Pterygophora californica) affected their
susceptibility to breakage in intertidal habitats. They found that the
allometric growth exhibited by these organisms results in lower material
stress than if the seaweeds maintained their juvenile shape over their life
history. Similarly, we found that jellyfish have a lower energetic cost of
swimming by changing their bell shape over ontogeny than if they maintained
the prolate shape of juveniles (Fig.
9B). In aquatic animals, ontogenetic change in performance may be
strongly influenced by changes in behavior. For example, we found that changes
in pulse frequency have an even stronger effect on performance than the
changes in bell shape (Fig.
9).
It would be difficult to explore alternate patterns of growth or to tease apart the individual effects of morphological and kinematic parameters without the use of a mathematical model. In order for such models to accurately predict performance, they require accurate parameter values that are provided by measurements. Therefore, the integration of theoretical and experimental approaches should greatly facilitate our understanding of how ontogenetic changes in morphology or behavior affect organismal performance.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Bainbridge, R. (1958). The speed of swimming fish as related to size and to the frequency and amplitude of the tail beat. J. Exp. Biol. 35,109 -133.
Batchelor, G. K. (1967). An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Batty, R. (1984). Development of swimming movements and musculature of larval herring (Clupea harengus). J. Exp. Biol. 110,217 -229.[Abstract]
Buecher, E. and Gibbons, M. J. (1999). Temporal persistence in the vertical structure of the assemblage of planktonic medusae in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 189,105 -115.
Colin, S. P. and Costello, J. H. (2002).
Morphology, swimming performance and propulsive mode of six co-occurring
hydromedusae. J. Exp. Biol.
205,427
-437.
Costello, J. H. and Colin, S. P. (1994). Morphology, fluid motion and predation by the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita. Mar. Biol. 121,327 -334.
Dadswell, M. J. and Weihs, D. (1990). Size-related hydrodynamic characteristics of the giant scallop, Placopecten magellanicus (Bivalvia: Pectinidae). Can. J. Zool. 68,778 -785.
Daniel, T., Jordan, C. and Grunbaum, D. (1992). Hydromechanics of swimming. In Advances in Comparative and Environmental Physiology, vol. 11 (ed. R. McN. Alexander), pp. 17-49. London: Springer-Verlag.
Daniel, T. L. (1983). Mechanics and energetics of medusan jet propulsion. Can. J. Zool. 61,1406 -1420.
Daniel, T. L. (1985). Cost of locomotion: Unsteady medusan swimming. J. Exp. Biol. 119,149 -164.
Fuiman, L. A. (1993). Development of predator evasion in Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus L. Anim. Behav. 45,1101 -1116.[CrossRef]
Fuiman, L. A. and Batty, R. S. (1997). What a
drag it is getting cold: partitioning the physical and physiological effects
of temperature on fish swimming. J. Exp. Biol.
200,1745
-1755.
Fuiman, L. A. and Webb, P. W. (1988). Ontogeny of routine swimming activity and performance in zebra danios (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Anim. Behav. 36,250 -261.
Gaylord, B. and Denny, M. W. (1997). Flow and
flexibility. I. Effects of size, shape and stiffness in determining wave
forces on the stipitate kelps Eisenia arborea and Pterygophora
californica. J. Exp. Biol.
200,3141
-3164.
Gladfelter, W. G. (1973). A comparative analysis of the locomotory system of medusoid Cnidaria. Helgol. Wiss. Meeresunters 25,228 -272.
Hale, M. (1999). Locomotor mechanics during
early life history: effects of size and ontogeny on fast-start performance of
salmonid fishes. J. Exp. Biol.
202,1465
-1479.
Hernandez, L. P. (2000). Intraspecific scaling
of feeding mechanics in an ontogenetic series of zebrafish, Danio
rerio. J. Exp. Biol.
203,3033
-3043.
Hoerner, S. F. (1965). Fluid-Dynamic Drag. Brick Town, NJ: Hoerner Fluid Dynamics.
Hunter, J. R. (1972). Swimming and feeding behavior of larval anchovy Engraulis mordax. Fish. Bull. 70,821 -838.
Hunter, J. R. and Kimbrell, C. A. (1980). Early history of pacific mackerel, Scomber japonicus. Fish. Bull. 78,89 -101.
Huxley, J. S. (1932). Problems of Relative Growth. New York: Dial Press.
Jayne, B. C. and Lauder, G. V. (1995). Speed effects on midline kinematics during steady undulatory swimming of largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. J. Exp. Biol. 198,585 -602.[Medline]
Johnson, D. R., Perry, H. M. and Burke, W. D. (2001). Developing jellyfish strategy hypotheses using circulation models. Hydrobiology 451,213 -221.[CrossRef]
Jordan, C. E. (1992). A model of rapid-start swimming at intermediate Reynolds number: undulatory locomotion in the chaetognath Sagitta elegans. J. Exp. Biol. 163,119 -137.
Koehl, M. A. R. (1996). When does morphology matter? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27,501 -542.[CrossRef]
Lighthill, J. (1975). Mathematical Biofluidynamics. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Long, J. H., Hale, M. E., McHenry, M. J. and Westneat, M. W.
(1996). Functions of fish skin: flexural stiffness and steady
swimming of longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus. J. Exp.
Biol. 199,2139
-2151.
Long, J. H., McHenry, M. J. and Boetticher, N. C.
(1994). Undulatory swimming: how traveling waves are produced and
modulated in sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). J. Exp.
Biol. 192,129
-145.
McHenry, M. J., Azizi, E. and Strother, J. A.
(2003). The hydrodynamics of undulatory swimming at intermediate
Reynolds numbers in ascidian larvae (Botrylloides sp.). J.
Exp. Biol. 206,327
-343.
McMahon, T. A. (1984). Muscles, Reflexes, and Locomotion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Meinkoth, N. A. (1995). National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Seashore Creatures. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Mills, C. E. (1981). Diversity of swimming behaviors in hydromedusae as related to feeding and utilization of space. Mar. Biol. 64,185 -189.
Muller, U. K., Stamhuis, E. J. and Videler, J. J.
(2000). Hydrodynamics of unsteady fish swimming and the effects
of body size: comparing the flow fields of fish larvae and adults.
J. Exp. Biol. 203,193
-206.
Mutlu, E. (2001). Distribution and abundance of moon jellyfish (Aurelia aurita) and its zooplankton food in the Black Sea. Mar. Biol. 138,329 -339.[CrossRef]
Nauen, J. and Shadwick, R. (2001). The dynamics
and scaling of force production during the tail-flip escape response of the
California spiny lobster Panulirus interruptus. J. Exp.
Biol. 204,1817
-1830.
Nicholas, K. R. and Frid, C. L. J. (1999). Occurrence of hydromedusae in the plankton off Northumberland (western central North Sea) and the role of planktonic predators. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 79,979 -992.[CrossRef]
Osse, J. W. M. and van den Boogaart, J. G. M. (2000). Body size and swimming types in carp larvae: effects of being small. Neth. J. Zool. 50,233 -244.[CrossRef]
Quillin, K. J. (1999). Kinematic scaling of
locomotion by hydrostatic animals: ontogeny of peristaltic crawling by the
earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. J. Exp. Biol.
202,661
-674.
Quillin, K. J. (2000). Ontogenetic scaling of
burrowing forces in the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. J.
Exp. Biol. 203,2757
-2770.
Rayner, J. M. V. (1985). Linear relations in biomechanics - the statistics of scaling functions. J. Zool. 206,415 -439.
Rome, L. (1992). Scaling of muscle fibers and locomotion. J. Exp. Biol. 168,243 -252.[Abstract]
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1984). Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shampine, L. F. and Gordon, M. K. (1975). Computer Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations: The Initial Value Problem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Vlymen, W. J. (1974). Swimming energetics of the larval anchovy Engraulis mardax. Fish. Bull. 72,885 -899.
Vogel, S. (1981). Life in Moving Fluids. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Webb, P. W. (1986). Kinematics of lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, at cruising speeds. Can. J. Zool. 64,2137 -2141.
Webb, P. W. and Weihs, D. (1986). Functional locomotor morphology of early life-history stages of fishes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115,115 -127.
Williams, T. A. (1994). A model of rowing
propulsion and the ontogeny of locomotion in Artemia larvae.
Biol. Bull. 187,164
-173.
Wu, T. Y. (1977). Introduction to the scaling of aquatic animal locomotion. In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion (ed. T. J. Peldley), pp.203 -232. London: Academic Press.