Maximum swimming speeds of sailfish and three other large marine predatory fish species based on muscle contraction time and stride length: a myth revisited

Abstract

Billfishes are considered to be among the fastest swimmers in the oceans. Previous studies have estimated maximum speed of sailfish and black marlin at around 35 m s−1 but theoretical work on cavitation predicts that such extreme speed is unlikely. Here we investigated maximum speed of sailfish, and three other large marine pelagic predatory fish species, by measuring the twitch contraction time of anaerobic swimming muscle. The highest estimated maximum swimming speeds were found in sailfish (8.3±1.4 m s−1), followed by barracuda (6.2±1.0 m s−1), little tunny (5.6±0.2 m s−1) and dorado (4.0±0.9 m s−1); although size-corrected performance was highest in little tunny and lowest in sailfish. Contrary to previously reported estimates, our results suggest that sailfish are incapable of exceeding swimming speeds of 10-15 m s−1, which corresponds to the speed at which cavitation is predicted to occur, with destructive consequences for fin tissues.

Determining forward speed from accelerometer jiggle in aquatic environments

“…For this example, a jiggle amplitude of 2 g would have correlated with a speed of 9.1 m s −1 (17.7 kn), and a full range amplitude of 4 g would have correlated with a speed of 11.0 m s −1 . These values are above the normal swim speeds of most marine mammals and fish (Block et al, 1992) and within the theoretical range of maximum speeds (10-15 m s −1 ) for cavitation-free swimming for lunate-tailed fish and mammals (Iosilevskii and Weihs, 2008;Svendsen et al, 2016). As clipping was more commonly observed in smaller animals, we recommend increasing accelerometer range to ±4 g for non-baleen whale deployments, though in some systems this may reduce the sensitivity.…”

“…Additionally, animals that do not themselves experience forces above a typical accelerometer sensitivity of ±2 g may nevertheless have datasets with clipped accelerometer readings due to tag jiggle at high speed, and these periods should be scrutinized to ensure that orientation estimation is not affected during these biologically important high-speed events. In conclusion, our analysis provides a greater ability to predict and understand these periods of high-amplitude accelerometer signals that have previously been treated as background noise (Saddler et al, 2017;Stimpert et al, 2015), and details a method for utilizing these signals to estimate animal speed over a considerable range of values. Fig.…”

The Evolution of Lateralization in Group Hunting Sailfish

“…In many vertebrates, population-level lateralization has indeed been documented [5,31], and this has been explained by two opposing selection forces: a need for coordination during cooperative behaviors (selecting for population-level lateralization) and a need for unpredictability during inter-individual agonistic interactions (selecting against population-level lateralization) [21]. In sailfish, the predominant function of the bill is thought to be prey capture [22,23,32] and in this scenario, no population-level lateralization is predicted, but rather negative frequency-dependent selection maintaining both types at equal frequency [19]. However, even in the absence of any population-level laterality, individual-level laterality might still be costly for predators whenever a predator repeatedly interacts with the same prey, providing an opportunity for the prey to learn the preferred attack side of a predator.…”

A framework to estimate the likelihood of species interactions and behavioural responses using animal‐borne acoustic telemetry transceivers and accelerometers

“…Greenland sharks, a slow swimming species (Watanabe et al, 2012) Svendsen et al, 2016), it may be difficult to determine behavioural associations within the narrow VMT detection range (~200-400 m), that is the animal could cross the detection range within a period less than the nominal delay of the tag. To effectively use the proposed framework, tag nominal delay relative to animal swim speed in combination with detection range will require careful consideration to ensure the potential for sufficient successive detections.…”