ArticleBiology open2024
Does swimming at the bottom serve as a hydraulic advantage for benthic fish Neogobius melanostomus Pallas (1814) in flowing water?
Article in Biology open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Test-Section Length and Cross-Sectional Blockage on the Swimming Performance of Juvenile Grass Carp: Implications for Standardized Testing and Fish-Passage Design.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Factors Supporting Translational, Participatory Ecology Projects-Observations from Ten Years of Collaborative Research on Invasive Fish.Environmental management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Benthic fish, such as the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus Pallas, 1814) tend to swim near the bottom, especially at increased water velocities. To test whether these fish have a hydraulic advantage from swimming near the bottom and how the substrate affects the forces experienced, we measured the hydraulic forces experienced by preserved fish in a flow channel. The fish were tested 5.0 mm above the bottom at smooth and rough surface, and in the water column (10.0 cm elevation) above smooth and rough surface at 0.95 m/s water velocity. No significant effect among the mean hydraulic forces was observed between both fish positions, whereas the mean hydraulic forces in the water column were significantly higher (P<0.05) above the rough surface (mean 0.077 N±0.025 s.d.) than above the smooth surface (mean 0.068 N±0.021 s.d.). A convolutional neural network (CNN) predicted the column smooth treatment was the most characteristic force data time series (mean F1=0.88±0.03 s.d.). We conclude that the body posture and body movements of the fish are more relevant for the hydraulic forces experienced by the fish than the vertical position in the water column. Further factors explaining the affinity to swimming near the bottom are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.