Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Sed-PIV paper (Methods and materials (Flume, Baffles and sediment,…

- - - - First attempts are definitely making it higher in the sediment than they are in the clear-water trials. Plotting this with box plots really shows the difference. Histograms of Dmax stratified on treatment show that a much higher proportion of first attempters are making it all the way up the flume. This makes sense because of all the facing going on the first few baffles and the subsequent "packing it in" they usually right afterwards.
      - It is pretty consistent that a larger proportion of fish fail earlier in the clear-water trials than they do in the sediment. This goes for first, second, third and fourth trials (that I checked). It likely continues on further. This really shows that something about the clear-water treatment is causing them trouble.
    - - Transit times are generally longer looking at all attempts in the sediment baffles than they were in the clear-water trials. This suggests that fish were moving more slowly upstream in the sediment trials compared to no sediment.
        
        After looking at ground speeds, they averaged about 38 cm/s in the sediment and about 50 cm/s in the clear runs. We need to go back and clean up soem the observations because their transit times looks wrong.
    - - Only first attempts
      - Group clear and sediment together
      - Look at Dmax differences
      - Ground speeds
    - - All attempts
      - Justify this by showing lack of trend with subsequent attempts
- - - - Kinematics
        
        Ground speed accelerations
        
        A fish showing increased accelerations in one treatment over another? Maybe because of the recirculation zone and the stability issues it causes, fish have to accelerate harder and more often and therefore expend more energy.
        
        Ground speeds
        
        Estimate how much of this is in a straight path as opposed to a torturous '3D' path
      - Trajectory analysis
        
        Can we conclude that fish actually use the recirculation zones for station holding?
        
        Do 3D trajectories change with subsequent attempts. Are they learning or are they changing their trajectories with attempt number?
        
        Look at differences between upstream and downstream trajectories between sediment and no sediment. Brendan says they go down to the sweet spot when the sediment is there and they have a tendency to stay up high going back downstream when the sediment is not there.
        
        Spatial distributions of fish in tracked regions
    - - Tail beat amplitude
      - Relationships between tailbeat frequencies and amplitudes and chosen paths of ascent (velocities, turbulence, etc).
      - Body part accelerations during behavioural responses, yaw, pitch and roll
        
        Difficulties
        
        Dorsal tracking is often fudged by sediment or the shawdows created by the bars
    - - Tail beat frequency
      - Entrainment
        
        Show absence of tailbeat leading up to recirculation zone and consequence 'ghost' acceleration caused by the recirculation zone
- - - - Question this a bit?
      - Provide backup