Laserfiche WebLink
<br />554 <br /> <br />TRANS. AMER. FISH. SOC., 1972, NO.3 <br /> <br />I <br />I, <br />I, <br />I <br />" <br />:) <br />I' <br />:~ ! <br />I <br /> <br />waters of differing conductivity. This has <br />been illustrated by Denzer (1956). Lamarque <br />(1967) and Halsband (1967) agree that fish <br />reactions depend essentially on the voltage <br />drop per unit length of fish. They show that <br />the threshold voltage drop varies with the <br />difference existing between water conductivity <br />and fish conductivity. In salt water, which is <br />more conductive than the fish, the body voltage <br />drop relative to the voltage drop in the me- <br />dium is greater than in a situation where fish <br />and water have the same conductivity. This <br />makes the fish slightly easier to shock (in <br />terms of voltage required, not power output) <br />and the reaction threshold occurs at a lower <br />voltage drop between electrodes. In water <br />more resistant than fish, the body voltage drop <br />is lowe'r than in a medium where fish and <br />water have the same conductivity, and high <br />voltage is required to shock the fish. <br /> <br />I <br />'j <br /> <br />DETERMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN <br />ENERGY DENSITY AND RECOVERY TIME <br /> <br />To study the effects of electrical energy on <br />the recovery time, the amount of electrical <br />energy going through the fish has to be known. <br />A simple method of determining the amount of <br />energy going through the fish is to adjust the <br />conductivity of the water until it has the same <br />conductivity as fish flesh. This was done in a! <br />unique way,. <br />A small polyethylene tube, 125 mm in length <br />and 14 mm inside diameter, slightly larger and <br />longer than the fish was filled with water and <br />plugged at each end with corks covered with <br />aluminum foil. An ohmmeter was attached to <br />the aluminum foil, and the resistance was <br />measured and recorded. Next a fish was <br />placed in the tube and the excess water was <br />discarded. A second resistance meaf~rement <br />was made and compared with the first. !his <br />pJ;"ocedure was repeated with increasing <br /> <br />:;;1 <br />'"", , <br />;i) <br />:::j <br />... <br /> <br /> <br />amounts of salt in solution until the two read- <br />ings were the same. Several fish were com- <br />pared with less than a 10% variation in the <br />resistance readings. <br />The most important requirement for this <br />determination is that the amount of water <br />displaced by the fish be a large fraction of the <br />total water in the vial. In our experimental <br />setup this was approximately one-half that <br />held by the vial. <br />After this was done, the amount of energy <br />going through the fish per unit volume was <br />assumed to he the same as the energy going <br />through the water per unit volume. The con- <br />ductivity of the common shiners used in these <br />experiments was determined to be approxi- <br />mately the same as a .02?% solution of sodium <br />chloride in deionized water. In comparison, <br />sea water is approximately 140 times saltier. <br />Any effect the salt may have on the recovery <br />time, other than the obvious effect of increas- <br />ing the conductivity of the water, was con- <br />sidered to be negligible. <br />Experiments were designed (Table 2) to <br />study the effects of energy density on the re- <br />covery time of common shiners in a .025% <br />"solution of sodium chloride. Twenty shiners <br />were used in each experiment. The total en- <br />ergy through the medium was constant in each <br />experiment, but energy density vaned with the <br />quantity of water used. As expected, no corre- <br />, lation existed between the total energy through <br />the medium and the recovery time. Energy <br />density was the more important factor, since it <br />measured the energy per unit volume through <br />the fish as well as the medium. Results show <br />that the recovery time can be directly related <br />to energy density (Fig. i 2) . <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br />Previous studies by Halsband (1967) ,La- <br />marque (1967L and Vibert (1963) ~ave <br /> <br /> <br />TABLE2.-Average recovery time of common shiners subje~ted to different levels of electrical energy density. <br />The total energy applied to the medium in each experiment was 169 joules <br /> <br /> Energy density <br />Voltage Current Time Volume of water (millijoules/ cubip Average recovery <br />( volts ) ( milliamps ) ( seconds ) (cubic centimeters) centimeter) time (seconds) <br />130 260 5 3750 45 6.30 <br />65 86.6 30 ~320 73.5 18.40 <br />130 130 10 1750 96.5 18.70 I <br />130 97.5 13.3 1350 125 49.60 <br />130 65 20 900 188 68.50 <br />