Bioelectric Fields of Marine Organisms: Voltage and Frequency Contributions to Detectability by Electroreceptive Predators

被引:34
作者
Bedore, Christine N. [1 ]
Kajiura, Stephen M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Florida Atlantic Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA
来源
PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY | 2013年 / 86卷 / 03期
关键词
JUVENILE SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD; WEAK ELECTRIC-FIELDS; SPHYRNA-LEWINI; FEEDING-HABITS; FOOD-HABITS; SHARKS; ELASMOBRANCH; FISH; STINGRAY; PREY;
D O I
10.1086/669973
中图分类号
Q4 [生理学];
学科分类号
071003 ;
摘要
Behavioral responses of elasmobranch fishes to weak electric fields have been well studied. These studies typically employ a stimulator that produces a dipole electric field intended to simulate the natural electric field of prey items. However, the characteristics of bioelectric fields have not been well described. The magnitude and frequency of the electric field produced by 11 families of marine organisms were quantified in this study. Invertebrate electric potentials ranged from 14 to 28 mu V and did not differ from those of elasmobranchs, which ranged from 18 to 30 mu V. Invertebrates and elasmobranchs produced electric potentials smaller than those of teleost fishes, which ranged from 39 to 319 mu V. All species produced electric fields within the frequency range that is detectable by elasmobranch predators (<16 Hz), with the highest frequencies produced by the penaeids (10.3 Hz) and the gerreids (4.6 Hz). Although voltage differed by family, there was no relationship between voltage and mass or length of prey. Differences in prey voltage may be related to osmoregulatory strategies; invertebrates and elasmobranchs are osmoconformers and have less ion exchange with the surrounding seawater than teleosts species, which are hyposmotic. As predicted, voltage production was greatest at the mucous membrane-lined mouth and gills, which are sites of direct ion exchange with the environment.
引用
收藏
页码:298 / 311
页数:14
相关论文
共 47 条
[11]  
FOSKETT JK, 1983, J EXP BIOL, V106, P255
[12]   Food habits of the smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis, dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus, Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, and the sand tiger, Carcharias taurus, from the northwest Atlantic Ocean [J].
Gelsleichter, J ;
Musick, JA ;
Nichols, S .
ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY OF FISHES, 1999, 54 (02) :205-217
[13]  
GONZALEZ RJ, 1994, J EXP BIOL, V190, P95
[14]  
Gray A.E., 1992, ENVIRON BIOL FISH, V49, P227
[15]   COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE GILL AREA OF MARINE FISHES [J].
GRAY, IE .
BIOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1954, 107 (02) :219-225
[16]   Range of electrosensory detection of prey by Carcharhinus melanopterus and Himantura granulata [J].
Haine, OS ;
Ridd, PV ;
Rowe, RJ .
MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH, 2001, 52 (03) :291-296
[17]  
HUGHES GM, 1966, J EXP BIOL, V45, P177
[18]   FOOD AND FEEDING OF SPINY DOGFISH (SQUALUS-ACANTHIAS) IN BRITISH-COLUMBIA WATERS [J].
JONES, BC ;
GEEN, GH .
JOURNAL OF THE FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA, 1977, 34 (11) :2067-2078
[19]   Behavioral responses to weak electric fields and a lanthanide metal in two shark species [J].
Jordan, Laura K. ;
Mandelman, John W. ;
Kajiura, Stephen M. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MARINE BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY, 2011, 409 (1-2) :345-350
[20]   Functional consequences of structural differences in stingray sensory systems. Part II: electrosensory system [J].
Jordan, Laura K. ;
Kajiura, Stephen M. ;
Gordon, Malcolm S. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY, 2009, 212 (19) :3044-3050