QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online September 11, 2009
Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 3044-3050 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.028738

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Material Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Jordan, L. K. Articles by Gordon, M. S. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jordan, L. K. Articles by Gordon, M. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Functional consequences of structural differences in stingray sensory systems. Part II: electrosensory system

Laura K. Jordan^1,*, Stephen M. Kajiura² and Malcolm S. Gordon¹

¹ Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California at Los Angeles, 621 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
² Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA

^* Author for correspondence (ljordan{at}ucla.edu)

Accepted 6 July 2009

Elasmobranch fishes (sharks, skates and rays) possess highly sensitive electrosensory systems, which enable them to detect weak electric fields such as those produced by potential prey organisms. Different species have unique electrosensory pore numbers, densities and distributions. Functional differences in detection capabilities resulting from these structural differences are largely unknown. Stingrays and other batoid fishes have eyes positioned on the opposite side of the body from the mouth. Furthermore, they often feed on buried prey, which can be located non-visually using the electrosensory system. In the present study we test functional predictions based on structural differences in three stingray species (Urobatis halleri, Pteroplatytrygon violacea and Myliobatis californica) with differing electrosensory system morphology. We compare detection capabilities based upon behavioral responses to dipole electric signals (5.3–9.6 µA). Species with greater ventral pore numbers and densities were predicted to demonstrate enhanced electrosensory capabilities. Electric field intensities at orientation were similar among these species, although they differed in response type and orientation pathway. Minimum voltage gradients eliciting feeding responses were well below 1 nVcm^–1 for all species regardless of pore number and density.

Key words: batoid, elasmobranch, electroreception, prey detection, Urobatis halleri, Myliobatis californica, Pteroplatytrygon violacea

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

Related articles in JEB:

HOW STINGRAYS SENSE THEIR SURROUNDINGS

Kathryn Knight
JEB 2009 212: i. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Knight HOW STINGRAYS SENSE THEIR SURROUNDINGS J. Exp. Biol., October 1, 2009; 212(19): i - ii. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. K. Jordan, S. M. Kajiura, and M. S. Gordon Functional consequences of structural differences in stingray sensory systems. Part I: mechanosensory lateral line canals J. Exp. Biol., October 1, 2009; 212(19): 3037 - 3043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]