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

First published online May 21, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1925-1934 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.000075

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) 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 Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gardiner, J. M. Articles by Atema, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gardiner, J. M. Articles by Atema, J.

Sharks need the lateral line to locate odor sources: rheotaxis and eddy chemotaxis

Jayne M. Gardiner^* and Jelle Atema

Boston University Marine Program, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Experimental flume. (A) Top view diagram, to scale; with upstream targets (x denotes nozzle locations), downstream start box and dogfish swimming up one of the plumes (indicated by the dotted lines). (B) Photograph of upstream targets: two bricks and two nozzles dispensing odor or seawater. (C) Side view diagram of targets, to scale; arrows show relative flow velocity (flume center flow 3.5 cm s–1); nozzle and weight hang down 15 cm upstream of brick (9x6 cm); turbulent odor dispersal sketched from dye trace.

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Success rate (%) and mean search time (s) of M. canis under four experimental conditions: intact and lateral line lesioned with streptomycin in the light and in the dark. (A) Lateral line lesion reduced success rate: non-significant in the light (WSR=3.0, N=8, P=0.2) and significant in the dark (WSR=10.5, P=0.03, N=8). Lighting alone did not affect success rate (WSR=0, N=10, P=1). (B) Lateral line lesion significantly increased search time in the light (WSR=–18.0, P=0.008, N=8) and even more so in the dark (WSR=–14.0, P=0.01, N=8). Lighting alone did not affect search time (WSR=0, N=10, P=1). Gray bars, fluorescent light (light); black bars, infrared light (dark).

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Mean number of strikes by untreated M. canis on the four targets: odor/turbulence (OT), odor alone (O), seawater/turbulence (SWT) and seawater alone (SW). (A) Intact, in the light, the animals preferred the odor side (OT+O) over the seawater side (SWT+SW; WSR=27.5, P=0.002, N=10) and the odor/turbulence over the odor alone (WSR=23.5, P=0.01, N=10). (B) Intact, in the dark, the animals preferred the odor side over the seawater side (WSR=27.5, P=0.002, N=10) and the source of odor/turbulence over the source of odor alone (WSR=27.5, P=0.002, N=10). (C) Lateral line lesioned, in the light, the animals preferred the odor side over the seawater side (WSR=10.5, P=0.03, N=6) but did not discriminate between odor/turbulence and odor alone (WSR=5.5, P=0.1, N=6). (D) Lateral line lesioned, in the dark, the animals no longer displayed a preference for the odor side over the seawater side (WSR=3.0, P=0.2, N=3). Gray bars, fluorescent light (light); black bars, infrared light (dark).