Literature DB >> 12409487

Electroreception in juvenile scalloped hammerhead and sandbar sharks.

Stephen M Kajiura1, Kim N Holland.   

Abstract

The unique head morphology of sphyrnid sharks might have evolved to enhance electrosensory capabilities. The 'enhanced electroreception' hypothesis was tested by comparing the behavioral responses of similarly sized carcharhinid and sphyrnid sharks to prey-simulating electric stimuli. Juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini and sandbar sharks Carcharhinus plumbeus oriented to dipole electric fields from the same maximum distance (approximately 30 cm) and thus demonstrated comparable behavioral-response thresholds (<1 nV cm(-1)). Despite the similarity of response threshold, the orientation pathways and behaviors differed for the two species. Scalloped hammerheads typically demonstrated a pivot orientation in which the edge of the cephalofoil closest to the dipole remained stationary while the shark bent its trunk to orient to the center of the dipole. By contrast, sandbars swam in a broader arc towards the center of the dipole. The different orientation patterns are attributed to the hydrodynamic properties of the cephalofoil, which enables the hammerheads to execute sharp turns at high speed. The greater trunk width of the sandbar sharks prevented them from demonstrating the same degree of flexibility. Therefore, although the sphyrnid head morphology does not appear to confer a greater sensitivity to prey-simulating dipole electric fields, it does provide (1). a greater lateral search area, which may increase the probability of prey encounter, and (2). enhanced maneuverability, which may aid in prey capture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12409487     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.205.23.3609

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  19 in total

Review 1.  Is there a fatty acid taste?

Authors:  Richard D Mattes
Journal:  Annu Rev Nutr       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.848

2.  Microstructure of the Bonnethead Shark (Sphyrna tiburo) Olfactory Rosette.

Authors:  Lauren E Simonitis; Christopher D Marshall
Journal:  Integr Org Biol       Date:  2022-07-18

3.  Navigation by induction-based magnetoreception in elasmobranch fishes.

Authors:  T C A Molteno; W L Kennedy
Journal:  J Biophys       Date:  2009-10-18

4.  Freezing behaviour facilitates bioelectric crypsis in cuttlefish faced with predation risk.

Authors:  Christine N Bedore; Stephen M Kajiura; Sönke Johnsen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 5.  Passive electroreception in aquatic mammals.

Authors:  Nicole U Czech-Damal; Guido Dehnhardt; Paul Manger; Wolf Hanke
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 1.836

6.  Effects of an electric field on white sharks: in situ testing of an electric deterrent.

Authors:  Charlie Huveneers; Paul J Rogers; Jayson M Semmens; Crystal Beckmann; Alison A Kock; Brad Page; Simon D Goldsworthy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Electrosensitive spatial vectors in elasmobranch fishes: implications for source localization.

Authors:  Ariel C Rivera-Vicente; Josiah Sewell; Timothy C Tricas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Electric field detection in sawfish and shovelnose rays.

Authors:  Barbara E Wueringer; Lyle Squire; Stephen M Kajiura; Ian R Tibbetts; Nathan S Hart; Shaun P Collin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Survival of the stillest: predator avoidance in shark embryos.

Authors:  Ryan M Kempster; Nathan S Hart; Shaun P Collin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  From morphology to neural information: the electric sense of the skate.

Authors:  Marcelo Camperi; Timothy C Tricas; Brandon R Brown
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.