Literature DB >> 23629880

Bioelectric fields of marine organisms: voltage and frequency contributions to detectability by electroreceptive predators.

Christine N Bedore1, Stephen M Kajiura.   

Abstract

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 μV and did not differ from those of elasmobranchs, which ranged from 18 to 30 μV. Invertebrates and elasmobranchs produced electric potentials smaller than those of teleost fishes, which ranged from 39 to 319 μV. 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23629880     DOI: 10.1086/669973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Biochem Zool        ISSN: 1522-2152            Impact factor:   2.247


  6 in total

1.  Insights into Electroreceptor Development and Evolution from Molecular Comparisons with Hair Cells.

Authors:  Clare V H Baker; Melinda S Modrell
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 3.326

2.  Perovskite nickelates as electric-field sensors in salt water.

Authors:  Zhen Zhang; Derek Schwanz; Badri Narayanan; Michele Kotiuga; Joseph A Dura; Mathew Cherukara; Hua Zhou; John W Freeland; Jiarui Li; Ronny Sutarto; Feizhou He; Chongzhao Wu; Jiaxin Zhu; Yifei Sun; Koushik Ramadoss; Stephen S Nonnenmann; Nanfang Yu; Riccardo Comin; Karin M Rabe; Subramanian K R S Sankaranarayanan; Shriram Ramanathan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  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

4.  How Close is too Close? The Effect of a Non-Lethal Electric Shark Deterrent on White Shark Behaviour.

Authors:  Ryan M Kempster; Channing A Egeberg; Nathan S Hart; Laura Ryan; Lucille Chapuis; Caroline C Kerr; Carl Schmidt; Charlie Huveneers; Enrico Gennari; Kara E Yopak; Jessica J Meeuwig; Shaun P Collin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Insight into shark magnetic field perception from empirical observations.

Authors:  James M Anderson; Tamrynn M Clegg; Luisa V M V Q Véras; Kim N Holland
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMF) influence the behaviour of bottom-dwelling marine species.

Authors:  Zoë L Hutchison; Andrew B Gill; Peter Sigray; Haibo He; John W King
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-06       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.