spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Movie
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kajiura, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Holland, K. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kajiura, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Holland, K. N.
The Journal of Experimental Biology 205, 3609-3621 (2002)
Copyright © 2002 The Company of Biologists Limited

Electroreception in juvenile scalloped hammerhead and sandbar sharks

Stephen M. Kajiura* and Kim N. Holland

Department of Zoology and Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, PO Box 1346, Kaneohe, HI 96744, USA

* Author for correspondence at present address: Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 321 Steinhaus Hall, University of California — Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA (e-mail: kajiura{at}uci.edu)

Accepted 21 August 2002

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.

Key words: ampullae of Lorenzini, Carcharhinidae, elasmobranch, enhanced electroreception hypothesis, Sphyrnidae, Carcharhinus plumbeus, Sphyrna lewini


Related articles in JEB:

How the Shark Got its Hammer Head
Kathryn Phillips
JEB 2002 205: i-i2304. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Biol. Bull.Home page
S. M. Kajiura, J. P. Tyminski, J. B. Forni, and A. P. Summers
The Sexually Dimorphic Cephalofoil of Bonnethead Sharks, Sphyrna tiburo
Biol. Bull., August 1, 2005; 209(1): 1 - 5.
[Full Text] [PDF]




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2002