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, 3037-3043 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.028712

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 I: mechanosensory lateral line canals

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

Short range hydrodynamic and electrosensory signals are important during final stages of prey capture in elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and rays), and may be particularly useful for dorso-ventrally flattened batoids with mouths hidden from their eyes. In stingrays, both the lateral line canal and electrosensory systems are highly modified and complex with significant differences on ventral surfaces that relate to feeding ecology. This study tests functional hypotheses based on quantified differences in sensory system morphology of three stingray species, Urobatis halleri, Myliobatis californica and Pteroplatytrygon violacea. Part I investigates the mechanosensory lateral line canal system whereas part II focuses on the electrosensory system. Stingray lateral line canals include both pored and non-pored sections and differ in branching complexity and distribution. A greater proportion of pored canals and high pore numbers were predicted to correspond to increased response to water flow. Behavioral experiments were performed to compare responses of stingrays to weak water jets mimicking signals produced by potential prey at velocities of 10–20 cm s^–1. Bat rays, M. californica, have the most complex and broadly distributed pored canal network and demonstrated both the highest response rate and greater response intensity to water jet signals. Results suggest that U. halleri and P. violacea may rely on additional sensory input, including tactile and visual cues, respectively, to initiate stronger feeding responses. These results suggest that stingray lateral line canal morphology can indicate detection capabilities through responsiveness to weak water jets.

Key words: batoid, elasmobranch, hydrodynamic, 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 II: electrosensory system J. Exp. Biol., October 1, 2009; 212(19): 3044 - 3050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]