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

First published online September 15, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 3785-3796 (2004)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2004
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01200

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 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 Horner, A. J. Articles by Derby, C. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Horner, A. J. Articles by Derby, C. D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Dual antennular chemosensory pathways can mediate orientation by Caribbean spiny lobsters in naturalistic flow conditions

Amy J. Horner^1,*, Marc J. Weissburg² and Charles D. Derby¹

¹ Department of Biology, Georgia State University, PO Box 4010, Atlanta, GA 30302-4010, USA
² School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 311 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

View larger version (143K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Spiny lobster and antennular sensilla. (A) Diagram of the spiny lobster showing the major components of the chemosensory system. (B) High-magnification scanning electron micrograph of a portion of the aesthetasc tuft region of the lateral flagellum. Aesthetasc (a), guard (g), companion (c) and asymmetric sensilla (as) are visible. (C) Scanning electron micrograph of a portion of the medial flagellum showing various types of non-aesthetasc sensilla. (D–F) High-resolution scanning electron micrographs of three bimodal chemo-mechanosensilla: (D) hooded sensillum, (E) medium simple sensillum and (F) long simple sensillum. Modified from Cate and Derby (2001).

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Diagram of the flume setup at Georgia Institute of Technology. See text for explanation.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Percentage of spiny lobsters that successfully located the odor source. In each of the three stimulus groups, only those ablation conditions with an asterisk differed significantly from the control (unablated) animals (Fisher exact test with Bonferroni correction, P<0.0125).

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Efficiency of successful searches. Mean ± S.E.M. of time to find the odor source (A), net-to-gross displacement ratio (B), walking speed (C) and heading angle with respect to odor source (D). For behaviors in A, C and D, there were no differences in responses of the ablated animals at either shrimp concentration (A,C: ANOVA, P>0.05; D: Watson–Williams test, P>0.05; Zar, 1996). For B, at high shrimp concentration only, there was a significant ablation effect (ANOVA, F3,30=3.50, P=0.027); ablation conditions whose bars have different letters are significantly different (LSD test, P<0.05).

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Success rate and search efficiency of animals with free and immobilized second antennae. (A) Percentage of animals finding the odor source with shrimp and seawater as odorants. Mean ± S.E.M. of (B) time to find the odor source with shrimp as an odorant, (C) net-to-gross displacement ratio, (D) walking speed and (E) heading angle with respect to odor source. For each of the four behaviors, there were no differences in responses of the ablation conditions (A–D, ANOVA, P>0.05; E: Watson–Williams test, P>0.05).

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter