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


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online August 4, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 3037-3046 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01750
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Mussi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hawryshyn, C. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mussi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hawryshyn, C. W.

Behavioural discrimination of polarized light in the damselfish Chromis viridis (family Pomacentridae)

Martina Mussi, Theodore J. Haimberger and Craig W. Hawryshyn*

Department of Biology, University of Victoria, PO Box 3020 Stn. CSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3N5



View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Optical system. Light from the 150 W xenon lamp was projected though two UV-transmissive biconvex lenses before hitting a beam-splitter, which transmitted 50% of the light to the right optical window of the behavioural chamber and 50% to a front-surface mirror, which hit the left optical window of the behavioural chamber.

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Spectroradiometer measurements (Ocean Optics; USB2000) of the light entering the two windows in the test tank (orange line). Spectral background of the light entering the test tank when the UV light content was filtered using a 450 nm long-pass filter (black line).

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. (A) Each session (S1–S10) of training, which included 20 trials, is shown on the x-axis, plotted against choice frequency. Fish A (diamond) required four sessions before discriminating the reference e-vector. Fish B (square) required seven sessions, whereas fish C (triangle) required three, and fish D (circle) required six sessions. Positive response was a correct choice frequency of 70% or above. (B) Time to respond. The time to respond was recorded from the opening of the gate until fish chose an e-vector within the choice area. The time to respond (mean ± S.E.M.) diminished with the training sessions for each fish.

 


View larger version (9K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. C. viridis could discriminate between 0° and 90° e-vector orientations (P<10–4 in each case). Each point represents the percentage of correct choice frequency (mean ± S.E.M.) when 0° and 90° e-vector orientations were presented. The horizontal line represents the choice frequency value for a significance level of P=0.001≤x for 40 Bernoulli trials calculated using the binomial probability function. Fish A and C were trained to swim towards 90° e-vector orientation (85% and 80% correct choice frequency, respectively). Fish B and D were trained to select 0° e-vector orientation (80% correct choice frequency in both fish).

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. The brightness test showed that the choice between the horizontal and the vertical plane of polarized light was made based on the orientation of the e-vectors, independent of the light intensity of the stimuli (80 trials per fish, N=4). Each circle represents the percentage of correct choice frequency (mean ± S.E.M.), when 0° was dimmer than 90°, whereas each square represents the percentage of correct choice frequency (mean ± S.E.M.) when 90° was dimmer than 0°. The horizontal shaded bands represent the range of choice frequency values that correspond to significance levels of P=0.001≤x and P=0.01≤x≤0.001, calculated using the binomial probability function for 40 Bernoulli trials. The reference e-vector for fish A and C was 90°, whereas the reference e-vector for fish B and D was 0°.

 


View larger version (7K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Eliminating the UV part of the spectrum in the polarization stimuli impairs e-vector discrimination. The UV part of the spectrum in both stimuli was removed using a 450 nm long-pass filter (40 trials per fish, N=2). Each point represents the percentage of correct choice frequency (mean ± S.E.M.) between the reference and comparison e-vectors. The horizontal dashed line indicates 50% choice, i.e. random choice between the two stimuli.

 


View larger version (33K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. The angular difference between the reference e-vector and the comparison e-vector ({Delta} e-vector) is plotted against the percentage of choice frequency for each fish. Each point represents the percentage of correct choice frequency (mean ± S.E.M.) between the reference e-vector and the comparison e-vector (40 trials per fish, N=4). The horizontal shaded bands represent the range of choice frequency values that correspond to significance levels of P=0.001≤x, P=0.01≤x≤0.001 and P=0.05≤x≤0.01, calculated using the binomial probability function for 40 Bernoulli trials. The smallest {Delta} e-vector was approximately 25° in all four fish.

 


View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. The percentage of choice frequency (mean ± S.E.M.) plotted against e-vector orientation when fish C was re-trained to swim towards 45° e-vector orientation. The left side of the figure shows the choice frequencies between the reference 45° and the comparison e-vectors of up to 0°, and the right side shows the choice frequencies between 45° and the comparison e-vectors up to 90°. The horizontal shaded bands represent the range of choice frequency values that correspond to significance levels of P=0.001≤x, P=0.01≤x≤0.001 and P=0.05≤x≤0.01, calculated using the binomial distribution model of Bernoulli trials for 40 trials. Except for the 55° e-vector comparison, points and their associated significance levels on the right side of the figure are for less than 40 trials. The smallest {Delta} e-vector was approximately 10°.

 





© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005