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 3, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3226-3233 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02368
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 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Koch, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by Macmillan, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Koch, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by Macmillan, D. L.

Exploring with damaged antennae: do crayfish compensate for injuries?

L. M. Koch, B. W. Patullo* and D. L. Macmillan

Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia


Figure 1
View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Animals were placed at the base of the maze. A trial began when the crayfish crossed the starting point. Individuals moved up the maze, past the halfway point, to the junction start. Trials ended when the crayfish crossed the end line. Crayfish inset indicates ablation points with arrowheads.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Summary of the experiments. Crayfish are pictured with antenna and chela ablations with respect to the points when tests occurred in the maze. Legend bottom right indicates treatments.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Repeated traverses in the maze summary (experiment 3). (A) The number of turns toward the side of the intact antenna of crayfish with one flagellum ablated, and the left side (randomly selected) of the controls, across the 30-day experimental period. Ablated animals were different to the control (Wilcoxon: Z=-2.197, P=0.028) and the number of turns was generally greater in the ablated animals than those in the control. (B) Time in the maze for crayfish with intact (control) or a base ablated antenna. (Bi) Mean time to walk to the start of the junction varied across the 30-day period (P=0.049) with trials from day 10 onwards generally faster than those in the first two tests. There was no difference in time variation between the treatments (P=0.069, interaction term F=0.00, P=0.986). (Bii) Time to move through the junction was not different between the treatments (2 factor ANOVA all terms P>0.05). Error inset lower left (range of 1 s.e.m.).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Summary of movement times (mean + 1 s.d.) of crayfish to and through the junction of the maze, (A) after antennae midpoint or base ablation (experiment 1); (B) before and after ablation of one antenna (experiment 2); (C) after chelae ablation (experiment 4). No differences were detected between the treatments in the three experiments (time to junction Exp. 1: T(24)=0.94, P=0.349; Exp. 2: P>0.05 for all ANOVA terms; Exp. 4: F(2,101)=1.27, P=0.286; time in junction Exp. 1: T(24)=1.08, P=0.284; Exp. 2: P>0.05 for all ANOVA terms; Exp. 4: F(2,101)=0.67, P=0.515).

 




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2006