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 September 19, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3882-3886 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02456
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vácha, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vácha, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Laboratory behavioural assay of insect magnetoreception: magnetosensitivity of Periplaneta americana

Martin Vácha

Department of Animal Physiology and Immunology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlárská 2, Brno, 611 37, Czech Republic


Figure 1
View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Time schedule of the experiment. Animals were put into dishes at 16:00 h on the day before sampling. Sampling began at 10:00 h and consisted of pre-treatment periods A and B, magnetic treatment periods C and D and post-treatment periods E and F. Magnetic treatment was designed as nine pulses (5 min each) periodically shifting the horizontal vector of geomagnetic field (MF) by 60° clockwise (CW).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Preliminary test series. Turning activity of animals in the natural field (Control) is shown as solid bars and in a field periodically rotated in periods C and D (Test) as open bars. (A) Unlike the control animals, activity increases in the test animals after the magnetic treatment is applied and persists to period E. (B) The contrast in the CDE versus ABF periods is significant for the Test group (Wilcoxon, N=28, P=0.02) but not for the Control group (Wilcoxon, N=28, P=0.18). (C) In the critical CDE period, activity in the Test group is higher then in the Control group yet not significant (Mann-Whitney, N=28/28, P=0.08).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Verification series. (A) The rise in activity during the CDE periods is apparent. (B) The contrast in the CDE versus ABF periods is significant in the Test group (Wilcoxon, N=97, P=0.001); no difference found in the Control group (Wilcoxon, N=99, P=n.s.). (C) Between the Test and Control groups, the comparison of the critical intervals CDE shows a significant difference in activity (Mann-Whitney, N=97/99, P=0.03); ABFs comparison shows no difference (Mann-Whitney, N=97/99, P=n.s.).

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2006