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 8, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 2600-2608 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.016667
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Material
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 Shabani, S.
Right arrow Articles by Derby, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shabani, S.
Right arrow Articles by Derby, C. D.
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?

Spiny lobsters detect conspecific blood-borne alarm cues exclusively through olfactory sensilla

Shkelzen Shabani*, Michiya Kamio and Charles D. Derby

Department of Biology, Brains & Behavior Program and Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Chemosensory organs of spiny lobsters. A1, first antenna or antennule; A2, second antenna. A1 bifurcates after the basal segments into the lateral and medial flagella, which share many of the same non-aesthetasc sensilla. However, only the lateral flagellum contains rows of aesthetasc sensilla. Figure modified from Schmidt et al. (Schmidt et al., 2006Go).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. (A) Hemolymph (HEM) induced alarm responses in significantly more spiny lobsters than did sea water (SW). In contrast, hemolymph and SW induced a similarly low frequency of appetitive responses. (B) Hemolymph caused spiny lobsters to spend significantly more time inside the shelter than did SW. (C) Hemolymph suppressed the appetitive response to shrimp odor in significantly more lobsters than did SW. Results are based on 53 lobsters. *Significant difference between HEM and SW using nominal data and McNemar tests (P<0.05) as described in Materials and methods. Evaluation of the results based on ordinal data using Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests showed similar results.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Ablating aesthetasc sensilla eliminated all forms of alarm response to hemolymph (HEM). (A) Before (Pre) ablation of aesthetasc sensilla, a significantly higher percentage of experimental lobsters (left graph, N=9) showed alarm responses to hemolymph than after (Post) ablation (McNemar test, *P<0.05). The percentage of control lobsters (right graph, N=11) showing alarm responses to HEM before and after sham treatment was the same. The percentage of experimental lobsters showing appetitive responses to hemolymph increased significantly (McNemar test, *P<0.05), to 100%, after ablation. The percentage of control lobsters showing appetitive responses to hemolymph was the same before and after sham treatment. (B) Experimental lobsters spent significantly more time inside the shelter in response to hemolymph before than after ablation (Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, *P<0.05). Control lobsters spent a similar amount of time inside the shelter in response to hemolymph before and after sham treatment. (C) Before ablation, a high percentage of experimental lobsters had suppressed appetitive responses to shrimp odor after hemolymph; however, after ablation, a low percentage of the same lobsters had suppressed appetitive responses. The significance of the results from nominal data above was similar to the significance of results based on ordinal data using Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Ablation of non-aesthetasc sensilla did not affect any form of alarm behavior in response to hemolymph (HEM). (A) The percentage of either experimental (left graph, N=10) or control (right graph, N=10) lobsters that showed alarm or appetitive responses to hemolymph remained the same after (Post) ablation of non-aesthetascs or sham treatment. (B) Likewise, both experimental and control lobsters spent a similar amount of time inside the shelter in response to hemolymph before and after either treatment. (C) Both experimental and control lobsters before and after treatment showed similar suppression of appetitive responses to shrimp odor when shrimp odor was presented after hemolymph. Nominal data were analysed using McNemar tests (P<0.05) as described in Materials and methods. Evaluation of the results based on ordinal data using Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests showed similar results.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Spiny lobsters were more likely to show alarm responses to conspecific hemolymph compared with either congeneric hemolymph or hemolymph from a brachyuran crab. Responses of two groups of P. argus lobsters are shown in A and B. P. argus hemolymph (PA HEM) induced alarm responses in a significantly greater percentage of P. argus lobsters than did hemolymph of Panulirus interruptus (PI HEM) or the SW control, and PI HEM induced alarm responses in a significantly greater percentage of lobsters than did SW (McNemar test, P<0.05, N=20) or hemolymph of Callinectes sapidus in another group of lobsters (CS HEM; Fisher exact test, P<0.05). CS HEM induced appetitive responses in a significantly greater percentage of P. argus lobsters than did PI HEM (McNemar test, P<0.05, N=19) or PA HEM (Fisher exact test, P<0.05). Evaluation of the results for ordinal data using Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests showed similar results.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (3K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Field tests of alarm responses of P. argus to conspecific hemolymph. Hemolymph induced alarm responses in a significant percentage of wild lobsters (N=59). *Significant difference in the percentage of lobsters showing alarm responses to hemolymph (HEM) compared with SW (P<0.05, by McNemar test).

 

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 2008