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 October 31, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 3601-3612 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.023358
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 Horodysky, A. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Latour, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Horodysky, A. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Latour, R. J.
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?

Comparative visual function in five sciaenid fishes inhabiting Chesapeake Bay

Andrij Z. Horodysky1,*, Richard W. Brill2, Eric J. Warrant3, John A. Musick1 and Robert J. Latour1

1 Department of Fisheries Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA
2 Cooperative Marine Education and Research Program, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA
3 Department of Cell and Organism Biology, Vision Group, Lund University, 22362 Lund, Sweden


Figure 1
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of the microhabitat specialization of the five sciaenid fishes examined in this study (Chao and Musick, 1977Go; Murdy et al., 1997Go). Weakfish (A) are crepuscular/nocturnal predators of small pelagic crustaceans and fishes in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and deeper waters. Spotted seatrout (B) are predators of small crustaceans and fishes in shallow seagrass habitats. Red drum (C) prey on invertebrates and fishes in marsh, seagrass, and oyster reef habitats. Atlantic croaker (D) and spot (E) forage on a suite of small crustacean, polychaete and bivalve prey in sand and mud bottoms throughout the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tributaries. All are seasonal residents of Chesapeake Bay.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Intensity—response electroretinograms (ERGs) of weakfish, spotted seatrout, red drum, Atlantic croaker and spot. Each species' intensity—response curve is an average of six individuals. Responses were normalized to the maximal response voltage (Vmax) for each individual. Shaded boxes represent each species' dynamic range (5—95% Vmax), numbers at the top indicate its breadth (in log units). Dashed vertical lines and adjacent numbers indicate K50 points (illumination at 50% Vmax). Open symbols and white text are results of day experiments, filled symbols and black text are of night experiments. Light intensities are in log candela m—2. Error bars indicate ± 1 s.e.m.

 

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

  		Fig. 3. Mean flicker fusion frequency (FFF) values for five sciaenid fishes. Open symbols are results of day experiments, filled symbols are results of night experiments. Error bars indicate ±1 s.e.m. Triangles are the FFF at maximum stimulus intensity (Imax); circles are FFF at I25 (light levels 25% of Imax). We considered I25 to be a proxy for ambient environmental light intensity.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Spectral sensitivity curves calculated from the electroretinograms (ERGs) of weakfish, spotted seatrout, red drum, Atlantic croaker and spot for wavelengths of 300—800 nm. N=6 individuals per species except Atlantic croaker (N=5). Responses at each wavelength were normalized to the wavelength of maximal voltage response (Vmax) for each individual. Open symbols are results of day experiments, filled symbols are results of night experiments. Error bars indicate ±1 s.e.m.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Diel differences in spectral electroretinograms (ERGs) of weakfish, spotted seatrout, red drum, Atlantic croaker and spot. Differences were calculated by subtracting the day spectral sensitivities (Sday) from night sensitivities (Snight). Dashed gray lines are ±95% CI, calculated as 1.96* (s.e.m.). Values above the horizontal zero line (i.e. positive) indicate wavelengths of greater response during daylight, those below the zero line (i.e. negative) indicate wavelengths of greater nocturnal response. Significant differences occurred when CI did not encompass zero.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Differences in spectral electroretinograms of weakfish and spotted seatrout, calculated by subtracting the weakfish spectral sensitivities (Sweakfish) from those of spotted seatrout (Sspotted seatrout). Open symbols are day values, filled symbols are night values. Dashed gray lines are ±95% CI, calculated as 1.96* (s.e.m.). Significant differences occurred when CI did not encompass zero.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (79K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7. SSH (Stavenga et al., 1993Go) and GFRKD (Govardovskii et al., 2000Go) vitamin A1 templates fitted to sciaenid spectral ERD data by maximum likelihood. Only estimates from best fitting models from Table 2 were plotted for each species. Values to the right of each pigment label are estimated {lambda}max and pigment specific weight as estimated by the model. P1 (blue) is the short wavelength pigment, P2 (yellow) is the long wavelength pigment, and P3 (where applicable; green) is the intermediate pigment. Black lines represent additive curves developed by summing the product of each curve weighted by the estimated weighting factor. White circles are mean photopic spectral sensitivities from Fig. 4. For weakfish, B refers to the estimated peak of the P2 β-band.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 8. Relative spectral transmission of the cornea, vitreous humor, and lens of weakfish (N=2) and Atlantic croaker (N=3) demonstrating that UV-A wavelengths (350—380 nm) are transmitted by all three optical tissues in weakfish, but appear to be absorbed by the lens of croaker. Optical tissues of spotted seatrout, red drum and spot followed the croaker pattern, absorbing strongly below 380 nm.

 

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