Rheotaxis and prey detection in uniform currents by Lake Michigan mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi)
Parmly Hearing Institute and Department of Biology, Loyola University of Chicago, Il 60626, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: scoombs{at}luc.edu)
Accepted 1 October 2002
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: rheotaxis, prey orientation, lateral line, mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Despite the presence of ambient currents in many aquatic environments and
their obvious role in stimulating the lateral line, most behavioral
investigations on the sensory capabilities of this system have been conducted
under still-water conditions. For example, lateral-line mediated sensitivity
and reactive distances of Lake Michigan mottled sculpin (Cottus
bairdi) to water movements created by live (Daphnia magna) and
artificial (a small vibrating sphere) prey has been determined in the absence
of any background water motions (Hoekstra and Janssen,
1985,
1986
;
Coombs and Janssen, 1990
),
although preliminary observations indicate that sculpin can detect artificial
prey in the presence of slow (approximately 2 cm s-1)
unidirectional currents (Hoekstra and
Janssen, 1985
). In the natural environment, however, the general
background noise created by other biotic and abiotic sources may mask or
interfere with the ability of mottled sculpin to detect the small water
movements created by their prey. The extent to which background noise masks
the detection of biologically significant signals and the extent to which the
lateral line system is able to filter out these unwanted noises is almost
entirely unknown, despite the fundamental nature of this question.
Although the literature is replete with examples of prey detection by
fishes in fluvial environments, only a handful of studies have systematically
examined the effects of ambient water motion on lateral line-mediated prey
detection. Montgomery and Milton
(1993) showed that mean
reactive distance of torrentfish Cheimarrichthys fosteri to live,
natural prey deteriorated from 6 cm at 0 cm s-1 to less than 2 cm
at 100 cm s-1. Although this study provides a nice example of how
ambient flow can degrade the fish's ability to detect prey signals, the
information that it yields about the signal-to-noise processing capabilities
of the lateral line system is limited. For example, the amplitude, frequency
and duration of prey movement and the position of the fish relative to the
prey and flow direction were not controlled in these studies. Thus,
signal-to-noise ratios were not characterized and, although care was taken to
produce unidirectional, uniform flows, it is quite likely that there were
considerable a.c. components (e.g. turbulence) to the background flow at the
high flow speeds (10 and 100 cm s-1) used in this study.
In addition to this one prey detection study, a recent series of studies by
Montgomery and colleagues on the rheotactic responses of several different
fish species to low velocity (<10 cm s-1) currents has
demonstrated for the first time an important of role of lateral line
superficial neuromasts in rheotaxis
(Montgomery et al., 1997;
Baker and Montgomery,
1999a
,b
).
Upstream orientation may be an important behavioral strategy for prey
detection by fluvial species. It may help fish intercept small, downstream
drifting prey or odors from larger upstream prey. Many animals appear to use a
combination of odor-conditioned rheotaxis and chemotaxis to localize food odor
sources (Weissburg, 2000
;
Weissburg and Zimmer-Faust,
1993
,
1994
;
Montgomery et al., 1999
).
Thus, these studies remind us that ambient water currents may function as both
signals and noise. The degree to which ambient water currents function to
enhance or degrade biologically relevant signals will in large measure depend
upon the saliency of different sensory cues and the sensory hierarchies
evolved for signal detection in different fish species. In any event, studies
on the potential masking effects of uniform flows on prey detection abilities
must take the rheotactic behavior of the fish into account.
Despite the near absence of behavioral data on the signal-to-noise
processing capabilities of the lateral line, a good deal of information exists
on the filtering properties of the lateral line periphery. Both theoretical
considerations (Denton and Gray,
1983,
1988
,
1989
; Kalmijn,
1988
,
1989
) and neurophysiological
measures of afferent fiber responses
(Kroese and Schellart, 1992
;
Coombs and Janssen, 1990
;
Montgomery et al., 1994
)
support the idea that the lateral line periphery can be broken down into
low-pass (superficial neuromasts) and high-pass (canal neuromast) subsystems
with respect to fluid velocity. These biomechanical and hydrodyamic-based
differences suggest that canal neuromasts are better suited for filtering out
low-frequency, ambient water motions (e.g. uniform flows) and for passing
higher-frequency, prey-like signals, whereas superficial neuromasts are better
suited for responding to slow, uniform flows while rejecting higher frequency,
rapidly changing events (Montgomery et
al., 1994
).
Indeed, recent physiological studies on goldfish lateral line fibers have
shown that although both putative superficial and canal neuromast fibers
respond to a 50 Hz dipole source in the absence of background flow, only canal
neuromast fibers continue to respond to the source in the presence of a 10-15
cm s-1 background flow (Engelmann et al.,
2000,
2002
). Conversely, superficial
neuromast fibers respond robustly to uniform, background flows and increase
their firing rate in response to increasing flow velocities
(Voigt et al., 2000
; Engelmann
et al., 2000
,
2002
), whereas canal neuromast
fibers do not (Engelmann et al.,
2000
,
2002
). These findings are in
nice agreement with behavioral studies showing that superficial neuromasts
rather than canal neuromasts are important to the rheotactic response of fish
to low-velocity uniform flows (Montgomery
et al., 1997
; Baker and Montgomery,
1999a
,b
),
whereas canal neuromasts, rather than superficial neuromasts, appear to
underlie prey-orienting responses to discrete, a.c. sources (Coombs et al.,
2000b).
In this study, we take advantage of the unconditioned, lateral-line mediated, prey-orienting response of Lake Michigan mottled sculpin to investigate the effects of increasing background flow rates on the ability of sculpin to detect prey-like signals. We also determine the rheotactic response of these benthic sculpin to the same background flows in the absence of prey signals. Given that current-orienting behaviors are subserved by a low-pass (superficial neuromasts) subsystem and that the firing rate of superficial neuromast fibers increases with increasing flow rate, we predict that rheotactic responses in the upstream direction will increase as a function of increasing flow velocity. Likewise, given that the prey-orienting behavior of the Lake Michigan mottled sculpin depends on the high-pass (canal neuromast) subsystem and that uniform (DC) flows are ineffective stimuli for canal neuromast fibers, we predict that increases in flow velocity will have minimal effects on the ability of sculpin to detect the prey-like (a.c.) signals.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Flow tank and flow measurements
All experiments were conducted in a `flow tank' of similar design to that
reported by Vogel and LaBarbera
(1978). The flow tank was
placed on a vibration-isolated table (Technical Manufacturing Corp., Peabody,
MA, USA) to reduce substrate vibrations. The main body of the tank was a long
Plexiglass rectangular channel (44 cm x 18 cm x 17 cm), with a
circular opening at each end. The opening at one end was connected to the
opening at the other end by a 10.2 cm diameter circular polyvinylchloride
(PVC) return tube. Water depth was always kept at 15.5 cm, well above the
dorsal surface of these benthic fish, which rarely swim off the bottom.
Unidirectional flows were created by a motor-driven impeller placed at the
downstream end of the tank, and mounted to a separate bench, so that motor
vibrations were not transmitted to the flow tank. Impeller speed was adjusted
by a motor controller which also provided a digital readout of the number of
revolutions per minute (revs min-1).
A series of two collimators placed upstream of the experimental arena served to reduce turbulence in the flow. Each collimator consisted of approximately 500 soda straws (each 3 cm long) attached together to cover the entire cross section of the tank, and with the long axis of the straws parallel to the flow and long axis of the tank. Fish were placed in an area (22 cm x 17 cm) bounded by the second collimator on the upstream side, and a mesh screen supported by a plastic grid (egg crate) on the downstream side to prevent the fish from being drawn into the impeller. A video camera below the flow tank provided a ventral view of the test arena.
Flow velocities produced by impeller revolutions at different revs
min-1 were measured in the experimental arena by two different
techniques. Methylene Blue dye streaks were released from pipette tips 12 mm
above the bottom of the flow tank at the approximate eye level of the sculpin
and at five different locations, separated by 2 cm, along the width of the
tank at its upstream end. The movement of the dye downstream was videotaped
and the distance traveled by the dye streak from one time-stamped video frame
to the next (17 ms frame-1) was used to compute flow velocity.
Average mid-stream and focal point velocities (i.e. at the level of the fish)
were also measured with a commercially available flow meter (Marsh-McBirney,
Model 2000, Frederick, MD, USA) as was done by Facey and Grossman
(1992). Visual inspection of
time-lapsed video frames revealed that bulk flow was unidirectional and
spatially homogenous in the plane of view at all flow velocities tested.
Moreover, dye-streak measures of flow velocities at different motor speeds
were in excellent agreement with those made with the commercial flow
meter.
Signal generation and measurement
Prey-like stimuli for masking experiments were simulated with a small (6 mm
diameter) plastic sphere rigidly attached to a mini-shaker (Brüel and
Kjaer, Norcross, GA, USA) by a stainless steel, blunt-tipped needle (16 gauge,
15 cm length); sphere vibrations were in the vertical plane. The center of the
sphere was placed 12 mm from the bottom of the tank at the approximate eye
level of the fish, and at the same level as the dye streak. The shaker
assembly was mounted to a support system that was independent of the flow tank
and the underlying vibration-isolation table. The amplitude and frequency of
oscillation were computer controlled through a Tucker-Davis modular hardware
system consisting of a digital-to-analog converter, electronic attenuator, and
digital input and output. Sphere vibration (50 Hz) was gated on and off (500
ms on and 500 ms off) with 10 ms rise/fall times with a starting phase of
0°. A light-emitting diode, which could be seen through the camera, was
time-locked to each 500 ms signal pulse so that there was a video record of
when the signal went on and off.
To ensure that the signal source created sinusoidal water motions at 50 Hz
and that the amplitude of water motion was a linear function of signal
attenuation, the water motion created by the sphere in the absence and
presence of flow was measured with a hot-film anemometry system (TSI, Inc., St
Paul, MN, USA) as described in Coombs et al.
(1989). Stimulus measurements
were taken in the same tank that behavioral experiments were done, but in the
absence of the fish. The sensing element was positioned 1 cm from the sphere
center and at the same elevation as sphere center. The sensor was oriented to
measure the amplitude of water motion along the axis of sphere vibration. The
root mean square (RMS) voltage or amplitude of the anemometer response at 50
Hz was measured with a Hewlett Packard Wave Analyzer (3 Hz bandwidth) for
different signal levels. The output of the anemometer was also digitized
(analog-to-digital converter, Tucker Davis Technologies, Alachva, FL, USA) for
suprathreshold signal levels (50 dB SL) and the Fourier transform of the
digitized time waveforms was computed in Matlab.
Hot-film anemometer measurements confirmed that the vibrating source created sinusoidal water motions and that the amplitude of these motions declined linearly with signal attenuation. The Fourier transform of the digitized time waveforms for normal experimental conditions revealed a predominant spectral peak at 50 Hz, with increasing levels of low frequency (<30 Hz) energy as flow velocity increased (Fig. 1A). Low frequency energy near 0 Hz was similar for both the 0 and 2 cm s-1 conditions and represents the noise floor for ambient substrate vibrations. The amplitude of the second harmonic (100 Hz) was 19 dB less than that of the fundamental for the no-flow condition, but approximately 27 dB down from the fundamental for all flow conditions. Amplitude spectra for control conditions used in signal detection experiments (motor on/flow off) (Fig. 1B) were nearly identical to that for the normal, motor off/flow off condition (dotted line, Fig. 1A), except possibly for the 8 cm s-1 motor speed, where the energy below 25 Hz was somewhat higher (see Signal detection experiments, below, for further explanation).
|
Experimental overview
Two types of experiments were performed: one to measure the rheotactic
behavior of fish and the other to measure the ability of fish to detect
artifical prey vibrations as a function of background flow rates (signal
detection experiments). In both cases, flow velocity was varied from 2 to 8 cm
s-1 (approximately 0.1-1 BL s-1; BL =
body length) well below the approximate slip speed (12 cm
s-1) at which sculpin tend to be displaced downstream by the flow
(Webb et al., 1996). These
flow speeds are also in the range of focal point velocities (measured with a
commercial flow sensor near the head of the fish) reported for stream dwelling
populations of mottled sculpin in their natural habitat
(Facey and Grossman,
1992
).
Experimental sessions for both rheotaxis and signal detection experiments were run 3 days per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) and lasted approximately 20-40 min for each fish. Fish were transported to the experimental tank in water-filled, plastic lined nets in order to minimize damage to superficial neuromasts. In both experiments, rheotactic and orientating behaviors were videotaped with a camera placed below the flow tank to yield a ventral view of the fish on the substrate. Rheotactic experiments were run before signal detection experiments and three of the four animals used in these experiments were subsequently used in signal detection experiments. Procedures for conducting rheotactic and signal detection experiments and for analyzing the results are described below.
Rheotaxis experiment
Before each experimental run, a random order of flow speed presentation was
determined by drawing numbers corresponding to the three flow speeds (0, 4 or
8 cm s-1) out of a `hat' and recording the sequence. The revolution
rate of the impeller was adjusted to the first of three flow speeds and the
fish was allowed to acclimate to the flow for several minutes. The fish's
behavior was then videotaped for 5 min. At the end of the first 5 min period,
the motor speed was adjusted again to produce the next flow speed in the
randomly chosen order. Fish were allowed several minutes to acclimate to the
new flow speed before being videotaped for another 5 min period. This
procedure was carried out for 1-3 experimental sessions per day until all
three flow speeds were tested. A different order of test velocities was then
randomly generated for the next set of experimental sessions, and so on until
each flow condition had been tested four times for each of four fish.
For data analysis, videotapes of rheotactic experiments were subsequently
reviewed frame by frame to determine the position of the fish at different
times during the 5 min test period. Because sculpin tend to move frequently,
stopping for several seconds at each new position, each stationary position
was defined as a potential data point and assigned a number corresponding to
the order of occurrence during the test period (e.g. 1, 2, 3...). 25 of these
positions, selected with a spreadsheet random-number function, were then
captured, digitized and analyzed with a commercially available imaging program
(SigmaScanPro, SPSS). For each position, the fish's heading with respect to
the oncoming flow was defined as the angle between the fish's head vector (a
line down the midline of the fish from the snout to the position of pectoral
fin insertion) and the flow vector (a line parallel to the flow direction and
intersecting the fish head vector at the point of pectoral fin insertion). By
convention, an angle of 0° (fish pointing directly into the flow)
represents perfect, positive rheotaxis. The frequency distribution of fish
headings was then plotted for each fish and test velocity. The vector strength
of the distribution (Batschelet,
1981), which can vary from 0 (fish headings randomly distributed
across 360°) to 1 (all fish headings the same), was used as a quantitative
measure of the degree to which sculpin showed orientation preferences. A
modified Rayleigh (V) test
(Greenwood and Durand, 1955
)
was used to statistically discriminate between uniform (random) and
non-uniform distributions centered on the predicted, upstream direction for
positive rheotaxis (0°).
Signal detection experiment
As with rheotactic experiments, the order in which different flow
velocities (0, 2, 4 and 8 cm s-1) were used was determined randomly
at the beginning of each experimental run. The desired flow speed was then set
and the fish was allowed to acclimate to the flow for several minutes. The
fish was then lured into a fixed starting position with a small piece of squid
dangled at the end of a long-nose forceps. Sculpin were positioned so that (1)
the long axis of the fish was parallel (±20°) to the flow vector
and facing upstream, (2) the midline of the fish was 5±1 cm away from
the center of the signal source and (3) the source was approximately at the
rostral/caudal level of pectoral fin insertion on the sculpin. Because lateral
line sensitivity to both live (Daphnia magna) and artificial (a
vibrating sphere) prey is best when the vibrational source is near the head,
intermediate when it is near the trunk and poorest when near the tail
(Hoekstra and Janssen, 1986;
Coombs and Janssen, 1990
), we
chose the base of the pectoral fin as a convenient and easily identified
location near the junction between head and trunk. A target area, outlined on
the bottom of the flow tank, enabled easy and precise positioning of the fish
relative to the signal source, which was centered in the horizontal plane of
the test arena.
Once the fish was in position, the experimenter initiated a computer-controlled trial during which sphere vibrations pulsed on and off for a total of 5 s. The sculpin's response was scored as either a detection [movement towards or strike (bite) at the sphere], or non-detection (no movement, or movement away) response. A perfect orientation towards the source, which was to the side of the fish in the center of the tank, resulted in a 90° deviation from the upstream direction. Detection responses were reinforced by feeding the fish with small pieces of squid. If the fish moved before the trial began, it was repositioned, and a new trial sequence was begun.
To measure threshold sensitivity, an adaptive tracking technique was used in which the fish's response to a trial determined the amplitude of the subsequent trial, such that a detection response resulted in decreasing the amplitude of the next trial by 5 dB, and a non-detection response resulted in increasing the amplitude of the next trial by 5 dB. The signal level midway between that for consecutive `yes' and `no' responses was then defined as a transition threshold. This procedure was followed until 10 transition thresholds had occurred for a given flow velocity, which required 1-3 consecutive experimental sessions. After 10 transitions had occurred, the session for that day was terminated, and the next session on the following test day was begun with the next test velocity in the randomly chosen sequence. This procedure was repeated until there were 10 transitions for each test velocity. A new random order of test velocities was then generated, and the entire procedure repeated until a total of 20 transitions per test velocity had been measured.
To measure the probability that orienting responses occurred by chance, 30% of all trials were presented without sphere vibration (blank trials) at randomly distributed times. To control for the possibility that motor-generated acoustic noise or other a.c. flow noises rather than impeller driven d.c. flow noise may have masked signal detection, control conditions were also run with the impeller removed and the impeller drive shaft both in and out of the water.
For data analysis, the mean of 20 transition thresholds at each test velocity was computed for each of five fish. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) was used to test for significant threshold differences between fish and between test velocities. Because it was difficult to apply any specific criteria for judging detection and non-detection responses during the real-time execution of the experiment (e.g. fish had to move at least 5° and/or 5 mm towards the source for a detection response), a post-hoc video analysis of the fish's position before and after the initial response was performed to determine the distribution of response angles and distances for all blank and signal trials. SigmaScan Pro software was used to measure the fish-to-source angle and distance for each position before and after the response. In cases where the fish did not respond at all, the same position served as both the `before' and `after' position.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
Post-hoc analysis of response angles and distances for threshold
detection experiments
Because the adaptive method of threshold tracking in the threshold
detection experiments required the experimenter to make instantaneous
judgements as to whether fish moved in the direction of the signal source or
not, it is conceivable that the experimenter may not have applied the same
response criteria to each trial type (i.e. signal versus blank
trials). Two types of errors were possible for each trial type. The
experimenter may have mistakenly judged that the fish moved towards the source
(a so-called `hit' during a signal trial and a `false alarm' during a blank
trial) when in fact the fish moved away from the source or the movement
towards the source was insufficiently large to fulfil the criteria for a
positive response (Type I error). Conversely, the experimenter may have
mistakenly judged that the fish moved away from the source or did not move at
all during the trial period (a `miss' during a signal trial and a `correct
rejection' during a blank trial) when in fact the fish moved towards the
source during the trial period (Type II error).
A post-hoc, videotape analysis of the fish's position before and after each response was used to determine the extent to which experimental errors of these types were made as a function of two different response criteria: the degree by which the fish turned towards the source (the change in fish-to-source angle) and the degree by which the fish moved closer to the source (the change in fish-to-source distance). The distributions of response angles scored as hits (signal trials) (Fig. 4A), misses (signal trials) (Fig. 4B), false alarms (blank trials) (Fig. 4C), and correct rejections (blank trials) (Fig. 4D) were very similar across flow conditions, as were the distributions of response distances for the same judgements (Fig. 5). Pooled distributions across all individuals and conditions also revealed that the experimenter's judgements were consistent for hits and false alarms, as were the judgements for misses and correct rejections (Figs 4E, 5E). That is, the vast majority (>90%) of responses judged to be hits or false alarms were based on fish movements that reduced the fish-to-source angle by greater than 30° or the fish-to-source distance by greater than 10 mm. Likewise, the vast majority of responses judged to be misses or correct rejections were based on movements that reduced the fish-to-source angle by less than 30° or the fish-to-source distance by less than 10 mm. Using the 30° angle and 10 mm distance criteria, type I and II errors occurred at relatively low frequencies (<10% of the time) for both trial types (Table 1). Thus, it is highly unlikely that errors of this type had any systematic or significant effects on the threshold sensitivity results presented here.
|
|
|
Signal detection results
Because the rheotaxis experiment clearly showed that sculpin naturally tend
to orient upstream (Figs 2,
3), fish were positioned facing
upstream for signal detection experiments. Threshold detection results
revealed that sculpin were able to detect relatively weak, prey-like signals
in the presence of a strong ambient background flow. Peakpeak mean
signal levels at threshold ranged from 0.7-1.2 cm s-1 at the source
for background flow rates of 2-8 cm s-1. Although it is difficult
to know the exact signal strength at the fish, the 1/r3
law for attenuation of a dipole source (in the absence of flow and fish)
predicts that signal levels 4 cm away would be on the order of 0.001-0.0001 cm
s-1, several orders of magnitude below the background flow levels.
Mean signal levels at threshold were approximately fourfold lower in the
absence of flow than in the presence of flow and increased by less than
twofold for a fourfold increase in current velocity
(Fig. 6A). A one-way RM ANOVA
of mean thresholds from five individuals showed that different flow conditions
(0, 2, 4 and 8 cm s-1) had significant effects on threshold
sensitivity (P<0.05). Post-hoc (Tukey's multiple
comparison) comparisons of the means revealed that threshold signal levels in
the absence of flow were significantly different from those in the presence of
flow for all flow velocities (Table
2). In the presence of flow, however, only the lowest (2 cm
s-1) and highest (8 cm s-1) flow velocities produced
significantly different thresholds (Table
2). Mean fish-to-source distances at the time of signal onset
(measured from post-hoc videotape analysis and pooled across all
individuals) varied by no more than 2 mm (mean ± S.D. = 56±9,
55±8, 54±8 and 56±7 mm for 0, 2, 4 and 8 cm
s-1, respectively). Thus, different signal levels at the fish due
to different degrees of attenuation with distance are unlikely to account for
these threshold differences.
|
|
Control condition results
A number of controls were run to determine if threshold differences between
flow and no-flow conditions were due to masking effects of the flow alone or
to some other factor, such as vibrations passed through the impeller drive
shaft to the water or the proclivity of sculpin to orient upstream rather than
to the side of the tank towards the signal source.
Blank trials were run to determine the propensity of fish to respond in the direction of the source in the absence of any vibration signal. Although response (false alarm) rates to blank trials appear to be somewhat higher in the no-flow condition, they were not significantly different from false alarm rates at different flow rates (Fig. 6B) (RM ANOVA, P>0.05).
Motor noise controls were run to assess the possibility that the motor and the mechanical assemblage (drive shaft plus impeller) may have caused acoustic or a.c. flow noise (in addition to the uniform d.c. flow noise) that interfered with the ability of sculpin to detect the signal vibrations. Two no-flow noise controls were run on three fish. The first control tested the potential masking effects of airborne motor noise alone (transmitted from the air to the water). In this case, the impeller and shaft were removed from the water to prevent flow and any mechanical linkage from the motor to the water through the shaft and impeller. The motor was then run at the speed that would have produced an 8 cm s-1 flow if the shaft and impeller had been in the water. Signal levels at threshold for this control condition were not significantly different from those measured in the normal setup with the motor turned off and the flow rate at 0 cm s-1 (RM ANOVA, P>0.05). Thus, airborne motor noise alone cannot account for threshold differences between flow and no-flow conditions.
For the second control, the flow-producing impeller blade was removed, but the drive shaft was left in place so that motor-driven vibrations could be directly transmitted to the water. The no-flow threshold was again measured for the highest (8 cm s-1 motor) speed and compared to thresholds in the absence of boh flow and motor noise. In essence, we wanted to test the hypothesis that elevated levels of low frequency (2-30 Hz) energy produced by motor vibrations alone (Fig. 1B) might have contributed to some of the threshold differences between flow and no-flow conditions. Signal levels at threshold for this motor-on/flow-off control condition were significantly (P<0.01) greater than those obtained in the normal motor-off/flow-off condition, but only by a factor of 2.5 dB (approximately 1.3).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Recent studies comparing the rheotactic behavior of lake populations with stream populations of mottled sculpin under identical test conditions have confirmed these results, but have also revealed that sculpin tend to spend more time near the sides of the flow tank than in the center (S. Coombs and G. D. Grossman, unpublished results). This behavior, which is most likely a part of the natural shelter-seeking behavior of these animals, occurs even in the absence of flow. Nevertheless, these results raise the possibility that sculpin may be aligning their bodies along the sides of the flow tank and that the orientation of the tank walls is an additional factor contributing to the orientation of the animal's body. Although we cannot completely exclude this possibility, we think it is unlikely to play a significant role, for the following reasons. (1) The random distributions of fish headings in the absence of flow (Fig. 2A) provide compelling evidence that fish orientations are not constrained or biased by the tank size or shape; indeed, the area of the test arena (approximately 2x2.75 fish BL) is more than adequate for orientations in any direction. (2) If body orientation were entrained solely by the sides of the tank, we would expect that (i) orientation distributions would be bimodal half in the upstream and half in the downstream direction rather than random (no-flow conditions) or unimodal (flow conditions) and (ii) the vector strengths of the distributions would be independent of flow velocity. In summary, the most parsimonious explanation for the results in their entirety is that sculpin exhibit positive rheotaxis to uniform flows.
We further show that sculpin, when oriented upstream, can detect and orient
towards relatively weak (approximately 0.001-0.0001 cm s-1 at the
fish) prey-like signals in the presence of strong (up to 8 cm s-1),
background uniform flows. When flow is present, the ability of sculpin to
detect the prey-like signal is largely independent of flow velocity, with
signal levels at threshold increasing by less than twofold for a fourfold
increase in flow velocity (Fig.
5A, Tables 1,
2). In the absence of flow,
however, signal levels at threshold are two-to fourfold less than those in the
presence of flow (Fig. 5A,
Tables 1,
2). Displacement thresholds for
the no-flow condition (approximately 10-9 m at the fish) are in the
same low range as those reported earlier for the lateral line and other hair
cell systems (reviewed by Kroese and van
Netten, 1989), including those obtained from the mottled sculpin
over a decade ago using similar behavioral techniques
(Coombs and Janssen, 1990
).
Threshold results for ambient flow conditions can probably best be understood
in terms of the high-pass filtering properties of lateral line canals and a
number of different factors that contribute to sensitivity differences between
flow and no-flow conditions.
High-pass filtering by lateral line canals
The exquisite sensitivity of sculpin to weak a.c. signals in the presence
of strong d.c. flows and the absence of appreciable threshold shifts to
increasing flow velocity are consistent with the idea that fish are using the
high-pass filtering characteristics of lateral line canals to optimize
signal-to-noise ratios for detection tasks involving high-frequency a.c.
signals. This idea is further supported by recent physiological results
showing that the amplitude-dependent spike rate and phase-locking responses of
putative canal neuromast fibers, in goldfish to a 50 Hz dipole source are not
significantly degraded in the presence of a 10 cm s-1 flow
(Engelmann et al., 2001,
2002). When tuning curves from
acceleration-sensitive lateral line fibers in the mottled sculpin are plotted
as a function of velocity, the low frequency leg of the tuning curve has a
slope of -6 dB octave-1 (Coombs
and Janssen, 1990
), as would be expected for canal neuromast
fibers, and as has been modeled for simple, straight-sided tubes (Denton and
Gray, 1988
,
1989
). Thus, the lateral line
canal is not a very steep filter, and while it may be quite effective in
filtering out 0 Hz energy (DC flows), it becomes much less effective as
frequency increases. As such, the upward spread of low-frequency (<50 Hz)
energy associated with increasing flow velocities
(Fig. 1A) may contribute to the
elevated thresholds. This explanation is certainly consistent with the
decrease in prey-detection distances observed for torrentfish when flow
velocities are increased from 10 to 100 cm s-1 (Milton and
Montgomery, 1993). This upward spread of energy is most likely associated with
small scale turbulence produced at the higher flow velocities
(Coombs et al., 2001a
).
Although the ability of mottled sculpin to detect low-level a.c. signals in the presence of strong d.c. flows is undoubtedly enhanced by the filtering abilities of lateral line canals, it is conceivable that the temporal and/or spatial perturbations caused by the signal in the ongoing flow also contributes to this ability.
Threshold shifts between flow and no-flow conditions
Although the shallow, low-frequency slopes of lateral line canal filters
and the upward spread of low frequency energy might explain the modest
(<twofold) decrease in threshold sensitivity with a fourfold increase in
flow velocity, the two-to fourfold shift in threshold sensitivity between flow
and no-flow conditions requires further explanation. One possibility is that
elevated thresholds in the presence of flow are due to factors other than the
masking effects of flow noise alone, such as the propensity of sculpin to
orient upstream rather than in the sidewards direction of the signal source,
the presence of artifactual noises (e.g. those produced by the motor-shaft
assembly used to generate the flow), and/or alterations in the stimulus field
due to complex interactions between the fish's body and the surrounding flow
field.
Control, conditions, in which the drive shaft (minus its flow-inducing
impeller) was driven at the highest motor speed, produced a small elevation in
mean threshold above that measured in the normal, no-flow (motor-off)
condition. This effect, however, can account for only 10-20% of the total
threshold shift, leaving 80% of the difference unaccounted for. Upstream
response biases are also unlikely to account for much of the difference. Three
lines of evidence argue against them. (1) False alarm rates in the no-flow
condition were not significantly higher than those for various flow
conditions, as would be expected if sculpin turned to the side more frequently
when freed from their `compulsion' to orient in a forward (upstream)
direction. (2) Previous studies have shown that in the absence of flow,
sculpin are much more likely to make spontaneous movements in a forward rather
than lateral direction (Coombs,
1999). (3) Threshold levels do not increase linearly with flow
velocity, as would be expected if upstream orienting biases were a major
controlling factor. That is, for a twofold increase in flow velocity (from 4
to 8 cm s-1), the mean vector strength of the rheotactic response
doubled, but the mean threshold signal level increased by a factor of only
1.3.
Another confounding factor, impossible to control for but important to
understand, is the possibility that when flow is present, the fish's body
alters the flow field to the lateral line system in such a way that a new type
of a.c. noise interference is created, or the effective a.c. signal level at
the fish is attenuated above and beyond what it would be in the absence of the
fish. Digital particle image velocimetry (DPIV) has recently been used to
determine how 2-8 cm s-1 flow fields are altered in the vicinity of
the sculpin's body (Coombs et al.,
2001a). The results from this study show that fish body parts can
significantly alter the local hydrodynamic stimulus field to the lateral line
relative to ambient water motions only a few cm away. In particular, flow
around the large, extended pectoral fin of the mottled sculpin showed
separation at the edge of the fin and a trailing wake, similar to that
observed for a flat plate perpendicular to the flow. The high frequency energy
in the turbulent wake may have thus introduced an additional noise masker to
the detection task.
Finally, it is conceivable that reduced sensitivity in the flow condition
is due to a drop in the available energy at the second harmonic (100 Hz). Our
anemometer measurements show that while the amplitude of the fundamental
frequency varied by no more than 2 dB across all conditions, the amplitude of
the second harmonic was about 8 dB less for all flow conditions than for the
no-flow conditions (Fig. 1A).
Because there was no reduction in the second harmonic for different motor
speeds in the absence of impeller-driven flow
(Fig. 1B), we can be fairly
certain that the reduction in the second harmonic is somehow caused by the
flow. Behavioral and physiological measures of threshold sensitivity in the
absence of flow show that mottled sculpin are equally sensitive to 50 and 100
Hz dipole signals (Coombs and Janssen,
1990), making the detection and use of energy at the second
harmonic plausible if not likely.
In summary, motor driven vibrations of the impeller shaft can account for only a small percentage of the threshold difference between flow and no-flow conditions. A number of other, inter-related factors are likely to make up the remaining difference. These include less energy at the second harmonic for the flow conditions, the upward spread of low-frequency energy associated with increasing flow velocities, and additional noise interference (e.g. shed wakes) created by the interaction between the fish's body and the flow field.
Prey-orienting and current-orienting (rheotactic) behaviors
Both rheotactic and prey-orienting behaviors are naturally occurring,
unconditioned behaviors exhibited by many different fish species, including
the Lake Michigan mottled sculpin. These behaviors may be inexorably linked,
in that the ability to orient upstream is thought to play an important role in
the feeding behavior of many fluvial species. Trout, for example, presumably
orient upstream to be in the best position to intercept downstream drifting
prey. Station holding behaviors in which fish position themselves upstream in
currentvelocity shelters may also enable fish like trout to hold
low-velocity positions adjacent to a high-velocity region, providing them with
an abundance of invertebrate drift
(Everest and Chapman, 1972;
Fausch, 1993
). Finally, many
animals use a combination of odor-conditioned rheotaxis and chemotaxis to
localize food odor sources (Weissburg,
2000
; Weissburg and Zimmer-Faust,
1993
,
1994
;
Montgomery et al., 1999
).
Although it is not known whether Lake Michigan mottled sculpin use rheotactic
behavior to detect and localize prey, other similar, non-fluvial, benthic
species, such as the antarctic fish, Trematomus bernachii, appear to
approach prey using a combination of rheosensory and chemosensory information
(Montgomery et al., 1999
). In
any event, currents and flows created by seiches, wind effects and
temperature-related mixing are certainly present in lake ecosystems
(Goldman and Horne, 1983
).
Moreover, given that sculpin feed at night when vision is limited
(Hoekstra and Janssen, 1985
),
it is likely that sculpin rely heavily on their non-visual sensory systems. It
is reasonable to expect that sculpin may use a combination of different
strategies, depending on factors such as current conditions, prey type and
prey availability. As a consequence, lake currents may function as both a
noise interference for mechanosensory-based detection of moving prey and as a
signal for rheosensory-based enhancement of odor source detection and
localization. The ability of fish to simulataneously take in and filter out
ambient water motions is made possible by two lateral line subsystems
one that passes and processes uniform flow as a behaviorally relevant signal
(superficial neuromast system), and one that filters out uniform flow as an
interference noise (canal neuromast system). In this regard, it is interesting
to note that the uniform flow in these experiments elicited an orienting
behavior in the upstream direction of the tank, but that the prey-like source
elicited an orienting behavior away from the upstream direction and
towards the source. Thus, the orientating response to the prey source is
clearly capable of overriding the rheotactic response to bulk flow, even at
the highest flow velocity tested.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Baker, C. F. and Montgomery, J. C. (1999a). Lateral line mediated rheotaxis in the Antarctic fish Pagnothenia borchgrevinki. Polar Biol. 21, 305 -309.[CrossRef]
Baker, C. F. and Montgomery, J. C. (1999b). The sensory basis of rheotaxis in the blind mexican cave fish, Astyanax fasciatus. J. Comp. Physiol. A 184, 519 -527.[CrossRef]
Batschelet, E. (1981). Circular statistics in biology. In Mathematics in Biology (ed. R. Sibson and J. Cohen), pp. 52-83. London: Academic Press.
Coombs, S. (1999). Signal detection theory, lateral line excitation patterns and prey capture behavior of the mottled sculpin. Anim. Behav. 58, 421 -430.[CrossRef][Medline]
Coombs, S. and Janssen, J. (1990). Behavioral and neurophysiological assessment of lateral line sensitivity in the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi. J. Comp. Physiol. A 167, 557 -567.[Medline]
Coombs, S. and Montgomery, J. C. (1999). The enigmatic lateral line system. In Comparative Hearing: Fishes and Amphibians (ed. A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay), pp. 319 -363. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Coombs, S., Anderson, E. J., Braun, C. B. and Grosenbaugh, M. A. (2001a). How fish body parts alter local hydrodynamic stimuli to the lateral line. Soc. Int. Comp. Biol. Abstracts, p. 149.
Coombs, S., Braun, C. B. and Donovan, B.
(2001b). Orienting response of Lake Michigan mottled sculpin is
mediated by canal neuromasts. J. Exp. Biol.
204, 337
-348.
Coombs, S., Fay, R. R. and Janssen, J. (1989). Hot film anemometry for measuring lateral line stimuli. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 2185 -2193.[Medline]
Denton E. J. and Gray, J. A. B. (1988). Mechanical factors in the excitation of the lateral line of fishes. In Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals (ed. J. Atema, R. R. Fay, A. N. Popper, W. N. Tavolga), pp. 595-618. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Denton, E. J. and Gray, J. (1983). Mechanical factors in the excitation of clupeid lateral lines. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 218, 1 -26.[Medline]
Denton, E. J. and Gray, J. (1989). Some observations on the forces acting on neuromasts in fish lateral line canals. In The Mechanosensory Lateral Line: Neurobiology and Evolution (ed. S. Coombs, P. Gorner and H. Munz), pp. 229 -246. Springer-Verlag.
Engelmann, J., Hanke, W., Mogdans, J. and Bleckmann, H. (2000). Hydrodynamic stimuli and the fish lateral line. Nature 408, 51 -52.[CrossRef][Medline]
Engelmann, J., Hanke, W. and Bleckmann, H. (2002). Lateral line reception in still- and running water. J. Comp. Physiol. A DOI 10.1007/s00359-002-0326-6.
Everest, F. H. and Chapman, D. W. (1972). Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 29, 91 -100.
Facey, D. E. and Grossman, G. D. (1992). The relationship between water velocity, energetic costs, and microhabitat use in four North American stream fishes. Hydrobiologia 239, 1-6.
Fausch, K. D. (1993). Experimental analysis of microhabitat selection by juvenile steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) in a British Columbia stream. Can. J. Fish. Acquat. Sci. 50, 1198 -1207.
Goldman, C. R. and Horne, A. J. (1983). Water movement. In Limnology (ed. J. Vastyan, J. Ricci, D. Horvath and C. Tantillo), pp. 57-84. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Greenwood, J. A. and Durand, D. (1955). The distribution of length and components of the sum of n random unit vectors. Ann. Math. Statist. 26, 233 -246.
Hoekstra, D. and Janssen, J. (1985). Non-visual feeding behavior of the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi, in Lake Michigan. Env. Biol. Fishes 12, 111 -117.
Hoekstra, D. and Janssen, J. (1986). Lateral line receptivity in the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi. Copeia 1, 91 -96.
Janssen, J., Coombs, S., Hoekstra, D. and Platt, C. (1987). Anatomy and differential growth of the lateral line system of the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi (scorpaeniformes: cottidae). Brain Behav. Evol. 30, 210 -229.[Medline]
Kalmijn, A. J. (1988). Hydrodynamic and acoustic field detection. In Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals (ed. J. Atema, R. R. Fay, A. N. Popper and W. N. Tavolga), pp. 83-130. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kalmijn, A. J. (1989). Functional evolution of lateral line and inner ear sensory systems. In The Mechanosensory Lateral Line: Neurobiology and Evolution (ed. S. Coombs, P. Görner and H. Münz), pp. 187-216. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kroese, A. B. A. and Schellart, N. A. M.
(1992). Velocity- and acceleration-sensitive units in the trunk
lateral line of the trout. J. Neurophysiol.
68, 2212
-2221.
Kroese, A. B. A. and van Netten, S. (1989). Sensory transduction in lateral line hair cells. In The Mechanosensory Lateral Line: Neurobiology and Evolution (ed. S. Coombs, P. Görner and H. Münz), pp. 187 -216. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Montgomery, J. C. and Milton, R. C. (1993). Use of the lateral for feeding in the torrentfish (Cheimarrichthys fosteri). New Zealand J. Zool. 20, 121 -125.
Montgomery, J. C., Coombs, S. and Janssen, J. (1994). Form and function relationships in lateral line systems: Comparative data from six species of antarctic notothenioid fish. Brain Behav. Evol. 44, 299 -306.[Medline]
Montgomery, J. C., Diebel, C., Halstead, M. B. D. and Downer, J. (1999) Olfactory search tracks in the Antarctic fish, Trematomus bernachii. Polar Biol. 21, 151 -154.[CrossRef]
Montgomery, J., Baker, C. and Carton, A. (1997). The lateral line can mediate rheotaxis in fish. Nature 389, 960 -963.[CrossRef]
Montgomery, J., Coombs, S. and Halstead, M. (1995). Biology of the mechanosensory lateral line in fishes. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 5, 399 -416.
Vogel, S. and LaBarbera, M. (1978). Simple flow tanks for research and teaching. BioSci. 28, 638 -643.
Voigt, R., Carton, A. and Montgomery, J. C.
(2000). Responses to anterior lateral line afferent neurons to
water flow. J. Exp. Biol.
203, 2495
-2502.
Webb, P., Gerstner, C. and Minton, S. (1996). Station-holding by the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi (teleostei: cottidae), and other fishes. Copeia 2, 488-493.
Weissburg, M. J. (2000). The fluid dynamical
context of chemosensory behavior. Biol. Bull.
198, 188
-202.
Weissburg, M. J. and Zimmer-Faust, R. K. (1993). Life and death in moving fluids: hydrodynamic effects on olfactory-mediate predation. Ecology 74, 1428 -1443.
Weissburg, M. J. and Zimmer-Faust, R. K.
(1994). Odor plumes and how blue crabs use them to find prey.
J. Exp. Biol. 197, 349
-375.
Related articles in JEB: