Template:User sandbox1: neuroethology project Surface wave detection
This page refers to the sensory phenomenon in surface feeding aquatic animals.
Surface wave detection is the process by which surface feeding fish are able to sense and localize prey and other objects on the surface of a body of water by analyzing features of the ripples generated by objects’ movement at the surface. Features analyzed include waveform properties such as frequency, change in frequency, and amplitude, and the curvature of the wavefront. A number of different species are proficient in surface wave detection, including some aquatic insects and toads, though most research is done on the topminnow/surface killfish Aplocheilus lineatus. The fish and other animals with this ability spend large amounts of time near the water surface, some just to feed and others their entire lives.
Species that detect surface waves use them to localize prey. When the hunting posture is assumed (which may be neutral posture) as specific mechanosensitive organ is held in contact with the surface of the water in order that mechanoreceptors can receive surface waves. The animal will wait a small amount of time (typically <1s) before initiating a response towards the prey, should the surface waves perceived fall within the preferred stimulus range. Response towards prey typically follows the pattern orientation towards prey, swimming towards prey, and then prey capture. This ability is sometimes referred to as a sense of “distant touch.”[1]
Several species have been shown to use surface wave detection for prey capture. Among these are many species of freshwater fish, notably the grouops hatchetfish (Gasteropelecidae), freshwater butterflyfish (Pantodontidae), halfbeaks (Hemiramphidae) and killifish (Aplocheilidae)(list from [1]). For its consistently stellar performance at the task, the topminnow/killfish (both terms are used in the literature) is one of the primary models for investigation. These species tend to live in small bodies of freshwater, as well as creeks and swamps.
See complete article on Capillary waves. The ripples which surface-feeding fish detect are known more technically as capillary waves. Capillary waves are generated by movement of an object at the surface of the water or from the brief contact of an object with the surface from either medium (air or water). Waves radiate outward in concentric circles from the source, and the waveform of each train of waves changes in very specific and predictable waves, as dictated by surface tension and gravity.[2] The water surface has a dampening effect which causes an abnormal dispersion pattern in which waves decrease in amplitude, speed and frequency with distance from the source. [2][3] Short-wavelength (higher frequency) waves disperse faster than longer wavelength waves, resulting in higher frequencies at the front of the wave-train and lower frequencies at the tail; a fish detects this as a downward-sweeping frequency modulation. [2]
A vast amount of the research on surface wave detection has been done in the surface-feeding topminnow/killfish Aplocheilus lineatus. Schwartz (1965) demonstrated that this species has exceptionally well-developed surface wave detection ability, and it is easily housed and trained in laboratories. [4] Pantodon bucholzi (a surface dwelling butterfly fish) is used less often though is very similar in its anatomy and behavior. The rest of this article will focus on research done with A lineatus.
(See the work of Bleckmann, Schwartz, Müller, etc., 1965-present).
The experimental setup for testing A lineatus' abilities is very standardized. Subject fish are often blinded so that visual cues cannot be used. Stimuli are delivered to the surface of the water in a test tank via one of two methods (experimenters often use both): for the first, a loudspeaker is set up facing the water surface, while a plastic disc covers the front of the speaker cone with a small hole in the center, allowing air to be pushed through the hole to stimulate the water surface in a pattern controlled by a square-wave generator. Alternatively, a small rod a few millimeters in diameter is dipped briefly a few centimeters into the water. Either setup can be moved around the tank to deliver stimuli at various locations. The loudspeaker setup offers the advantage that stimuli can be precisely controlled to mimic natural stimuli or to test certain wave properties.
Wave characteristics are measured optically. This is done by shining a laser (often helium-neon) at the water surface. Reflections and distortions of the laser’s beam are picked up by a photodiode.
Fishes' movements are videotaped with a high-speed camera from above the testing tank so that the precise timing and nature of their responses’ to stimuli can be reviewed.
Aplocheilus lineatus assumes a hunting posture at the water surface in which it holds the top of its head within 200 μm of the water surface. [1] On perception of appropriate wave stimuli, fish first turn towards stimuli. [4] This initial turn is made within 150ms of the wavetrain’s arrival to the fish. [1] Fish then swim to the wave’s source. There are specific parameters for wave stimuli to be perceived which reflect the type of waves produced by prey. Fish are least sensitive to low frequencies, with a minimum threshold of 10Hz and have peak sensitivity at 75-150 Hz; the highest frequency they can detect is 250 Hz. [5] These waves have small amplitudes (on a micrometer-scale), and fish can detect waves with minimum peak-to-peak displacement of 1 μm at 10 Hz and 0.0007μm in their most sensitive range of 75-100 Hz. Fish are also sensitive to waves generated within 7-30 cm of the fish’s location, though they can occur at any point within that radius. Because the water surface acts as a low pass filter, this radius is different for different wave frequencies: 70Hz waves with 100μm peak-to-peak distance are subthreshold at 37 cm, and 140hz waves are subthreshold at 19cm. [6] Fish are able to tell apart concurrent waves of different frequencies when the frequencies are different by at least 15%, though at certain frequencies this difference can be as low as 8%. [7]
The wave-detection system of A lineatus and other surface feeding fish is tuned to match the waves that signal prey in their environment. A lineatus feeds on aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial insects, often insects that have just touched the surface of the water or have fallen in and are struggling at the surface. (Hoin-Radkovsky, Bleckmann, Schwartz 1984; Bleckmann, Mohr, 1998) Abiotic sources give off capillary waves of frequency 8-14 Hz, while biotic sources give off much higher frequencies, anywhere from 12-45Hz and above. (Bleckmann, Waldner, Schwartz 1981) This correlates well with A lineatus’ peak sensitivity at higher frequencies.
Wave stimuli are classified into two types: the first is click stimuli (short bursts of amplitude less than 100μm which contain many frequencies between 5Hz and 190Hz and are of short duration, as when an insect just touches the water rather than moves continuously at the surface).[6] The other is continuous wave stimuli, which will contain many frequencies and in the wild are generated by fallen prey struggling at the water surface. [7]
It has been pointed out that A lineatus and other surface feeding fish are able to locate prey even if the waveform is only in click form (just touching the surface once, as when surfacing for air or when a mosquito larva is hatching) (Lang 1980, cited in Bleckmann, Schwartz 1982), which takes less time to complete than the fish will take to swim over.[2] [8] This indicates that the fish are simply performing a form of sensory taxis, that they are getting all the information they need to locate the prey in the initial stimulus reception and are retaining the location while orienting and swimming. Fish also can begin orienting and swimming after receiving only the first few waves in a wavetrain or click stimulus.
When stimuli are presented within a detectable range, orientations toward the stimulus by A lineatus are extremely precise: the response is almost perfect with angles up to 1507deg; in either direction from forwards, and precision falls off but not much when waves come from the rear of the fish. [3]
There is some disagreement in the field about how A lineatus determines the direction of a stimulus. A common suggestion is that an animal performs a ray tracing calculation, similar to what human oceanographers use to locate ocean storms without a satellite. (Bleckmann 1984) Theoretically, an animal could compare the arrival times of a wavetrain at two neuromasts, effectively measuring the curvature of the wavefront. (Bleckmann 1987) However, evidence of a neural circuit that performs this calculation or other evidence has not yet been found, and other researchers suggest that the distance between any pair of surface wave neuromasts is too small (A lineatus’s head is only 1cm wide) for the calculation to be made accurately, and then at distances from the stimulus less than 7 cm. [9] The accuracy predicted by a time-difference mechanism (using triangulation of the wave source based on curvature of wave front) doesn’t match actual accuracy. [7] Additionally it has been shown that if all neuromasts are removed except for one, direction detection still occurs to some degree, [10]
An alternative theory is that individual neuromasts have a preferred direction, that is they are most sensitive to waves coming from a particular direction. A comparison of activation levels of different neuromasts is a relatively easy neural calculation to perform.
When neuromasts are removed unilaterally, fish still turn towards the side the stimulus came from though overestimate the angle by an average of 21° towards the side with intact neuromasts. [11] In this situation, fish often make two turns, first towards the side with intact neuromasts and then back towards the other. [11]
Each neuromast has a preferred direction. This was shown in 1970 through ablation of all but one neuromast: fish then usually turned towards one range of directions regardless of where the stimulus came from. [12] The direction sensitivity, as revealed via electrophysiology, shows a cosine function describing receptor firing intensity: accuracy depends on receptor orientation and arrangement and intensity-difference threshold. [7]
In 2011 it was shown that there are certain fleshy ridges around each neuromast that direct water flow. When these ridges were removed, the receptive field for each neuromast was much wider than that with intact ridges; this was shown with electrophysiology. [13] The same experiment also showed that adding ridges to neuromasts that did not previously have ridges also altered the receptive fields for those neuromasts. [13]
M&umml;ller and Schwartz, 1982 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Schwartz et al., 2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
