Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 156, Issue 6, pp 1347–1357 | Cite as

The structure and sensitivity of the eye of different life history stages of the ontogenetic migrator Gnathophausia ingens

  • Elizabeth A. G. Whitehill
  • Tamara M. Frank
  • Mary K. Olds
Original Paper

Abstract

The structure and ultrastructure of the photoreceptors of several life history stages of the ontogenetically migrating lophogastrid crustacean Gnathophausia ingens were examined. The younger instars of this species live in a much brighter light field than the older instars, and this difference is reflected in differences in their visual systems. The shallowest free living individuals (instars 3 and 4) possess a superposition eye with almost no clear zone, which minimizes the light shared between ommatidia and reduces the sensitivity of the eye. A progression to superposition optics with a large clear zone, usually associated with night-active or deep-living species, occurs as the animals move deeper in the water column. Regional differences within the eye are also evident, with a largely nonexistent clear zone in the dorsal region and a large clear zone in the ventral region in the eyes of instar 5 animals, the first instar to move to deeper depths. The deepest living instars (10–12) possess superposition optics with a large clear zone throughout the eye, and are significantly more sensitive to light than the younger, shallower instars.

Keywords

Life History Stage Visual Pigment Ventral Region Retinular Cell Crystalline Cone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the crews of the R/Vs New Horizon and Wecoma, as well as volunteers on those cruises, for assistance in procuring animals. J. Piraino graciously provided assistance with TEM. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation to T. Frank (IBN-0343871) and a Link Foundation/HBOI summer internship to M.K. Olds. Three anonymous reviewers offered insightful comments. This is Harbor Branch contribution number 1726. The experiments described here comply with the current laws of the United States of America.

References

  1. Childress JJ, Price MH (1978) Growth rate of the bathypelagic crustacean Gnathophausia ingens. I. Dimensional growth and population structure. Mar Biol (Berl) 50:47–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00390541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cronin TW, Forward RB Jr (1988) The visual pigments of crabs. I: Spectral characteristics. J Comp Physiol [A] 162:463–478. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00612512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cummins D, Goldsmith TH (1981) Cellular identification of the violet receptor in the crayfish eye. J Comp Physiol [A] 142:199–202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00605738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doughtie DG, Rao KR (1984) Ultrastructure of the eyes of the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. General morphology, and light and dark adaptation at noon. Cell Tissue Res 238:271–288. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00217299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dulvy NK, Rogers SI, Jennings S, Stelzenmüller V, Dye SR, Skjoldal HR (2008) Climate change and deepening of the North Sea fish assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas. J Appl Ecol 45:1029–1039. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01488.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eguchi E, Waterman TH (1965) Fine structure patterns in crustacean rhabdoms. In: Bernhard CG (ed) Functional organization of the compound eye. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 105–123Google Scholar
  7. Ehrhardt NM, Legault CM, Restrepo VR (2001) Density-dependent linkage between juveniles and recruitment for pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) in southern Florida. ICES J Mar Sci 58:1100–1105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2001.1101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elofsson R, Hallberg E (1977) Compound eyes of some deep-sea and fiord mysid crustaceans. Acta Zool 58:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank TM, Case JF (1988a) Visual spectral sensitivities of bioluminescent deep-sea crustaceans. Biol Bull 175:261–273. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1541567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank TM, Case JF (1988b) Visual spectral sensitivity of the bioluminescent deep-sea mysid, Gnathophausia ingens. Biol Bull 175:274–283. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1541568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank TM, Porter M, Cronin TW (2009) Spectral sensitivity, visual pigments and screening pigments in two life history stages of the ontogenetic migrator Gnathophausia ingens. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 89:119–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315408002440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaten E (1990) The ultrastructure of the compound eye of Munida rugosa (Crustacea: Anomura) and pigment migration during light and dark adaptation. J Morphol 205:243–253. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1052050302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaten E, Herring PJ (1995) Morphology of the reflecting superposition eyes of larval oplophorid shrimps. J Morphol 225:19–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1052250103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaten E, Shelton PMJ, Herring PJ (1992) Regional morphological variation in the compound eyes of certain mesopelagic shrimps in relation to their habitat. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 72:61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hallberg E (1977) The fine structure of the compound eyes of mysids (Crustacea: Mysidacea). Cell Tissue Res 184:45–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00220526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallberg E, Andersson M, Nilsson D-E (1980) Responses of the screening pigments in the compound eye of Neomysis integer (Crustacea: Mysidacea). J Exp Zool 212:397–402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402120312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hiller-Adams P, Case JF (1984) Optical parameters of euphausiid eyes as a function of habitat depth. J Comp Physiol A 154:307–318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00605230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiller-Adams P, Case JF (1985) Optical parameters of the eyes of some benthic decapods as a function of habitat depth (Crustacea, Decapoda). Zoomorphology 105:108–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiller-Adams P, Case JF (1988) Eye size of pelagic crustaceans as a function of habitat depth and possession of photophores. Vision Res 28:667–680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(88)90047-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiller-Adams P, Widder EA, Case JF (1988) The visual pigments of four deep-sea crustaceans. J Comp Physiol [A] 193:63–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00611997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karnovsky MJ (1965) A formaldehyde-glutaraldehyde fixative of high osmolarity for use in electron microscopy. J Cell Biol 27:137A–138AGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelber A, Balkenius A, Warrant EJ (2002) Scotopic colour vision in nocturnal hawkmoths. Nature 419:922–925. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Land MF (1981) Optics and vision in invertebrates. In: Autrum H (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VII/6B. Springer, Berlin, pp 471–592Google Scholar
  24. Land MF (1984) Crustacea. In: Ali MA (ed) Photoreception and vision in invertebrates. Plenum Press, New York, pp 401–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Land MF, Nilsson D-E (eds) (2002) Animal eyes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshall NJ, Cronin TW, Frank TM (2003) Visual adaptations in crustaceans: chromatic, developmental, and temporal aspects. In: Collin SP, Marshall NJ (eds) Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, pp 343–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer-Rochow VB, Walsh S (1977) The eyes of mesopelagic crustaceans I: Gennadas sp. (Penaeidae). Cell Tissue Res 184:87–103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00220529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nilsson D-E (1990) From cornea to retinal image in invertebrate eyes. Trends Neurosci 13:55–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(90)90069-M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shelton PMJ, Gaten E, Chapman CJ (1985) Light and retinal damage in Nephrops norvegicus (L.) (Crustacea). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 226:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shelton PMJ, Gaten E, Chapman CJ (1986) Accessory pigment distribution and migration in the compound eye of Nephrops norvegicus (L.) (Crustacea: Decapoda). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 98:185–198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(86)90212-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shelton PMJ, Gaten E, Herring PJ (1992) Adaptations of tapeta in the eyes of mesopelagic decapod shrimps to match the oceanic irradiance distribution. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 72:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wahle RA (2003) Revealing stock-recruitment relationships in lobsters and crabs: is experimental ecology the key? Fish Res 65:3–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2003.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warrant EJ (2004) The Karl von Frisch lecture. Vision in the dimmest habitats on earth. J Comp Physiol [A] 190:765–789. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-004-0546-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Warrant EJ, McIntyre PD (1990) Limitations to resolution in superposition eyes. J Comp Physiol 167:785–803Google Scholar
  35. Warrant EJ, McIntyre PD (1991) Strategies for retinal design in arthropod eyes of low F-number. J Comp Physiol [A] 168:499–512. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00199610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth A. G. Whitehill
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tamara M. Frank
    • 2
  • Mary K. Olds
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Ocean Exploration and Deep-sea Research, Harbor Branch Oceanographic InstituteFlorida Atlantic UniversityFt. PierceUSA
  3. 3.Grice Marine LaboratoryCollege of CharlestonCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations