Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 215–227 | Cite as

Directional Hydrodynamic Sensing by Free-Swimming Organisms

Original Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Many aquatic organisms detect the presence of moving objects in their environment, such as predators, by sensing the hydrodynamic disturbances the movements produce. The resultant water flow is readily detectable by stationary organisms, but free-swimming organisms are carried with the surrounding water and may not detect the bulk surrounding flow, which limits the available information about the source. We have developed a theory that clarifies what information is contained in disturbances generated by an attacking predator that is available to a free-swimming organism and might be extracted from local flow deformations alone. The theory shows that, depending on how well the deformations can be measured in space and time, an organism can reduce the range of possible locations, speeds, sizes, and arrival times of the predator. We apply the theory to planktonic copepods that have mechanosensory hairs along a pair of antennules. The study reveals the presence of “blind spots,” potential ambiguities in resolving from which of two sides a predator attacks, and whether it generates a bow wave or suction. Our findings lead to specific testable hypotheses concerning optimal escape strategies, which are helpful for interpreting the behavior of evasive prey and designing free-swimming robots with sensory capabilities.

Keywords

Mechanosensing Copepod Predator-prey interactions Inverse problem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs. Petra Lenz and Ann Castelfranco for valuable discussions and critical reading of an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Acheson D (1990) Elementary fluid dynamics. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball E, Cowan A (1977) Ultrastructure of the antennal sensilla of Acetes (crustacea, decapoda, natantia, sergestidae). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 277(957):429–457Google Scholar
  3. Bleckmann H (2008) Peripheral and central processing of lateral line information. J Comp Physiol A 194(2):145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleckmann H, Breithaupt T, Blickhan R, Tautz J (1991) The time course and frequency content of hydrodynamic events caused by moving fish, frogs and crustaceans. J Comp Physiol 168:749–757Google Scholar
  5. Breithaupt T, Tautz J (1990) The sensitivity of crayfish mechanoreceptors to hydrodynamic and acoustic stimuli. In: Wiese K, Krenz WD, Tautz J, Reichert H, Mulloney B (eds) Frontiers in crustacean neurobiology. Advances in life sciences. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 114–120Google Scholar
  6. Burdick D, Hartline D, Lenz P (2007) Escape strategies in co-occurring calanoid copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 52(6):2373–2385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buskey E, Lenz P, Hartline D (2002) Escape behavior of planktonic copepods in response to hydrodynamic disturbances: high speed video analysis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 235:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buskey E, Strickler J, Bradley C, Hartline D, Lenz P (2017) Escapes in copepods: comparison between myelinate and amyelinate species. J Exp Biol 220:754–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casas J, Dangles O (2010) Physical ecology of fluid flow sensing in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 55:505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coombs S, Conley R (1997) Dipole source location in the mottled sculpin II. The role of lateral line excitation patterns. J Comp Physiol A 180:401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ćurčić-Blake B, van Netten S (2006) Source location encoding in the fish lateral line canal. J Exp Biol 209(8):1548–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devarakonda R, Barth F, Humphrey J (1996) Dynamics of arthropod filiform hairs. IV. Hair motion in air and water. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 351:933–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gill C, Crisp D (1985) Sensitivity of intact and antennule amputated copepods to water disturbance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 21:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goulet J, Engelmann J, Chagnaud B, Franosch J, Suttner M, Van Hemmen J (2008) Object localization through the lateral line system of fish: theory and experiment. J Comp Physiol A 194(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanke W, Bleckmann H, Brucker C (2000) The ageing of the low-frequency water disturbances caused by swimming goldfish and its possible relevance to prey detection. J Exp Biol 203:1193–1200Google Scholar
  16. Hartline D, Lenz P, Herren C (1996) Physiological and behavioral studies of escape responses in calanoid copepods. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 27(2–3):199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haury L, Kenyon D, Brooks J (1980) Experimental evaluation of the avoidance reaction of Calanus finmarchicus. J Plankton Res 2(3):187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasumyan A (2003) The lateral line in fish: structure, function, and role in behavior. J Ichthyol 43(2):S175–S213Google Scholar
  19. Kiørboe T (2013) Predator and prey perception in copepods due to hydromechanical signals. Integr Comp Biol 53:821–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiørboe T, Visser A (1999) Predator and prey perception in copepods due to hydromechanical signals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 179:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiørboe T, Saiz E, Visser A (1999) Hydrodynamic signal perception in the copepod Acartia tonsa. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 179:97–111Google Scholar
  22. Lenz P, Hartline D (2014) Mechanoreception in crustaceans of the pelagic realm. In: Derby C, Thiel M (eds) Nervous systems and control of behavior, vol 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 293–320Google Scholar
  23. Lenz P, Yen J (1993) Distal setal mechanoreceptors of the first antennae of marine copepods. Bull Mar Sci 53(1):170–179Google Scholar
  24. Maxey MR, Riley JJ (1983) Equation of motion for a small rigid sphere in a nonuniform flow. Phys Fluids 26(4):883–889CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Mellon D (2014) Sensory systems of crustaceans. In: Derby C, Thiel M (eds) Nervous systems and control of behavior, vol 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 49–84Google Scholar
  26. Park T (1966) The biology of a calanoid copepod: Epilabidocera amphitrites McMurrich. Cellule 66:129–251Google Scholar
  27. Stewart W, Nair A, Jiang H, McHenry M (2014) Prey fish escape by sensing the bow wave of a predator. J Exp Biol 217(24):4328–4336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strickler J, Bal A (1973) Setae of the first antennae of the copepod Cyclops scutifer (Sars): their structure and importance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 70(9):2656–2659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tao J, Yu X (2012) Hair flow sensors: from bio-inspiration to bio-mimicking? A review. Smart Mater Struct 21(11):113,001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Triantafyllou M, Weymouth G, Miao J (2016) Biomimetic survival hydrodynamics and flow sensing. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 48:1–24CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. vanDuren L, Stamhuis E, Videler J (1998) Reading the copepod personal ads: increasing encounter probability with hydromechanical signals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 353:691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Visser A (2001) Hydromechanical signals in the plankton. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 222:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vogel HD, Bleckmann (2000) Behavioral discrimination of water motions caused by moving objects. J Comp Physiol A 186:1107–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weatherby T, Lenz P (2000) Mechanoreceptors in calanoid copepods: designed for high sensitivity. Arthropod Struct Dev 29(4):275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiese K (1974) The mechanoreceptive system of prey localization in Notonecta. II. The principle of prey localization. J Comp Physiol A 92:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wubbels R, Schellart N (1997) Neuronal encoding of sound direction in the auditory midbrain of the rainbow trout. J Neurophysiol 77(6):3060–3074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yamaji I (1976) Illustrations of the marine plankton of Japan. Hoikusha, OsakaGoogle Scholar
  38. Yen J, Lenz P, Gassie D, Hartline D (1992) Mechanoreception in marine copepods: electrophysiological studies on the first antennae. J Plankton Res 14(4):495–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yen J, Murphy D, Fan L, Webster D (2015) Sensory-motor systems of copepods involved in their escape from suction feeding. Integr Comp Biol 55:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. York C, Bartol I (2014) Lateral line analogue aids vision in successful predator evasion for the brief squid, Lolliguncula brevis. J Exp Biol 217(14):2437–2439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Young S, Dedwylder R, Friesen W (1981) Responses of the medicinal leech to water waves. J Comp Physiol A 144(1):111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.Békésy Laboratory of Neurobiology, Pacific Biosciences Research CenterUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations