Directional Hydrodynamic Sensing by Free-Swimming Organisms
- 52 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMechanosensing Copepod Predator-prey interactions Inverse problem
We thank Drs. Petra Lenz and Ann Castelfranco for valuable discussions and critical reading of an earlier version of the manuscript.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kasumyan A (2003) The lateral line in fish: structure, function, and role in behavior. J Ichthyol 43(2):S175–S213Google Scholar
- Kiørboe T, Saiz E, Visser A (1999) Hydrodynamic signal perception in the copepod Acartia tonsa. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 179:97–111Google Scholar
- 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
- Lenz P, Yen J (1993) Distal setal mechanoreceptors of the first antennae of marine copepods. Bull Mar Sci 53(1):170–179Google Scholar
- 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
- Park T (1966) The biology of a calanoid copepod: Epilabidocera amphitrites McMurrich. Cellule 66:129–251Google Scholar
- Yamaji I (1976) Illustrations of the marine plankton of Japan. Hoikusha, OsakaGoogle Scholar