Advertisement

Chemical Communication Between Copepods: Finding the Mate in a Fluid Environment

  • Jeannette Yen
  • Rachel Lasley
Chapter

Abstract

Copepods are small heterosexual aquatic microcrustaceans (1–10 mm, moving at ~1–10 bodylengths/s) that must mate to reproduce. Living in a low Reynolds regime (Re<1 to >1,000), copepods in some families exhibit an unusual mate-seeking behavior using a guidance system not found elsewhere in the animal kingdom. When copepods move through water, they leave a hydrodynamic wake whose structure varies with swimming style. Pheromones, produced specifically by the female or derived generally as a byproduct of metabolic transformations of body contents, are packaged within this hydrodynamic envelope, resulting in a concentration gradient. Chemosensitive male copepods respond to coherent chemical trails with dramatic acceleration along the trail accompanied by precise and accurate trail following, showing little error in staying on the path taken by the female, accompanied by an uncanny ability to retrace their mistaken ways to find and capture his mate. Viscosity-induced attenuation of mixing enables the persistence of small-scale chemical signals and thus, precise mate finding strategies may be a key adaptation for pelagic copepods. By leaving a coherent pheromonal trail, the female increases her signal size by up to 100 times her body size or more, thus multiplicatively improving the probability of encounter with her mate, thereby enhancing reproductive success. Evidence that copepods can follow trails in all directions indicates that guidance of trail-following copepods is solely and uniquely reliant on chemical cues without collimation by other cues, in contrast to so many other organisms that require collimation by fluid flow or gravity to guide them to the source. Thus copepods may provide novel insights into chemically-mediated guidance mechanisms. Small-scale physical gradients in the open ocean may give more definition to the niche of pelagic plankton. The large number of copepod species and the variations in their habitats provide a natural laboratory to examine the significance and specificity of chemical signals in the aquatic environment at the small-scale, and the adaptations microscopic animals have taken to live in the open ocean.

Keywords

Mate Recognition Reactive Distance Female Copepod Schlieren Optic Scent Trail 
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.

References

  1. Bagøien E, Kiørboe T (2005a) Blind dating-mate finding in planktonic copepods. III. Hydromechanical communication in Acartia tonsa. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagøien E, Kiørboe T (2005b) Blind dating-mate finding in planktonic copepods. I. Tracking the pheromone trail of Centropages typicus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blades PI, Youngbluth MJ (1980) Morphological, physiological and behavioral aspects of mating in Calanoid copepods. In: Kerfoot WC (ed) Evolution of zooplankton communities. University Press, Hanover, pp 39–51Google Scholar
  4. Boxshall GA, Huys R (1998) The ontogeny and phylogeny of copepod antennules. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 353:765–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boxshall GA, Yen J, Strickler JR (1997) Functional significance of the sexual dimorphism in the array of setation elements along the antennules of Euchaeta rimana Bradford. Bull Mar Sci 61:387–398Google Scholar
  6. Bradford-Grieve JM (2002) Colonization of the pelagic realm by calanoid copepods. Hydrobiologia 485:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucklin A, Frost BW, Bradford-Grieve J, Allen LD, Copley NJ (2003) Molecular systematic and phylogenetic assessment of 34 calanoid copepod species of the Calanidae and Clausocalanidae. Mar Biol 142:333–343Google Scholar
  8. Colin SP (1995) A kinematic analysis of trail-following in Temora longicornis and four other copepods: how the male finds his mate. MS thesis, State University of New York at Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  9. Doall MH, Colin SP, Strickler JR, Yen J (1998) Locating a male in 3D: the case of Temora longicornis. Philos Trans R Soc B 353:681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dusenbery D (1992) Sensory ecology: how organisms acquire and respond to information. W.H. Freeman & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dusenbery D (1998) Spatial sensing of stimulus gradients can be superior to temporal sensing for free-swimming bacteria. Biophys J 74:2272–2277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dusenbery D (2001) Performance of basic strategies for following gradients in two dimensions. J Theor Biol 208:345–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Edelstein-Keshet L (1994) Simple models for trail-following behavior: trunk trails vs. individual foragers. J Math Biol 32:303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fields DM, Weissburg MJ (2005) Evolutionary and ecological significance of mechanosensor morphology: copepods as a model system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 287:269–274Google Scholar
  15. Fields DM, Yen J (1997) The escape behavior of marine copepods in response to a quantifiable fluid mechanical disturbance. J Plankton Res 19:1289–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fields DM, Shaeffer DS, Weissburg MJ (2002) Mechanical and neural responses from the mechanosensory hairs on the antennule of Gaussia princeps. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 227:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleminger A (1975) Geographical distribution and morphological divergence in the American coastal-zone planktonic copepods of the genus Labidocera. In: Cronin LE (ed) Estuarine research. Academic Press, New York, pp 392–419Google Scholar
  18. Folt C, Goldman CR (1981) Allelopathy between zooplankton: a mechanism for interference competition. Science 213:1133–1135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerritsen J, Strickler JR (1977) Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: a mathematical model. J Fish Res Board Can 34:73–82Google Scholar
  20. Gill CW, Poulet SA (1988) Responses of copepods to dissolved free amino acids. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 43:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goetze E (2008) Heterospecific mating and partial prezygotic reproductive isolation in the planktonic marine copepods Centropages typicus and Centropages hamatus. Limnol Oceanogr 53:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goetze E, Kiørboe T (2008) Heterospecific mating and species recognition in the planktonic marine copepods Temora stylifera and T. longicornis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 370:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamner P, Hamner WM (1977) Chemosensory tracking of scent trails by planktonic shrimp Acetes sibogae australis. Science 195:886–888CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Haury LR, Yamazaki H (1995) The dichotomy of scales in the perception and aggregation behavior of zooplankton. J Plankton Res 17:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Humes AG (1994) How many copepods? Hydrobiologia 293:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingvarsdottir A, Birkett MA, Duce I, Mordue W, Pickett JA, Wadhams LJ, Mordue AJ (2002) Role of semiochemicals in mate location by parasitic sea louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis. J Chem Ecol 28:2107–2117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jersabek CD, Luger MS, Schabetsberger R, Grill S, Strickler JR (2007) Hang on or run? Copepod mating versus predation risk in contrasting environments. Oecologia 153:761–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Katona SK (1973) Evidence for sex pheromones in planktonic copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 18:574–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiørboe T (2007) Mate finding, mating, and population dynamics in a planktonic copepod Oithona davisae: there are too few males. Limnol Oceanogr 52:1511–1522Google Scholar
  30. Kiørboe T, Bagøien E (2005) Motility patterns and mate encounter rates in planktonic copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 50:1999–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kiørboe T, Bagøien E, Thygesen U (2005) Blind dating – mate finding in planktonic copepods. II. The pheromone cloud of Pseudocalanus elongatus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knowlton N (1993) Sibling species in the sea. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koehl MAR, Stricker JR (1981) Copepod feeding currents: food capture at low Reynolds number. Limnol Oceangr 26:1062–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lazier JRN, Mann KH (1989) Turbulence and diffusive layers around small organisms. Deep Sea Res A 36:1721–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lazzaretto I, Franco F, Battaglia B (1994) Reproductive behavior in the harpacticoid copepod Tigriopus fulvus. Hydrobiologia 293:229–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee CE (2000) Global phylogeography of a cryptic copepod species complex and reproductive isolation between genetically proximate “populations”. Evolution 254:2014–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lenz PH, Yen J (1993) Distal setal mechanoreceptors of the first antennae of marine copepods. Bull Mar Sci 53:170–179Google Scholar
  38. Lonsdale DJ, Frey MA, Snell TW (1998) The role of chemical signals in copepod reproduction. J Mar Syst 15:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mauchline J (1998) The biology of calanoid copepods. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore PA, Fields DM, Yen J (1999) Physical constraints of chemoreception in foraging copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 44:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ohtsuka S, Huys R (2001) Sexual dimorphism in calanoid copepods: morphology and function. Hydrobiologia 453:441–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Painter SD, Clough B, Garden RW, Sweedler JV, Nagle GT (1998) characterization of Aplysia attractin, the first water-borne peptide pheromone in invertebrates. Biol Bull 194:120–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pierce-Shimomura JT, Morse TM, Lockery SR (1999) The fundamental role of pirouettes in C. elegans chemotaxis. J Neurosci 19:9557–9569PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pohlmann K, Atema J, Breithaupt T (2004) The importance of the lateral line in nocturnal predation of piscivorous catfish. J Exp Biol 207:2971–2978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ram JL, Fei X, Danaher SM, Lu S, Breithaupt T, Hardege JD (2008) Finding females: pheromone-guided reproductive tracking behavior by male Nereis succinea in the marine environment. J Exp Biol 211:757–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Saur M (1990) Mate discrimination in Littorina littorea and L. saxatilis (Olivi) Mollusca: Prosobranchia. Hydrobiologia 193:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwenk K (1994) Why snakes have forked tongues. Science 263:1573–1577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Shine PH, Lemaster MP, Moore IT, Mason RT (2000) The transvestite serpent: why do male garter snakes court (some) other males? Anim Behav 59:349–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Snell TW, Carmona MJ (1994) Surface glycoproteins in copepods: Potential signals for mate recognition. Hydrobiologia 292–293:255–264Google Scholar
  50. Stanhope MJ, Connelly MM, Hartwick B (1992) Evolution of a crustacean chemical communication channel – behavioral and ecological genetic evidence for a habitat-modified, race-specific pheromone. J Chem Ecol 18:1871–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strickler JR (1984) Sticky water: a selective force in copepod evolution. In: Meyers DG, Strickler JR (eds) Trophic interactions within aquatic ecosystems. Westview Press Inc, Boulder, pp 187–239Google Scholar
  52. Strickler JR (1998) Observing free-swimming copepods mating. Philos Trans R Soc B 353:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strickler JR, Hwang JS (1999) Matched spatial filters in long working distance microscopy of phase objects. In: Cheng PC, Hwang PP, Wu JL, Wang G, Kim H (eds) Focus on multidimensional microscopy. World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, pp 217–239Google Scholar
  54. Tamburri MN, Finelli CM, Wethey DS, Zimmer-Faust RK (1996) Chemically mediated larval settlement behavior in flow. Biol Bull 191:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Todd CD, Stevenson RJ, Reinardy H, Ritchie MG (2005) Polandry in the ectoparasitic copepod Lepeophtheirus salmonis despite complex pre-copulatory and post-copulatory mate-guarding. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 303:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsuda A, Miller CB (1998) Mate-finding behavior in Calanus marshallae. Philos Trans R Soc B 353:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Duren LA, Stamhuis EJ, Videler JJ (1998) Reading the copepod personal adds: increasing encounter probability with hydromechanical signals. Philos Trans R Soc B 353:691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Leeuwen HC, Maly EJ (1991) Changes in swimming behavior of male Diaptomus leptopus (Copepoda: Calanoida) in response to gravid females. Limnol Oceanogr 36:1188–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vickers N (2000) Mechanisms of navigation in odor plumes. Biol Bull 198:203–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Visser AW, Jackson GA (2004) Characteristics of the chemical plume behind a sinking particle in a turbulent water column. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 283:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Watras CJ (1983) Mate location by diaptomid copepods. J Plankton Res 5:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weissburg MJ (2000) The fluid dynamical context of chemosensory behavior. Biol Bull 198:188–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Weissburg MJ, Doall MH, Yen J (1998) Following the invisible trail: kinematic analysis of mate tracking in the copepod Temora longicornis. Philos Trans R Soc B 353:701–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yamazaki H, Squires KD (1996) Comparison of oceanic turbulence and copepod swimming. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 144:299–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yamazaki H, Mackas DL, Denman KL (2002) Coupling small-scale physical processes with biology. In: Robinson AR, McCarthy JJ, Rothschild BJ (eds) The sea. Wiley, New York, pp 51–112Google Scholar
  66. Yen J (1988) Directionality and swimming speeds in predator-prey and male-female interactions of Euchaeta rimana, a subtropical marine copepod. Bull Mar Sci 43:175–193Google Scholar
  67. Yen J (2000) Life in transition: balancing inertial and viscous forces by planktonic copepods. Biol Bull 198:213–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Yen J, Strickler JR (1996) Advertisement and concealment in the plankton: what makes a copepod hydrodynamically conspicuous? Invertebr Biol 3:191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yen J, Lenz PH, Gassie DV, Hartline DK (1992) Mechanoreception in marine copepods: electrophysiological studies on the first antennae. J Plankton Res 14:495–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yen J, Weissburg MJ, Doall MH (1998) The fluid physics of signal perception by a mate-tracking copepod. Philos Trans R Soc B 353:787–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yen J, Prusak A, Caun M, Doall MH, Brown J, Strickler JR (2004) Signaling during mating in the pelagic copepod, Temora longicornis. In: Seuront L, Strutton P (eds) Scales in aquatic ecology: measurements, analysis, modelling. CRC Press, New York, pp 149–159Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BiologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations