DIFFERENTIAL BEHAVIOR OF AMPULLARY SUBUNITS IN THE ELECTROSENSORY SYSTEM OF THE SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD SHARK (SPHYRNA LEWINI) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ZOOLOGY (MARINE BIOLOGY) DECEMBER 2012 By Christine M. Ambrosino Thesis Committee: Timothy C. Tricas, Chairperson Kathleen S. Cole Kim N. Holland Keywords: electroreception, ampullae of Lorenzini, orientation, behavior
50
Embed
DIFFERENTIAL BEHAVIOR OF AMPULLARY SUBUNITS IN THE … · 2016. 8. 12. · differential behavior of ampullary subunits in the electrosensory system of the scalloped hammerhead shark
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DIFFERENTIAL BEHAVIOR OF AMPULLARY SUBUNITS IN THE ELECTROSENSORY SYSTEM OF THE SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD SHARK
(SPHYRNA LEWINI)
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
ZOOLOGY (MARINE BIOLOGY)
DECEMBER 2012
By
Christine M. Ambrosino
Thesis Committee:
Timothy C. Tricas, Chairperson Kathleen S. Cole Kim N. Holland
Keywords: electroreception, ampullae of Lorenzini, orientation, behavior
ii
To Sal and Maura,
who always encouraged my questions
and supported my pursuit of answers.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was made possible due to the help and support of many individuals. I
graciously thank my committee members, Kassi Cole and Kim Holland for their insight
and advice on the conception and development of this project. I especially thank my
committee chairperson Tim Tricas for his patience and support during my years in the
lab. My labmates and the members of the Holland lab have proven invaluable. I thank
Adam Dewan, Kelly Boyle, James Anderson, Leigh Ann Boswell, Kelly Williams,
Melanie Hutchinson, Mark Royer, Jon Dale, Yannis Papastamatiou, Toby Daly-Engel,
and Nick Whitney for advice, friendship, discussion and much needed emotional and
mental support. I thank Steve Kajiura whose work inspired my own, and whose advice
and insight helped me navigate the trials of graduate school. I also thank Kara Yopak for
her shared enthusiasm for neuroscience.
There were also many friends and eager volunteers whose enthusiasm helped to
encourage me even when fishing did not always turn into catching. I thank Joe Sanchez,
Nicole Escudero, Heather Ylitalo-Ward, Emi Yamaguchi, Julio Rivera, Mike Burns,
Kelvin Gorospe, Thomas Krueger, Matt Potenski, Dave Harrington, Julia Sullivan and
Andrew Starr for help on the water or just lending an ear. I enthusiastically thank Sal,
Maura and Ali Ambrosino, who made the completion of this project possible. I thank
Shawn Carrier and Liz Ross for their support and help on the water, and the Dive and
Boating Safety Officers of HIMB, Derek Smith and Jason Jones, who helped with
specimen collection and making sure rusty equipment still worked.
iv
Financial support was provided by grants from the University of Hawaii at Manoa
Graduate Student Organization, PADI Project AWARE, the American Elasmobranch
Society Student Travel funds, the American Elasmobranch Society Carrier Award, and
the Albert L. Tester Memorial fund.
v
ABSTRACT
The electrosensory system of elasmobranchs consists of discrete networks of gel-
filled canals that connect to a specific subgroup of a subcutaneous structure called an
ampulla. This project tested the functional subgroup hypothesis that predicts functional
differences among the ampullary subgroups using the scalloped hammerhead shark,
Sphyrna lewini. To examine electroorientation behavior, the reaction of sharks to
electrical dipoles was digitally recorded on video. After control trials, sharks then had
certain ampullary pore fields blocked with non-conductive petroleum jelly and again
exposed to the same dipoles to observe potential changes in orientation behavior. The
entire cephalofoil and either the right or left half of the cephalofoil were blocked in trials
to determine the efficacy of the treatment protocol. The Buccal (BUC) and Superficial
Ophthalmic anterior (SOa) ampullary pores were then inactivated. The BUC and SOa
pore fields were chosen for study due to their location on the cephalofoil and pore
number (the SOa includes more than half the pore field). The majority of sharks oriented
to the dipole less than 12cm away and at an angle of less than 40 degrees from the dipole
axis. Sharks with blocked BUC pores demonstrated fewer orientations to the simulated
prey field (p = 0.008), although they still fed and swam normally. The manipulated
sharks also showed decrease spiral behavior in relation to the other orientation types, and
increased their overshoot behavior with blocked SOa pores. Thus, the functional subunit
hypothesis is supported by this study and the entire ampullary pore field was
demonstrated to be necessary for proper orientation within a dipole field.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ............................................................. vii
orientation frequency, approach frequency and bite frequency (Figure 2). Orientation
distance was measured from the center of the dipole to the nearest part of the shark’s
cephalofoil. The orientation angle was measured as the angle of the line drawn by the
orientation distance in relation to the dipole axis. The field potential was also calculated
at the orientation distance using the equation for a dipole field in half space:
V=ρIdcosθ/πr2 (Kalmijn, 1982)
The equation for half space was used since the acrylic plate lies flat on the substrate, thus
the dipoles are only exposed to the seawater on one side. The resistivity of seawater (ρ),
the current in the system (I) and dipole separation distance (d) remained constant during
the trials.
12
Orientation type was also recorded (Figure 3). Orientation and bite behavior were
defined using behavioral patterns previously described by Kajiura and Holland (Kajiura
and Holland, 2002). A straight orientation is defined as when a shark swims in a straight
line towards the dipole and bites it. A turn orientation includes a turn towards the dipole
greater than 20 degrees from the shark’s trajectory entering the camera’s field of view.
The shark spirals into the center of the dipole along the field lines was described as a
spiral orientation. Overshoot orientation was described as when a shark swims past the
dipole, then turns around and backtracks towards the dipole center. Approach distance
and rate was used to determine that sharks had equal exposure to the electric field in all
tests. An approach was defined as the head of the shark entering a 30cm circle around
the dipole center. Preliminary tests showed that 32cm was the maximum distance the
sharks reacted to the active dipole. The frequency data were arcsine transformed
(SigmaPlot 11) and analyzed with a paired t-test comparing control and treatment trials to
determine pre- and post-treatment effects of subgroup inactivation.
13
Figure 1a. Schematic of the 12-foot diameter, saltwater flow-through tank used in experimental trials. A power box was used to supply current to the electrodes. A 9V battery was used to supply power to the circuit, and 10kΩ and 1MΩ resistors and a 1MΩ potentiometer were used to control the current flow to the electrodes. A rotary switch channeled the current to one of four dipoles placed in a 1m2 acrylic frame. The acrylic frame sat on the substrate where the sharks naturally fed. A JVC digital camcorder was used to record the sharks’ behavior during trials.
14
Figure 1b. Schematic of the acrylic frame and dipoles on the floor of testing area. The dipole separation distance was 1cm allowing a current flow of 6µA (adjustable by the power box). Current was carried via four pairs of shielded 18AWG underwater cables and seawater-filled polyethylene tubing. Current passed from the cables to the tubing via underwater connectors with gold-plated stainless steel pins. Each length of tubing from the cable to the acrylic plate was 50cm. The olfactory stimulant (squid rinse) was introduced through tubing connected to a hole in the center of the plexiglass plate.
15
Figure 2. Example of video image and measurements taken to quantify orientation behaviors observed. One of four dipoles was activated at a time on the acrylic plate as the sharks searched for food. The distance of the shark from the center of the dipole field (r) and the approach angle in relation to the dipole axis (θ) were used to calculate the field strength at the point where the shark initiated an orientation.
16
Figure 3: Orientation behaviors demonstrated by intact hammerheads. A straight approach occurred when the shark swam directly over the center of the dipole, without turning. A turn was defined as a motion towards the dipole greater than 20 degrees from the initial swim path. An overshoot occurred when the shark swam over and past the dipole, then turned back towards the center. During a spiral, the shark’s cephalofoil would follow the dipole field lines towards the center of the field. (Adapted from Kajiura and Holland, 2002)
17
SECTION 3
RESULTS
Seventeen first-year juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks, S. lewini, captured
from Kaneohe Bay successfully acclimated to the holding pen environment, fed normally
and were used in experimental trials. Additional sharks (N=4) that did not initiate
feeding behavior within one week after capture were released back into Kaneohe Bay.
The retained juveniles demonstrated orientation and biting behavior at the active dipole,
but not at the inactive, control dipoles. The four orientation pathways as described above
were observed in control animals. Spiral orientations were the most frequent, followed
by turning, overshoot and straight behaviors. The olfactory stimulant (squid rinse) was
necessary to elicit hunting and feeding behavior during trials as without the olfactory
stimulus the sharks would not respond to the electric fields, even while swimming
directly over an active dipole.
Unmanipulated trials
All sharks oriented to and bit the active dipole center, and the majority of
orientation behaviors occurred less than 12cm from the center of the field (Figure 4).
Almost all orientations occurred within 30cm of the dipole center. The sharks
demonstrated sensitivity to very low field strength, as calculated from the orientation
distance. As described in the equation for an ideal dipole in half space, the strength of
the electric field decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the dipole center. Thus,
electroreception tends to be used as a short-range detection method. However, sharks
18
demonstrated high sensitivity to the field and responded to intensities below 100nV
(Figure 5).
Whole and half-head manipulations
After control tests with intact electrosensory systems, non-conductive petroleum
jelly, dyed with food coloring, was applied to the complete dorsal and ventral surfaces of
the cephalofoil in two sharks to determine the effects of the experimental manipulation
on general behavior. After treatment, the animals continued swimming normally as
demonstrated by tail beat frequency of about 1 Hz. The sharks also were able to feed
normally and continued interacting with other sharks in their vicinity. The sharks did not,
however, respond to the electric fields while the dipoles were active, even when excited
by the olfactory stimulus. Forty-eight hours after the petroleum jelly was initially
applied, it was removed and two days later, the sharks were exposed to the electric fields
again. With the petroleum jelly treatment removed, the sharks again demonstrated active
orientation within the electric fields with the olfactory stimulant. Following the trial, the
sharks were fed to satiation and released into Kaneohe Bay.
To examine further the effects of the petroleum jelly treatment on the behavior of
the scalloped hammerhead sharks, the right half or left half of the cephalofoil of six
randomly selected sharks was covered with non-conductive jelly on the dorsal and ventral
surfaces. To control for the effects of physical manipulation over the cephalofoil, an
electrically conductive gel was spread over the pore fields to remain active. Again the
animals were able to swim and feed normally. Although the sharks initially had
difficulty orienting properly to the center of the active dipole field, the sharks all oriented
within the field during the trials with either the right or left half of the cephalofoil
19
covered. A behavior was noted in the post-treatment animals described as a “miss.” This
behavior occurred as the animal neared the active dipole. During some approaches
within approximately 30cm of the active dipole, the post-treatment sharks began to
search for the dipole as indicated by rapid turning of the head. Although the sharks were
actively searching for the dipole, they did not locate it and properly orient. The number
of orientations in both pre- and post-treatment groups was highly variable, but animals
that were more active during control trials, remained more active during experimental
trials. The results of a matched pairs t-test between the blocked and unblocked
orientations did not differ for orientation frequency (t = 2.306, p = 0.15) or bite frequency
(t = 1.83, p = 0.13).
Interestingly, the sharks with half of their pore fields blocked demonstrated the
same types of orientation behaviors as unmanipulated sharks (Figure 6). The juvenile
sharks, even with half of their electrosensory pore fields functionally inactivated, were
still able to locate the center of an electric field with accuracy. After the trials, the
petroleum jelly was removed, and the sharks again demonstrated proper orientation to a
dipole target.
Single cluster manipulations
To examine the role of individual ampullary clusters in orientation behaviors
within an electric field, the dorsal and ventral pore fields of the BUC group were
inactivated in seven sharks and the SOa pore field was inactivated in another in seven
sharks. In the control trials, the sharks were able to respond to the electric field as the
other sharks in the preliminary trials. To confirm that the sharks were still exposed to
20
similar electrical stimuli in both trials, approaches within 30cm of the dipole center was
counted (Figure 7). There were no differences between control and experimental group
approaches (BUC, p = 0.38; SOa, p = 0.27).
Among experimental sharks, with the BUC ampullary subgroup inactivated the
orientation frequency was significantly reduced (Figure 8; p = 0.033). With the SOa
group inactivated, the orientation frequency approached similar levels to those observed
in the BUC treatment group, and the orientation frequencies were significantly different
from the control (Figure 8; p = 0.029). As with the sharks that had half of their pore
fields blocked, although they did not respond to the electric field with the same frequency
as during the control trials, the sharks retained their feeding behavior and actively
searched for food with the introduction of squid rinse. Also, when presented with squid
after the trials, the sharks were able to locate and eat their food to satiation.
The sharks in both the control and BUC and SOa treatment groups were again
able to behaviorally respond to an electric field at very low intensities (Figure 9). With
the BUC and SOa ampullary subgroups blocked, though, the sharks did not bite as
frequently at the dipole center. The sharks would still actively hunt for the source of the
dipole field, but more passes over the dipole would be required for the sharks to localize
the center of the field.
Even when the experimental sharks passed over the center of the dipole field, they
rarely bit at the dipole center. The sharks also displayed “incorrect” orientations to the
center of the dipole, in that as they entered the field, they often turned away instead of
towards the center. These searching behaviors were noted in both experimental treatment
groups, and often resulted in the sharks not being able to locate the dipole within the
21
testing area. When the non-conductive jelly was removed from the sharks, they were
able to correctly locate the center of the field.
The sharks all displayed the typical orientation pathways as described above in
the preliminary trials. As with the previous group of control sharks, spiral behavior was
again the most frequently observed, followed by turns and straight approaches (Figure
10). The sharks did not initially display the overshoot orientation pathway during the
control runs, but as the behavior’s frequency in previous trials was very low, the sharks
still demonstrated the correct assay of behaviors. When the individual ampullary
subclusters were blocked, the array of orientation behaviors shifted.
With the SOa pores blocked, the sharks were still able to turn fairly accurately
towards the dipole, but the spiral behavior was rarely displayed. Also, the sharks began
to exhibit the overshoot behavior more frequently. There were no straight approaches
noted with the SOa pores blocked. With the BUC pores blocked, the sharks displayed a
decrease in general orientation behaviors, but were able to rarely complete a spiral or turn
orientation properly. Straight and overshoot orientations were not seen in the BUC
treatment group. The sharks in both treatment groups continued to swim and feed
normally, even with the decrease in response to the dipole field.
22
Figure 4. Graph showing the orientation distances from the center of the active dipole during control and experimental trials. Although the majority of orientations occurred within 13cm of the dipole center, sharks were able to orient up to 32cm away.
23
Figure 5. The field strength experienced by the sharks (N = 17), calculated at the point of the shark closest to the dipole center for all approaches within 35cm. The distance of the shark from the dipole center (r) and its approach angle in relation to the dipole axis (θ) were entered into the ideal equation for a dipole in half-space (V=ρIdcosθ/πr2). The average field strength the sharks responded to within 35cm of the dipole center was 0.714 µV/cm.
24
Figure 6. Graph showing the types of orientation behaviors as percent of total orientations for sharks during control trials and trials with half of the cephalofoil pore field blocked. Although the total orientation frequency differed between the test groups, the behavioral profile of orientation types did not change (N = 6).
25
Figure 7. Approaches of sharks within 30cm of the active dipole center during control and experimental trials with dorsal and ventral BUC and SOa pores blocked. There were no differences between control and blocked groups for either BUC or SOa ampullae.
26
Figure 8. Orientations of sharks during control and experimental trials with dorsal and ventral BUC and SOa pores blocked shown as a proportion of the total approaches in each group through the dipole field (~30cm). Blocking the ampullary pores with non-electrically conductive jelly significantly decreased the orientation behavior of sharks to the active dipole in the BUC group (BUC (N=7), t = 2.758, p = 0.033), and the SOa group (SOa (N=7), t = 2.855, p = 0.029).
* *
27
Figure 9. Diagram representing the orientation distance and orientation angle in relation to the dipole angle for control (left side) and BUC and SOa blocked sharks (right side). The field potential drops dramatically from the dipole center. Although electroreception tends to be used as a short range detection method, sharks demonstrated sensitivity to field intensities below 100nV.
28
Figure 10. Behavioral assay of orientations of sharks to the dipole field center. During control trials, sharks primarily demonstrated spiral behavior. Sharks with BUC and SOa pores blocked did not demonstrate spiral behavior as frequently, and demonstrated turn and spiral misses where they were unable to locate the dipole center.
29
SECTION 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the functional subunit hypothesis
(Tricas, 2001) in relation to the electrosensory system of the scalloped hammerhead
shark, Sphyrna lewini. The electrosensory system of elasmobranchs can be subdivided
into differentially innervated subgroups that have slightly differing morphology and
orientation in space. Sphyrna lewini has the characteristic cephalofoil of all
hammerheads , the expansion of which increases morphological differences between the
three-dimensional canal arrays associated with the ampullary subgroups. The functional
subunit hypothesis suggests these morphological differences may infer functional or
behavioral differences to these subgroups as well (Tricas, 2001).
Distinction of clusters
The innervation of the ampullae of Lorenzini has been a cause of confusion for
many neurophysiologists because the primary afferent nerves that connect the ampullary
sensory epithelium with the central nervous system are closely associated with
surrounding cranial nerves. The ampullary nerves are associated with the Buccal and
Ophthalmic Rami of the facial nerve (CN VII), the trigeminal nerve (CN V), the
vestibulocochlear nerve (CN VIII) and the vagus nerve (CN X) (Daniels, 1967; Norris,
1929). Although the anterior lateral line nerve (ALLN) is closely associated these nerves
and leaves the chondrocranium in close association with them, the ALLN has the distinct
function of innervating the ampullae and has its own separate ganglia (Bodznick and
Boord, 1986; Raschi, 1986; Smeets et al., 1983). The branches of the ALLN follow
30
similar tracts to other critical nerves in the cephalofoil. The pores on the cephalofoil
were recently mapped according to their association with ampullary subgroups (Rivera-
Vicente et al., 2011). The BUC and MAN groups showed very distinct pore subgroup
boundaries. However, the pores of the SOp and SOa groups slightly overlap, although
the associated ampullary subgroups subdermally are distinctly separated by the lateral
rostral cartilage,.
Information from the ampullary receptors is carried to the central nervous system
by afferent neurons of the ALLN. There are no efferent nerves present in the peripheral
electrosensory system. The primary afferents project from the ampullae to the dorsal
octavolateralis nuclei (DON) of the hindbrain (Bodznick and Schmidt, 1984). From the
DON, primary neurons carry the electrosensory information from the central zone to the
contralateral medulla before terminating in certain midbrain nuclei (Bodznick and Boord,
1986). Projections from the midbrain then continue to the diencephalon and
telencephalon (Bodznick and Northcutt, 1984). The tectum, an area of known sensory
integration, also processes electrosensory information. The somatotopic relationship of
the ampullae and their receptive fields is well mapped in the DON. Little work has been
done on higher electrosensory processing within the brain, but the tectum also appears to
conserve electrosensory somatotopy (Bodznick and Boord, 1986).
Electroorientation in Sphyrna lewini
The sharks in this study demonstrated normal hunting behavior when exposed to
an olfactory cue (squid rinse). Without the olfactory cue, the sharks did not respond to
the active dipole field, even when swimming directly over the dipole center. The sharks
31
all demonstrated high sensitivity to the weak dipole field. Although the calculated field
strength was low due to the high approach angle (almost 90 degrees) in relation to the
dipole axis of sharks for some orientations paths, the rest of the cephalofoil surface may
be stimulated by the surrounding higher field intensity. The orientation distance of the
sharks was measured as the point of the shark nearest the dipole, in order to minimize this
potential complication. The field strength decreases dramatically with increasing
distance from the dipole center, and if measurements had been taken from the midline of
the shark, the field strength data might not accurately reflect the strength detected by the
ampullary pores closest to the dipole center (Kajiura and Fitzgerald, 2009; Kalmijn,
1974). Although sharks are extremely sensitive to electric fields, elasmobranchs use
electroreception as a close range detection system. Prey further away are detected with
olfactory, auditory and visual systems before electroreception (Collin and Whitehead,
2004; Wilkens and Hofmann, 2005).
It was observed that most orientations for both experimental and control fish
occurred with an orientation angle below 40 degrees. Although orientation angle (angle
in respect to the dipole axis) did affect the direction of the orientation behavior, approach
angle (position of dipole center in relation to the shark’s swimming trajectory) did not
appear to have an effect. Due to the physical properties of a dipole field, increased
orientation angle decreases field strength (Brown, 2002). As the canals on the sharks’
cephalofoil project in 360 degrees, the location of the field in relation to the shark may
not affect the sensitivity of the shark to the field. However, the approach angle did affect
orientation type. If a shark entered a field with the right side of its cephalofoil, it would
turn right to orient to the dipole. If a shark entered a field straight on, the shark would
32
complete a straight approach or overshoot the dipole and have to backtrack to orient
correctly.
Manipulated pore field trials
A novel method to functionally inactivate ampullary groups was developed to test
for behavioral differences between subgroups. An electrically non-conductive jelly was
applied to the electrosensory pores to block ampullary receptors. The sharks continued to
swim, respond to olfactory cues and feed normally with this jelly applied to their
cephalofoil. With half of their cephalofoils covered, sharks in both the control and
blocked groups showed high sensitivity to electric fields. There was no difference in the
orientation distances between the groups.
It was also observed that although the overall frequency of orientation behaviors
was affected by decreasing pore field sensitivity, the behavioral profile did not change
between test groups with only half the cephalofoil covered (Fig. 4). The ratios of
orientation behaviors shown by the control group were similar to those shown by sharks
with ablated electrosensory pore fields. Both the controls and sharks with blocked pores
had spiraling as their most frequent behavior, followed by turning. If orientation
behavior is dependent upon ampullary cluster function, then when all the clusters lost half
their pore fields, all orientation behaviors were equally affected.
When only the BUC group was inactivated, the frequency of orientation behaviors
decreased, and the types of behavior used during orientation were different than seen in
control and half-head manipulations. With inactivated BUC pores, the sharks did not use
spiral orientations as frequently and were not as accurate in locating the dipole center.
33
The BUC group is the most distal ampullary group on the cephalofoil of the scalloped
hammerhead and the spiral orientation behavior may allow the shark to follow the
electric field lines to the dipole center (Kajiura and Holland, 2002; Rivera-Vicente et al.,
2011). With inactivated BUC pore fields, the sharks demonstrated decreased spiral
behavior. Spiraling is the most frequently used orientation type in intact sharks.
Interestingly, without the BUC group, all orientation behaviors decreased, not just
spiraling, even though the sharks experienced similar exposure to the electric field (as
demonstrated by similar approach rates). The sharks also demonstrated an increase in
orientations that were not directed towards the dipole center. As the sharks entered
within 30cm of the dipole field, they would begin an orientation path, but could not
locate the center of the dipole and the spiral or turn would land them tens of centimeters
away from the activated target.
Blocking the SOa pores showed similar results as the BUC group. With
inactivated SOa receptors, the sharks showed a relative decrease in spiral behavior, but
showed an increase in the overshoot behavior. During an overshoot, the shark makes an
initial pass over the dipole center, and then backtracks to relocate the center. The SOa
pores are located medially and rostrally on the cephalofoil, and may help in the shark’s
initial detection of the electric field directly in front of the animal (Rivera-Vicente et al.,
2011). With these pores blocked, the animal might not detect the field until it has passed
over the center and the other pore groups can detect the weak field. The sharks in this
group also demonstrated a relative increase in the proportion of turn orientations. Turns
happen when the shark approaches the dipole field on either its right or left side. As the
SOa pores are only in the medial portion of the head, the shark is still able to respond to
34
electric fields perhaps using the more distal ampullary pores such as in the BUC group.
Spiral behaviors also happen when the shark first approaches the dipole along its side, but
the spiral behaviors in the SOa-blocked group decreased. The spiral behavior may
require input from both the BUC and SOa pores for the shark to properly follow the field
lines.
Conclusions and future directions
These results provide evidence that the full electrosensory system is necessary for
proper detection and localization of simulated bioelectric fields. The BUC and SOa
ampullary pore fields are each necessary for proper orientation behavior within a
simulated bioelectric field, but other hypotheses regarding functional subunits in the
electrosensory system remain to be tested. The scalloped hammerhead shark was chosen
for this study due to the laterally elongated, dorso-ventrally flattened cephalofoil that
provides exaggerated spatial morphological differences among the ampullary canal
subgroups (Rivera-Vicente et al., 2011). A comparative study examining these properties
in more conically-shaped carcharhiniform sharks could shed light on the importance of a
three-dimensional canal array in this sensory system.
Also, since only two of the four ampullary subgroups of S. lewini have been
examined, it remains to be determined what roles the mandibular (MAN) or superficial
ophthalmic posterior (SOp) ampullary groups may play in orientation behaviors. As the
MAN cluster is located on the lower jaw, it may detect when prey is directly under the
mouth of the animal. The morphology of the scalloped hammerhead’s cephalofoil
prevents it from seeing objects directly above or below its head, so the MAN may be
35
necessary for capturing prey in the final attack. The SOp ampullary group has the
longest canals with pores on the posterior edge of the cephalofoil and may not be as
important for proper orientation to the field produced by a potential prey source. This
group may play a larger role in detecting the uniform electric fields induced by
swimming through the earth’s magnetic field. Thus the SOp may provide the shark a
means of navigating with electric fields.
It also remains to be seen what interactions may occur among these ampullary
groups in the higher processing regions of the brain. Nerve tracing studies have observed
somatotopy within the electrosensory regions of the elasmobranch hindbrain, but
functional differences among ampullary subgroups have yet to be examined at the central
processing level (Bodznick and Schmidt, 1984; Bodznick and Northcutt, 1984). The
somatotopic representation of electroreception in the elasmobranch hindbrain is relative
to the number of ampullae (and thus number of pores) in each ampullary cluster, not the
body surface area covered by the pore field. However, this study determined that
electroorientation behavior is more affected by the location of the pore field, rather than
pore number. The half-head manipulations inactivated about 1,300 pores (~50% of total
cephalofoil pore field), but the behaviors of the sharks were not altered significantly.
With the BUC (~600 pores, ~23% of cephalofoil pore field) group inactivated, the sharks
responded to the electric field less frequently. With the SOa (~1,400 pores, ~55% of
cephalofoil pore field) blocked, there was a decreasing trend in frequency, but no
significant difference. The sharks also demonstrated fewer spiral and turn behaviors,
both of which were the most frequent behaviors exhibited in unmanipulated animals.
36
Although elasmobranchs rely on senses such as sight and smell for long-range
detection of prey and the electrosensory system may play its biggest role only in close-
range detection, the ampullae are still necessary for juvenile S. lewini to accurately detect
their target. The environment of S. lewini in Hawaii requires a properly functioning
electrosensory system for survival. Each summer about 10,000 S. lewini are born in
Kaneohe Bay, but by the winter most of those pups have died from starvation (Duncan
and Holland, 2006). Being able to find prey is critical for first year hammerhead pups.
The prey the pups hunt for are often buried in small burrows in the soft bottom of the bay
and can only be detected via bioelectric fields. A properly functioning electrosensory
system can thus mean the difference between life and death for these animals. This study
examined how two pore fields are necessary for proper orientation to an electric field, but
future studies will have many questions left to answer in the elasmobranch electrosensory
system.
37
REFERENCES
Bennett, M. V. L. and Clusin, W. T. (1978). Physiology of the ampulla of
Lorenzini, the electroreceptor of elasmobranchs. Sensory Biology of Sharks, Skates and
Rays, 483–506.
Bleckmann, H. and Hofmann, M. H. (1999). Special senses. Sharks, Skates, and
Rays, The Biology of Elasmobranch Fishes, The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, 300–328.
Bodznick, D. and Boord, R. (1986). Central Anatomy and Physiology. In
Electroreception, vol. 5 eds. T. H. Bullock and W. Heiligenberg), pp. 225-256. New
York: Wiley.
Bodznick, D. and Schmidt, A. W. (1984). Somatotopy within the medullary
electrosensory nucleus of the little skate, Raja erinacea. The Journal of Comparative
Neurology 225, 581-590.
Bodznick, D. A. and Northcutt, R. G. (1984). An electrosensory area in the
telencephalon of the little skate, Raja erinacea. Brain research 298, 117-124.
Brown, B. (2010). Temperature response in electrosensors and thermal voltages
in electrolytes. Journal of Biological Physics 36, 121-134.
Brown, B. R. (2002). Modeling an electrosensory landscape behavioral and
morphological optimization in elasmobranch prey capture. Journal of Experimental
Biology 205, 999-1007.
Bush, A. and Holland, K. (2002). Food limitation in a nursery area: estimates of
daily ration in juvenile scalloped hammerheads, Sphyrna lewini (Griffith and Smith,
38
1834) in K ne'ohe Bay, 'ahu, Hawai'i. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 278, 157-178.
Camperi, M., Tricas, T. C. and Brown, B. R. (2007). From morphology to
neural information: the electric sense of the skate. PLoS Comput. Biol 3, 1–14.
Collin, S. P. and Whitehead, D. (2004). The functional roles of passive
electroreception in non-electric fishes. Animal biology 54, 1-25.
Daniels, C. I. (1967). The distribution, morphology, and innervation of the
ampullae of Lorenzini in the hammerhead shark and other species: Master’s thesis,
University of Hawaii.
Duncan, K. and Holland, K. (2006). Habitat use, growth rates and dispersal
patterns of juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini in a nursery habitat.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 312, 211-221.
Fields, R. D., Fields, K. D. and Fields, M. C. (2007). Semiconductor gel in
shark sense organs? Neuroscience letters 426, 166-170.
Haine, O. S., Ridd, P. V. and Rowe, R. J. (2001). Range of electrosensory
detection of prey by Carcharhinus melanopterus and Himantura granulata. Marine and
Freshwater Research 52, 291-296.
Kajiura, S. M. (2001). Head morphology and electrosensory pore distribution of
carcharhinid and sphyrnid sharks. Environmental Biology of Fishes 61, 125-133.
Kajiura, S. M. and Fitzgerald, T. P. (2009). Response of juvenile scalloped
hammerhead sharks to electric stimuli. Zoology.
Kajiura, S. M. and Holland, K. N. (2002). Electroreception in juvenile scalloped
hammerhead and sandbar sharks. Journal of Experimental Biology 205, 3609-3621.
39
Kalmijn, A. D. (2000). Detection and processing of electromagnetic and near-
field acoustic signals in elasmobranch fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 355, 1135.
Kalmijn, A. J. (1966). Electro-perception in sharks and rays. Nature 212, 1232-
1233.
Kalmijn, A. J. (1974). The detection of electric fields from inanimate and
animate sources other than electric organs. Handbook of sensory physiology 3.
Kalmijn, A. J. (1982). Electric and magnetic field detection in elasmobranch
fishes. Science 218, 916-918.
Loewenstein, W. and Ishiko, N. (1962). Sodium chloride sensitivity and
electrochemical effects in a Lorenzinian ampulla. Nature 194, 292-294.
Lorenzini, S. (1678). Osservazioni intorno alle torpedini: per l'Onofri.
Mello, W. (2009). The electrosensorial pore system of the cephalofoil in the four
most common species of hammerhead shark (Elasmobranchii: Sphyrnidae) from the