Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Spider vibration receptors: Threshold curves of individual slits in the metatarsal lyriform organ

Summary

The compound slit sense organ (lyriform organ) on the distal end of the spider metatarsus is highly vibration sensitive. Both its morphology and its topography are well adapted to perceive substrate vibrations picked up by the tarsus (Figs. 2, 3). We present threshold curves measured with carefully controlled sine-wave stimulation at frequencies from 0.1 Hz to 1 kHz (Fig. 1). They were determined individually for about half of the 21 slits which make up this organ.

  1. 1.

    In all cases and in all slits studied the receptors behave like high-pass filters with relatively low sensitivity of 10−3 cm to 10−2 cm up to ca. 40 Hz, and steeply decreasing threshold displacement down to 10−7 cm at 1 kHz. At low frequencies up to about 40 Hz (in some slits only 1 Hz) the threshold curves follow roughly constant displacement whereas at higher frequencies they follow roughly constant acceleration (Fig. 4). Variation in both the direction of tarsal displacement (either dorsoventral or lateral) and in the kind of coupling between the tarsus and the vibrator only moderately affects the tuning curve shapes.

  2. 2.

    No marked tuning of the slits to limited frequency ranges was found in any of our experiments, including cases where the tarsus was not firmly coupled to the vibrating substratum as it would under natural conditions. With loose coupling there is only a slight shift towards lower sensitivity below 10 Hz (Fig. 6).

  3. 3.

    All slits tested responded to lateral as well as to dorsoventral displacement of the tarsus. Threshold curves are essentially similar in shape and absolute values except for small dips between 600 Hz and 1 kHz found with two of the four slits tested and indicating slight resonances (Fig. 7).

  4. 4.

    Despite the overall similarity there are differences in the tuning curves of the various slits of the same organ. These differences are as large as 1.5 orders of magnitude at a certain frequency, and may form the basis for at least a crude frequency discrimination which depends on the ability of the central nervous system to recognize the changing activity pattern of several or all slits in this compound organ (Fig. 5).

  5. 5.

    Except for a few strictly phasic slits, the majority of the slits studied shows a slow decline of responses to sustained deflection of the tarsus. Vibration sensitivity is therefore not regarded as the full function of the metatarsal lyriform organ. An additional proprioceptive function monitoring tarsal movement during locomotion is suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barth FG (1967) Ein einzelnes Spaltsinnesorgan auf dem Spinnentarsus: seine Erregung in Abhängigkeit von den Parametern des Luftschallreizes. Z Vergl Physiol 55:407–449

  2. Barth FG (1972a) Die Physiologie der Spaltsinnesorgane. I. Modellversuche zur Rolle des cuticularen Spaltes beim Reiztransport. J Comp Physiol 78:315–336

  3. Barth FG (1972b) Die Physiologie der Spaltsinnesorgane. I. Funktionelle Morphologie eines Mechanorezeptors. J Comp Physiol 81:159–186

  4. Barth FG (1981) Strain detection in the arthropod exoskeleton. In: Laverack MS, Cosens DJ (eds) Sense organs. Blackie, Glasgow, pp 112–141

  5. Barth FG (1982) Spiders and vibratory signals: Sensory reception and behavioral significance. In: Witt PN, Rovner JS (eds) Spider communication: mechanisms and ecological significance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 67–122

  6. Barth FG, Bohnenberger J (1978) Lyriform slit sense organ: threshold and stimulus amplitude ranges in a multi-unit mechanoreceptor. J Comp Physiol 125:37–43

  7. Barth FG, Libera W (1970) Ein Atlas der Spaltsinnesorgane vonCupiennius salei Keys. (Chelicerata, Araneae). Z Morphol Ökol Tiere 68:343–369

  8. Barth FG, Pickelmann HP (1975) Lyriform slit sense organs in spiders. Modelling an arthropod mechanoreceptor. J Comp Physiol 103:39–54

  9. Barth FG, Seyfarth EA (1979)Cupiennius salei Keys. (Araneae) in the highlands of central Guatemala. J Arachnol 7:255–263

  10. Bleckmann H, Schwartz E (1982) The functional significance of frequency modulation within a wave train for prey localization in the surface-feeding fishAplocheilus lineatus (Cyprinodontidae). J Comp Physiol 145:331–339

  11. Bleckmann H, Topp G (1981) Surface wave sensitivity of the lateral line system of the topminnowAplocheilus lineatus. Naturwissenschaften 68:624–625

  12. Bohnenberger J (1981) Matched transfer characteristics of single units in a compound slit sense organ. J Comp Physiol 142:391–402

  13. Görner P, Andrews P (1969) Trichobothrien, ein Ferntastsinnesorgan bei Webspinnen (Araneen). Z Vergl Physiol 64:301–317

  14. Klärner D, Barth FG (1982) Vibratory signals and prey capture in orb-weaving spiders (Zygiella x-notata, Nephila clavipes; Araneidae). J Comp Physiol (in press)

  15. Lang HH (1980a) Surface wave discrimination between prey and non-prey by the back swimmerNotonecta glauca L. (Hemiptera, Heteroptera). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 6:233–246

  16. Lang HH (1980b) Surface wave sensitivity of the back swimmerNotonecta glauca. Naturwissenschaften 67:204–205

  17. Liesenfeld FJ (1956) Untersuchungen am Netz und über den Erschütterungssinn vonZygiella x-notata (Cl.) (Araneidae). Z Vergl Physiol 38:563–592

  18. Liesenfeld FJ (1961) Über Leistung und Sitz des Erschütterungssinnes von Netzspinnen. Biol Zentralbl 80:465–475

  19. Masters WM, Markl H (1981) Vibration signal transmission in spider orb webs. Science 213:363–365

  20. Melchers M (1963) Zur Biologie und zum Verhalten vonCupiennius salei (Keyserling), einer amerikanischen Ctenide. Zool Jahrb Abt Syst Ökol Geogr Tiere 91:1–90

  21. Reißland A (1978) Electrophysiology of trichobothria in orbweaving Spiders (Agelenidae, Araneae). J Comp Physiol 123:71–84

  22. Reißland A, Görner P (1978) Mechanics of trichobothria in orb-weaving spiders (Agelenidae, Araneae). J Comp Physiol 123:59–69

  23. Rovner JS, Barth FG (1981) Vibratory communication through living plants by a tropical wandering spider. Science 214:464–466

  24. Speck J, Barth FG (1982) Vibration sensitivity of pretarsal slit sensilla in the spider leg. J Comp Physiol 148:187–194

  25. Walcott Ch (1963) The effect of the web on vibration sensitivity in the spiderAchaearanea tepidariorum (Koch). J Exp Biol 40:595–611

  26. Walcott Ch, Kloot WG van der (1959) The physiology of the spider vibration receptor. J Exp Zool 141:191–244

Download references

Author information

Additional information

Dedicated to Prof. Dr.Dr. h.c. Hansjochem Autrum on the occasion of his 75th birthday. He lured me into spider work many years ago

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barth, F.G., Geethabali Spider vibration receptors: Threshold curves of individual slits in the metatarsal lyriform organ. J. Comp. Physiol. 148, 175–185 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00619124

Download citation

Keywords

  • Tuning Curve
  • Frequency Discrimination
  • Threshold Curve
  • Threshold Displacement
  • Proprioceptive Function