Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 271–276 | Cite as

Chemical detection of “self” and conspecifics by crayfish

  • R. D. Rose


Stimulus waters were used to examine behaviorally chemical communication in female crayfishProcambarus clarkii. Animals detected conspecifics. Response to stimulus water drawn from the animal's own tank, “self ” water, mimicked either response to distilled water or response to water drawn from the tank of another animal. The response to “self” water depended on the relative concentration of substance(s) in “self” water stimuli to that of the same substance(s) in the test animal's tank.

Key words

Chemical detection chemical communication self recognition Procambarus clarkii crayfish 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ameyaw-Akumfi, C., andHazlett, B.A. 1975. Sex recognition in the crayfishProcambarus clarkil.Science 190:1225–1226.Google Scholar
  2. Caldwell, R.L. 1985. A test of individual recognition in the stomopodGonodactylus festae.Anim. Behav. 33:101–106.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, S.B. 1969. Experiments on homing in the limpetSiphonaria normalis.Anim. Behav. 17:679–682.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, A., Bamford, O.S., Freeman, J.D.B., andTeideman, D.J. 1969. A study of the homing habit of the limpet.Anim. Behav. 17:330–339.Google Scholar
  5. Dunham, P.J. 1978. Sex pheromones in Crustacea.Biol. Rev. 53:555–583.Google Scholar
  6. Hazlett, B.A. 1984. Experimental design and ecological realism.J. Chem. Ecol. 10:1281–1282.Google Scholar
  7. Hazlett, B.A. 1985. Chemical detection of sex and condition in the crayfishOrconectes virilis.J. Chem. Ecol. 11:181–189.Google Scholar
  8. Ilse, D.R. 1955. Olfactory marking in two young male loris,Loris tardigradus lydekkerianus, kept in captivity in Poona.Br. J. Anim. Behav. 3:118–120.Google Scholar
  9. Itagaki, H., andThorp, J.H. 1981. Laboratory experiments to determine if crayfish can communicate chemically in a flow-through system.J. Chem. Ecol. 7:115–126.Google Scholar
  10. Kleiman, D. 1966. Scent marking in the Canidae.Symp. Zool. Soc. London 18:167–177.Google Scholar
  11. Lecomte, J. 1956. Über die Bildung von “Strassen” durch Sammelbienen, deren Stock um 180 ° gedrecht wurde.Z. Beinenforsch. 3:128–133.Google Scholar
  12. Little, E.E. 1975. Chemical communication in maternal behaviour of crayfish.Nature 255:400–401.Google Scholar
  13. Markl, H. 1985. Manipulation, modulation, information, cognition: Some of the riddles of communication, pp. 163–194,in E. Hölldobler and M. Lindauer (eds.). Experimental Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (Fortschritte der Zoologie, Band 31), Gustav-Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 488 pp.Google Scholar
  14. McCumber, L.J., andClem, L.W. 1983. Recognition of non-self in crustaceans.Am. Zool 23:173–183.Google Scholar
  15. Quinn, T.P., andBusack, C.A. 1985. Chemosensory recognition of siblings in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).Anim. Behav. 33:51–56.Google Scholar
  16. Rose, R.D. 1982. On the nature of chemical communication by crayfish in a laboratory controlled flow-through system.J. Chem. Ecol. 8:1065–1071.Google Scholar
  17. Rose, R.D. 1984. Chemical communication in crayfish: Physiological ecology, realism and experimental design.J. Chem. Ecol. 10:1289–1291.Google Scholar
  18. Rose R.D., andCasper, K. 1980. Pheromonal recognition of the female crayfish,Procambarus clarkii.Am. Zool. 20:853.Google Scholar
  19. Seitz, E. 1969. Die Bedeutung geruchlicher Orientierung beimPlumplori nycticebus coucang Boddaert 1758 (Prosimii, Lorisidae).Z. Tierpsychol. 26:73–103.Google Scholar
  20. Teague, P., andFriou, G. 1964. Lack of immunological responses by an invertebrate.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 12:471–478.Google Scholar
  21. Thorp, J.H. 1978. Agonistic behavior in crayfish in relation to temperature and reproductive period.Oecologia 36:273–280.Google Scholar
  22. Thorp, J.H. 1984. Theory and practice in crayfish communication studies.J. Chem. Ecol. 10:1283–1287.Google Scholar
  23. Thorp, J.H., andItagakj, H. 1982. Verification versus falsification of existing theory: Analysis of possible chemical communication in crayfish.J. Chem. Ecol. 8:1073–1077.Google Scholar
  24. Tierney, A.J., andDunham, D.W. 1982. Chemical communication in the reproductive isolation of the crayfishesOrconectes propinquus andOrconectes virilis (Decapoda, Cambridae).J. Crust. Biol. 2:544–548.Google Scholar
  25. Tierney, A.J., Thompson, C.S., andDunham, D.W. 1984. Site of pheromone reception in the crayfishOrconectes propinquus (Decopoda, Cambridae).J. Crust. Biol. 4:554–559.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. D. Rose
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyEmory UniversityAtlanta

Personalised recommendations