Evidence forE-vector and light intensity pattern discrimination by the teleostDermogenys
Azimuth orientation in the halfbeak fishDermogenys was studied in the laboratory to find out whether its spontaneous heading directions in a vertical beam of linearly polarized light involve perception of thee-vectorper se or merely of concomitant light intensity patterns. Responses were tested with polarized and unpolarized light as well as with either a uniform white screen horizontally surrounding the experimental vessel or with one divided into black and white alternating quadrants.
Measured as counts within 10 °, 45 ° or 90 ° sectors through 180 ° the fish's azimuth orientation was random with unpolarized light and the white surround (Fig. 2).
In contrast significant preferential orientation was shown in the presence of linearly polarized light and the white surround (Fig. 3). The 10 ° sector centered on the plane of vibration had the most counts (Fig. 3A). Combining the data into four sectors each 45 ° in extent makes clear a significant predominance of orientation parallel to thee-vector (Fig. 3B) as do the total counts for parallel and perpendicular quadrants (Fig. 3D).
With the black and white quadrants combined with unpolarized light preferential orientation was clearly shown toward the light sectors (Fig. 4A, B). Since maximum differential scattering from a linearly polarized light beam is perpendicular to the plane of vibration the positive sign of this phototactic response ofDermogenys is evidence that the observed orientation parallel to thee-vector cannot also be a similar response to intensity pattern. Hence the plane of vibration must be perceived through a distinct information channel and polarotaxis is different from phototaxis.
Tests with linear polarized light combined with the black and white surround proved that phototaxis predominated over polarotaxis under our experimental conditions and that the interaction between the two types of behavior in this case was not a simple additive one (Fig. 4C-F).
KeywordsAzimuth Positive Sign Preferential Orientation Light Beam Total Count
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Blaxter, J. H. S.: Visual thresholds and spectral sensitivity of herring larvae J. exp. Biol.48, 39–53 (1968)Google Scholar
- Blaxter, J. H. S.: Brightness discrimination in larvae of plaice and sole. J. exp. Biol.57, 693–700 (1972)Google Scholar
- Dill, P. A.: Perception of polarized light by yearling sockeye salmon. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada28, 1319–1322 (1971)Google Scholar
- Fenwick, J. C.: Effects of pinealectomy and bilateral enucleation on the phototactic response and on conditioned response to light of the goldfish (Carassius auratus L.). Canad. J. Zool.48, 175–182 (1970)Google Scholar
- Forward, R. B., Jr., Horch, K. W., Waterman, T. H.: Visual orientation at the water surface by the teleostZenarchopterus. Biol. Bull.143, 112–126 (1972)Google Scholar
- Groot, C.: On the orientation of young sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) during their seaward migration out of the lakes. Behaviour, Suppl.14, 198 pp. (1965)Google Scholar
- Hafeez, M. A., Quay, W. B.: The role of the pineal organ in the control of phototaxis and body coloration in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson). Z. vergl. Physiol.68, 403–416 (1970)Google Scholar
- Hester, F. J.: Visual contrast thresholds of the goldfish (Carassius auratus). Vision Res.8, 1315–1335 (1968)Google Scholar
- Jander, R., Waterman, T. H.: Sensory discrimination between polarized light and light intensity patterns by arthropods. J. cell. comp. Physiol.56, 137–160 (1960)Google Scholar
- Kleerekoper, H., Matis, J. H., Timms, A. M., Gensler, P.: Locomotor response of the goldfishCarassius auratus to polarized light and itse-vector. J. comp. Physiol. in press (1973)Google Scholar
- Muntz, W. R. A., Northmore, D. P. M.: Vision and visual pigments in a fish,Scardinius erythriophthalmus (the rudd). Vision Res.10, 281–298 (1970)Google Scholar
- Pang, P. K. T.: Light sensitivity of the pineal gland in blindedFundulus heteroclitus. Amer. Zoologist5, 682 (1965)Google Scholar
- Rockwell, R. F., Seiger, M. B.: Phototaxis inDrosophila: a critical evaluation. Amer. Sci.61, 339–346 (1973)Google Scholar
- Schmidt, W. J.: Doppelbrechung, Diohroismus und Feinbau des Außengliedes der Sehzellen vom Frosch. Z. Zellforsch.22, 485–522 (1935)Google Scholar
- Snyder, A. W.: How fish detect polarized light. Invest. Ophthal.12, 78–79 (1973)Google Scholar
- Strackee, L.: Dichroism in the retina at −19 °C. Vision Res.10, 925–938 (1970)Google Scholar
- Taylor, D. H., Adler, K.: Spatial orientation by salamanders using plane polarized light. Science,181, 285–287 (1973)Google Scholar
- Waterman, T. H.: The problem of polarized light sensitivity. (Abstr.) XV. Internat. Cong. Zool., London, 1958, Proc., p. 537–539 (1959)Google Scholar
- Waterman, T. H.: Interaction of polarized light and turbidity in the orientation ofDaphnia andMysidium. Z. vergl. Physiol.43, 149–172 (1960)Google Scholar
- Waterman, T. H.: Visual direction finding by fishes. In: Animal Orientation and Navigation, A Symposium (S. R. Galler, K. Schmidt-Koenig, G. J. Jacobs and R. E. Belleville, eds.) p. 437–456. Washington: N.A.S.A. (1972)Google Scholar
- Waterman, T. H.: Specific effects of polarized light on animals In: Environmental biology (P. L. Altman and D. S. Dittmer, eds.), 2nd ed., Bethesda: Fed. Amer. Soc. Exp. Biol., in press.Google Scholar
- Waterman, T. H.: Polarimeters in animals. In: Planets, Stars and Nebulae studied with Photopolarimetry. (T. Gehreis, ed.). Tucson: Univ. Arizona, in press (1973b)Google Scholar
- Waterman, T. H., Forward, R. B., Jr.: Field evidence for polarized light sensitivity in the fishZenarchopterus. Nature (Lond.)288, 85–87 (1970)Google Scholar
- Waterman, T. H., Forward, R. B., Jr.: Field demonstration of polarotaxis in the fishZenarchopterus. J. exp. Zool.180, 33–54 (1972)Google Scholar