Advertisement

Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 189–202 | Cite as

Evidence forE-vector and light intensity pattern discrimination by the teleostDermogenys

  • Richard B. ForwardJr.
  • Talbot H. Waterman
Article

Summary

  1. 1.

    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.

     
  2. 2.

    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).

     
  3. 3.

    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).

     
  4. 4.

    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.

     
  5. 5.

    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).

     

Keywords

Azimuth Positive Sign Preferential Orientation Light Beam Total Count 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blaxter, J. H. S.: Visual thresholds and spectral sensitivity of herring larvae J. exp. Biol.48, 39–53 (1968)Google Scholar
  2. Blaxter, J. H. S.: Brightness discrimination in larvae of plaice and sole. J. exp. Biol.57, 693–700 (1972)Google Scholar
  3. Dill, P. A.: Perception of polarized light by yearling sockeye salmon. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada28, 1319–1322 (1971)Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Hester, F. J.: Visual contrast thresholds of the goldfish (Carassius auratus). Vision Res.8, 1315–1335 (1968)Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Pang, P. K. T.: Light sensitivity of the pineal gland in blindedFundulus heteroclitus. Amer. Zoologist5, 682 (1965)Google Scholar
  13. Rockwell, R. F., Seiger, M. B.: Phototaxis inDrosophila: a critical evaluation. Amer. Sci.61, 339–346 (1973)Google Scholar
  14. Schmidt, W. J.: Doppelbrechung, Diohroismus und Feinbau des Außengliedes der Sehzellen vom Frosch. Z. Zellforsch.22, 485–522 (1935)Google Scholar
  15. Snyder, A. W.: How fish detect polarized light. Invest. Ophthal.12, 78–79 (1973)Google Scholar
  16. Strackee, L.: Dichroism in the retina at −19 °C. Vision Res.10, 925–938 (1970)Google Scholar
  17. Taylor, D. H., Adler, K.: Spatial orientation by salamanders using plane polarized light. Science,181, 285–287 (1973)Google Scholar
  18. Waterman, T. H.: The problem of polarized light sensitivity. (Abstr.) XV. Internat. Cong. Zool., London, 1958, Proc., p. 537–539 (1959)Google Scholar
  19. Waterman, T. H.: Interaction of polarized light and turbidity in the orientation ofDaphnia andMysidium. Z. vergl. Physiol.43, 149–172 (1960)Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Waterman, T. H., Forward, R. B., Jr.: Field evidence for polarized light sensitivity in the fishZenarchopterus. Nature (Lond.)288, 85–87 (1970)Google Scholar
  24. Waterman, T. H., Forward, R. B., Jr.: Field demonstration of polarotaxis in the fishZenarchopterus. J. exp. Zool.180, 33–54 (1972)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard B. ForwardJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  • Talbot H. Waterman
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentYale UniversityNew Haven
  2. 2.Duke University Marine LaboratoryBeaufortUSA

Personalised recommendations