Contact chemoreception in multi-modal sensing of prey by Octopus

Buresch, K. C.; Sklar, K.; Chen, J. Y.; Madden, S. R.; Mongil, A. S.; Wise, G. V.; Boal, J. G.; Hanlon, R. T.

doi:10.1007/s00359-022-01549-y

Original Paper
Published: 20 April 2022

Contact chemoreception in multi-modal sensing of prey by Octopus

Journal of Comparative Physiology A volume 208, pages 435–442 (2022)Cite this article

244 Accesses
1 Altmetric
Metrics details

Abstract

Octopuses have keen vision and are generally considered visual predators, yet octopuses predominantly forage blindly in nature, inserting their arms into crevices to search and detect hidden prey. The extent to which octopuses discriminate prey using chemo- versus mechano-tactile sensing is unknown. We developed a whole-animal behavioral assay that takes advantage of octopuses’ natural searching behavior to test their ability to discriminate prey from non-prey tastes solely via contact chemoreception. This methodology eliminated vision, mechano-tactile sensing and distance chemoreception while testing the contact chemosensory discriminatory abilities of the octopus arm suckers. Extracts from two types of prey (crab, shrimp) and three types of non-prey (sea star, algae, seawater) were embedded in agarose (to control for mechano-tactile discrimination) and presented to octopuses inside an artificial rock dome; octopuses reached their arms inside to explore its contents – imitating natural prey-searching behavior. Results revealed that octopuses are capable of discriminating between potential prey items using only contact chemoreception, as measured by an increased amount of sucker contact time and arm curls when presented with prey extracts versus non-prey extracts. These results highlight the importance of contact chemoreception in the multi-modal sensing involved in a complex foraging behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

Al-Soudy AS, Maselli V, Galdiero S, Kuba MJ, Polese G, Di Cosmo A (2021) Identification and characterization of a rhodopsin kinase gene in the suckers of Octopus vulgaris: Looking around using arms? Biology 10:936. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090936
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Altman JS (1971) Control of accept and reject reflexes in octopus. Nature 229:204–206. https://doi.org/10.1038/229204a0
CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
Ambrose RF, Nelson BV (1983) Predation by Octopus vulgaris in the Mediterranean. Mar Ecol 4:251–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1983.tb00299.x
Article Google Scholar
Boyle PR (1986) Responses to water-borne chemicals by the octopus Eledone cirrhosa (Lamarck, 1798). J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 104:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(86)90095-X
CAS Article Google Scholar
Budelmann BU (1996) Active marine predators: the sensory world of cephalopods. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 27:59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236249609378955
Article Google Scholar
Chase R, Wells MJ (1986) Chemotactic behaviour in Octopus. J Comp Physiol A 158:375–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00603621
Article Google Scholar
Forsythe JW, Hanlon RT (1988) Behavior, body patterning and reproductive biology of Octopus bimaculoides from California. Malacologia 29:41–55
Google Scholar
Forsythe JW, Hanlon RT (1997) Foraging and associated behavior by Octopus cyanea Gray, 1849 on a coral atoll, French Polynesia. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 209:15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(96)00057-3
Article Google Scholar
Fouke KE, Rhodes HJ (2020) Electrophysiological and motor responses to chemosensory stimuli in isolated cephalopod arms. Biol Bull 238:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1086/707837
CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
Graziadei P (1962) Receptors in the suckers of Octopus. Nature 195:57–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/195057a0
Article Google Scholar
Graziadei P (1964) Electron microscopy of some primary receptors in the sucker of Octopus vulgaris. Zeitschrift Für Zellforsch Und Mikroskopische Anat 64:510–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01045122
CAS Article Google Scholar
Hague T, Florini M, Andrews PLR (2013) Preliminary in vitro functional evidence for reflex responses to noxious stimuli in the arms of Octopus vulgaris. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 447:100–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.02.016
Article Google Scholar
Hanke FD, Kelber A (2020) The eye of the common octopus (Octopus vulgaris). Front Physiol 10:1637. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01637
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hanlon RT, Forsythe JW, Joneschild DE (1999) Crypsis, conspicuousness, mimicry and polyphenism as antipredator defences of foraging octopuses on Indo-Pacific coral reefs, with a method of quantifying crypsis from video tapes. Biol J Linn Soc 66:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/bijl.1998.0264
Article Google Scholar
Hanlon RT, Messenger JB (2018) Cephalopod Behaviour, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 365
Book Google Scholar
Katz I, Shomrat T, Nesher N (2021) Feel the light: sight-independent negative phototactic response in octopus arms. J Exp Biol 224:jeb237529. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.237529
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Kawashima S, Ikeda Y (2021) Evaluation of visual and tactile perception by plain-body Octopus (Callistoctopus aspilosomatis) of prey-like objects. Zool Sci 38:495–505. https://doi.org/10.2108/zs210037
Article Google Scholar
Kennedy EBL, Buresch KC, Boinapally P, Hanlon RT (2020) Octopus arms exhibit exceptional flexibility. Sci Rep 10:20872. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77873-7
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kuba MJ, Byrne RA, Meisel DV, Mather JA (2006) Exploration and habituation in intact free moving Octopus vulgaris. Int J Comp Psychol 19:426–438
Google Scholar
Lee PG (1992) Chemotaxis by Octopus maya Voss et Solis in a Y-maze. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 156:53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(92)90016-4
Article Google Scholar
Maselli V, Al-Soudy A-S, Buglione M, Aria M, Polese G, Di Cosmo A (2020) Sensorial hierarchy in Octopus vulgaris’s food choice: chemical vs. visual. Animals 10:457. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030457
Article PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mather JA, O’Dor RK (1991) Foraging strategies and predation risk shape the natural history of juvenile Octopus vulgaris. Bull Mar Sci 49:256–269
Google Scholar
van Giesen L, Kilian PB, Allard CAH, Bellono NW (2020) Molecular basis of chemotactile sensation in Octopus. Cell 183:594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.008
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Villanueva R, Perricone V, Fiorito G (2017) Cephalopods as predators: A short journey among behavioral flexibilities, adaptions, and feeding habits. Front Physiol 8:598. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00598
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Vincent TLS, Scheel D, Hough KR (1998) Some aspects of diet and foraging behavior of Octopus dofleini Wülker, 1910 in its northernmost range. Mar Ecol 19:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1998.tb00450.x
Article Google Scholar
Walderon MD, Nolt KJ, Haas RE, Prosser KN, Holm JB, Nagle GT, Boal JG (2011) Distance chemoreception and the detection of conspecifics in Octopus bimaculoides. J Molluscan Stud 77:309–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyr009
Article Google Scholar
Wells MJ (1962) Brain and behaviour in cephalopods. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto
Google Scholar
Wells MJ (1963) Taste by Touch: Some Experiments with Octopus. J Exp Biol 40:187–193. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.40.1.187
CAS Article Google Scholar
Wells MJ (1964) Detour experiments with Octopuses. J Exp Biol 41:621–642. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.41.3.621
Article Google Scholar
Wells MJ (1978) Octopus, physiology and behaviour of an advanced invertebrate. Endeavour 2:150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-9327(78)90018-2
Article Google Scholar
Yarnall JL (1969) Aspects of the behaviour of Octopus cyanea gray. Anim Behav 17:747–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(69)80022-9
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Lane Kennedy, Michelle Guo, Abby Hotaling, Izzy Roberge, and Jenny Grossman for animal care. Staff at the Marine Resources Center at MBL assisted with water quality measurements, seawater system maintenance, and collection of food items. Thanks to Chuck Winkler of Aquatic Research Consultants for collection and transport of octopuses to Massachusetts. Gwen McManus drew Figure 1. We benefitted from several pertinent suggestions by the anonymous reviews.

Funding

Research was supported by Grant N00014-19-1-2495 from the Office of Naval Research. We are grateful to Program Managers Tom McKenna and Marc Steinberg for their interest and assistance in this project.

Author information

K.C. Buresch and K. Sklar two authors have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, USA
K. C. Buresch & R. T. Hanlon
Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
K. Sklar, J. Y. Chen, S. R. Madden, A. S. Mongil & G. V. Wise
Millersville University, PO Box 1002, Millersville, PA, 17551, USA
J. G. Boal

Authors

K. C. Buresch
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
K. Sklar
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
J. Y. Chen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
S. R. Madden
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
A. S. Mongil
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
G. V. Wise
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
J. G. Boal
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
R. T. Hanlon
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RTH, KCB, ASM, SRM and JGB: designed the study. KS, JYC, GVW and KCB: conducted video analyses and data collection. KS and KCB: analyzed the data. KCB, KS, RTH and JGB: prepared the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. C. Buresch.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no competing or financial interests.

Ethical approval

In the United States, cephalopods are not included in federal regulations that govern the use of animals in research laboratories. Consequently, no protocol or approval number was required for this study; however, the care of the animals in this study adhered to The Marine Biological Laboratory’s Cephalopod Care Policy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handling Editor: Uwe Homberg.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (MOV 1292839 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buresch, K.C., Sklar, K., Chen, J.Y. et al. Contact chemoreception in multi-modal sensing of prey by Octopus. J Comp Physiol A 208, 435–442 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-022-01549-y

Download citation

Received: 03 February 2022
Revised: 12 March 2022
Accepted: 19 March 2022
Published: 20 April 2022
Issue Date: May 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-022-01549-y

Keywords

Sensory perception
Octopus bimaculoides
Behavior
Foraging
Suckers