Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 44, Issue 12, pp 1084–1100 | Cite as

What Can Computational Modeling Tell Us about the Diversity of Odor-Capture Structures in the Pancrustacea?

  • Lindsay D. Waldrop
  • Yanyan He
  • Shilpa Khatri
Article

Abstract

A major transition in the history of the Pancrustacea was the invasion of several lineages of these animals onto land. We investigated the functional performance of odor-capture organs, antennae with olfactory sensilla arrays, through the use of a computational model of advection and diffusion of odorants to olfactory sensilla while varying three parameters thought to be important to odor capture (Reynolds number, gap-width-to-sensillum-diameter ratio, and angle of the sensilla array with respect to oncoming flow). We also performed a sensitivity analysis on these parameters using uncertainty quantification to analyze their relative contributions to odor-capture performance. The results of this analysis indicate that odor capture in water and in air are fundamentally different. Odor capture in water and leakiness of the array are highly sensitive to Reynolds number and moderately sensitive to angle, whereas odor capture in air is highly sensitive to gap widths between sensilla and moderately sensitive to angle. Leakiness is not a good predictor of odor capture in air, likely due to the relative importance of diffusion to odor transport in air compared to water. We also used the sensitivity analysis to make predictions about morphological and kinematic diversity in extant groups of aquatic and terrestrial crustaceans. Aquatic crustaceans will likely exhibit denser arrays and induce flow within the arrays, whereas terrestrial crustaceans will rely on more sparse arrays with wider gaps and little-to-no animal-induced currents.

Keywords

Olfaction Sensilla Insect Computational modeling Fluid dynamics Sniffing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the following funding sources: funds from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology to L. Waldrop; computational al- locations to L. Waldrop from the Extreme Scientific and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) TG-CDA160015 and TG-BIO170090; and funding to S. Khatri from the National Science Foundation Physics of Living Systems #1505061.

The authors wish to thank Swayamjit Ray, Anjel Helms, and Loren Rivera for organizing the “Chemical Ecology in the New Era of Technology” symposium; Laura Miller, Amneet Bhalla, and Boyce Griffith for help with IBAMR; David O’Neal at Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center for aid in computing; Sheila Patek, Philip Anderson, Jonathan Rader, and Dennis Evangelista for influential discussions regarding evolutionary biomechanics and two anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Ambrosio LJ, Brooks WR (2011) Recognition and use of ascidian hosts, and mate acquisition by the symbiotic pea crab Tunicotheres moseri (Rathbun, 1918): the role of chemical, visual and tactile cues. Symbiosis 53(2):53–61Google Scholar
  2. Anderson P, Patek S (2015) Mechanical sensitivity reveals evolutionary dynamics of mechanical systems. Proc Soc London B Biol Sci 282(1804):20143088Google Scholar
  3. Atema J (1995) Chemical signals in the marine-environment - dispersal, detection, and temporal signal analysis. PNAS 92(1):62–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhalla APS, Bale R, Griffith BE, Patankar NA (2013) A unified mathematical framework and an adaptive numerical method for fluid-structure interaction with rigid, deforming, and elastic bodies. J Comput Phys 250:446–476Google Scholar
  5. Bingman VP, Moore P (2017) Properties of the atmosphere in assisting and hindering animal navigation. In: Aeroecology, Springer, pp 119–143Google Scholar
  6. Bliss D, Mantel L (1968) Adaptations of crustaceans to land - a summary and analysis of new findings. Am Zool 8(3):673–685Google Scholar
  7. Cardé RT, Willis MA (2008) Navigational strategies used by insects to find distant, wind-borne sources of odor. J Chem Ecol 34(7):854–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheer A, Koehl M (1987a) Fluid-flow through filtering appendages of insects. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 4(3):185–199Google Scholar
  9. Cheer A, Koehl M (1987b) Paddles and rakes - fluid-flow through bristled appendages of small organisms. J Theor Biol 129(1):17–39Google Scholar
  10. Childs H, Brugger E, Whitlock B, Meredith J, Ahern S, Pugmire D, Biagas K, Miller M, Harrison C, Weber GH, Krishnan H, Fogal T, Sanderson A, Garth C, Bethel EW, Camp D, Rúbel O, Durant M, Favre JM, Navrátil P (2012) VisIt: an end-user tool for visualizing and analyzing very large data. In: High Performance Visualization–Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight, pp 357–372Google Scholar
  11. Derby CD (1982) Structure and function of cuticular sensilla of the lobster Homarus americanus. J Crustac Biol 2(1):1–21Google Scholar
  12. Derby CD, Weissburg MJ (2014) Nervous systems and control of behavior, vol 3, Natural History of the Crustaceans, chap The chemical senses and chemosensory ecology of crustaceans, pp 263–292Google Scholar
  13. Diaz H, Orihuela B, Forward R, Rittschof D (1999) Orientation of blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun), megalopae: responses to visual and chemical cues. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 233(1):25–40Google Scholar
  14. Dickman B, Webster D, Page J, Weissburg M (2009) Three-dimensional odorant concentration measurements around actively tracking blue crabs. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 7:96–108Google Scholar
  15. Gherardi F, Tricarico E (2007) Can hermit crabs recognize social partners by odors? And why? Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 40(3):201–212Google Scholar
  16. Gherardi F, Tricarico E, Atema J (2005) Unraveling the nature of individual recognition by odor in hermit crabs. J Chem Ecol 31(12):2877–2796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghiradella F, Case J, Cronshaw J (1968) Structure of aesthetascs in selected marine and terrestrial decapods - chemoreceptor morphology and environment. Am Zool 8(3):603–621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gleeson R (1980) Pheromone communication in the reproductive behavior of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Mar Behav Physiol 7(2):119–134Google Scholar
  19. Gleeson R, Hammar K, Smith P (2000a) Sustaining olfaction at low salinities: mapping ion flux associated with the olfactory sensilla of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus. J Exp Biol 203:3145–3152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gleeson R, McDowell L, Aldrich H, Hammar K, Smith P (2000b) Sustaining olfaction at low salinities: evidence for a paracellular route of ion movement from the hemolymph to the sensillar lymph in the olfactory sensilla of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus. Cell Tissue Res 301:423–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldman J, Patek S (2002) Two sniffing strategies in palinurid lobsters. J Exp Biol 205(24):3891–3902PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenaway P (2003) Terrestrial adaptations in the Anomura (Crustacea: Decapoda). Mem Mus Victoria 60(1):13–26Google Scholar
  23. Griffith BE (2009) An accurate and efficient method for the incompressible Navier- stokes equations using the projection method as a preconditioner. J Comput Phys 228(20):7565–7595Google Scholar
  24. Griffith BE, Lim S (2012) Simulating an elastic ring with bend and twist by an adaptive generalized immersed boundary method. Commun Comput Phys 12(2):433–461Google Scholar
  25. Griffith BE, Peskin CS (2005) On the order of accuracy of the immersed boundary method: higher order convergence rates for sufficiently smooth problems. J Comput Phys 208(1):75–105Google Scholar
  26. Grünert U, Ache B (1988) Ultrastructure of the aesthetasc (olfactory) sensilla of the spiny lobster Panulirus argus. Cell Tissue Res 251:95–103Google Scholar
  27. Hallberg E, Hansson BS (1999) Arthropod sensilla: morphology and phylogenetic considerations. Microsc Res Tech 47(6):428–439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hallberg E, Skog M (2011) Chemosensory sensilla in crustaceans. In: Breithaupt T, Theil M (eds) Chemical communication in crustaceans. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 103–121Google Scholar
  29. Hansson B, Harzsch S, Knaden M, Stensmyr M (2011) The neural and behavioral basis of chemical communication in terrestrial crustaceans. In: Breithaupt T, Theil M (eds) Chemical communication in crustaceans. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 149–173Google Scholar
  30. Harzsch S, Krieger J (2018) Crustacean olfactory systems: a comparative review and a crustacean perspective on insect olfactory systems. Prog Neurobiol 161:23–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphrey JA, Mellon D (2007) Analytical and numerical investigation of the flow past the lateral antennular flagellum of the crayfish Procambarus clarkii. J Exp Biol 210(17):2969–2978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kallemov B, Bhalla A, Griffith B, Donev A et al (2016) An immersed boundary method for rigid bodies. Comm Appl Math Comput Sci 11(1):79–141Google Scholar
  33. Kamio M, Derby CD (2017) Finding food: how marine invertebrates use chemical cues to track and select food. Nat Prod Rep 34(5):514–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Keil TA, Steinbrecht RA (1984) Mechanosensitive and olfactory sensilla of insects. In: Insect ultrastructure, Springer, pp 477–516Google Scholar
  35. Kepecs A, Powell I, Weissburg M (2006) The sniff as a unit of olfactory processing. Chem Senses 31(2):167–179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Koehl M (2006) The fluid mechanics of arthropod sniffing in turbulent odor plumes. Chem Senses 31(2):93–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Koehl M (2011) Hydrodynamics of sniffing by crustaceans. In: Breithaupt T, Theil M (eds) Chemical communication in crustaceans. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 85–102Google Scholar
  38. Koehl M, Koseff JR, Crimaldi JP, McCay MG, Cooper T, Wiley MB, Moore PA (2001) Lobster sniffing: antennule design and hydrodynamic filtering of information in an odor plume. Science 294(5548):1948–1951PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Krieger J, Braun P, Rivera NT, Schubart CD, Müller CH, Harzsch S (2015) Comparative analyses of olfactory systems in terrestrial crabs (Brachyura): evidence for aerial olfaction? PeerJ 3:e1433.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1433 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Legall N, Poupin J (n.d.) Internet - CRUSTA: Database of Crustacea (Decapoda and Stomatopoda), with special interest for those collected in French overseas territories. http://crustiesfroverseas.free.fr/
  41. LeVeque RJ (2007) Finite difference methods for ordinary and partial differential equations. Society of Industrial and Applied MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  42. López MF, Armendáriz-Toledano F, Sámano JEM, Shibayama-Salas M, Zúñiga G (2014) Comparative study of the antennae of Dendroctonus rhizophagus and Dendroctonus valens (Curculionidae: Scolytinae): Sensilla types, distribution and club shape. Ann Entomol Soc Am 107(6):1130–1143Google Scholar
  43. Loudon C, Best B, Koehl M (1994) When does motion relative to neighboring surfaces alter the flow-through arrays of hairs. J Exp Biol 193:233–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Loudon C, Best B, Koehl M (2000) Sniffing by a silkworm moth: wing fanning enhances air penetration through and pheromone interception by antennae. J Exp Biol 203:2977–2990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Mead K (2008) Do antennule and aesthetasc structure in the crayfish Orconectes virilis correlate with flow habitat? Integr Comp Biol 48(6):823–833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Mead K, Koehl M (2000) Stomatopod antennule design: the asymmetry, sampling efficiency and ontogeny of olfactory flicking. J Exp Biol 203(24):3795–3808PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Mead K, Koehl M, O’Donnell M (1999) Stomatopod sniffing: the scaling of chemosensory sensillae and flicking behavior with body size. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 241(2):235–261Google Scholar
  48. Mellon D, Reidenbach M (2012) Fluid mechanical problems in crustacean active chemoreception. In: Barth F, Humphrey J, Srinivasan M (eds) Frontiers in sensing: from biology to engineering, Springer Verlag, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  49. Moore P, Crimaldi J (2004) Odor landscapes and animal behavior: tracking odor plumes in different physical worlds. J Mar Syst 49:55–64Google Scholar
  50. Moore P, Kraus-Epley K (2013) The impact of odor and ambient flow speed on the kinematics of the crayfish antennular flick: implications for sampling turbulent odor plumes. J Crustac Biol 33(6):772–783Google Scholar
  51. Moore P, Scholz N, Atema J (1991) Chemical orientation of lobsters, Homarus americanus, in turbulent odor plumes. J Chem Ecol 17:1293–1307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Muñoz MM, Anderson PS, Patek S (2017) Mechanical sensitivity and the dynamics of evolutionary rate shifts in biomechanical systems. Proc R Soc B 284(1847):20162325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Murlis J, Elkinton JS, Cardé RT (1992) Odor plumes and how insects use them. Annu Rev Entomol 37(1):505–532Google Scholar
  54. Nelson J, Mellon D, Reidenbach M (2013) Effects of antennule morphology and flicking kinematics on flow and odor sampling by the freshwater crayfish, Procambarus clarkii. Chem Senses 38:729–741PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Page J, Dickman B, Webster D, Weissburg M (2011a) Getting ahead: context- dependent responses to odorant filaments drive along-stream progress during odor tracking in blue crabs. J Exp Biol 214:1498–1512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Page J, Weissburg M, Dickman D, Webster D (2011b) Staying the course: the role of chemical signal spatial properties in navigation through turbulent plumes. J Exp Biol 214:1513–1522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Pardieck R, Orth R, Diaz R, Lipcius R (1999) Ontogenetic changes in habitat use by postlarvae and young juveniles of the blue crab. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 186:277–238Google Scholar
  58. Patek S (2014) Biomimetics and evolution. Science 345(6203):1448–1449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Peskin CS (2002) The immersed boundary method. Acta Numer 11:479–517Google Scholar
  60. Pravin S, Reidenbach M (2013) Simultaneous sampling of flow and odorants by crustaceans can aid searches within a turbulent plume. Sensors 13:16591–16610PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Reidenbach M, Koehl M (2011) The spatial and temporal patterns of odors sampled by lobsters and crabs in a turbulent plume. J Exp Biol 214:3138–3153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Reidenbach M, George N, Koehl M (2008) Antennule morphology and flicking kinematics facilitate odour sampling by the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus. J Exp Biol 211:2849–2858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rittschof D, Sutherland J (1986) Field studies on chemically mediated behavior in land hermit crabs: volatile and nonvolatile odors. J Chem Ecol 12(6):1273–1284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmidt B, Ache B (1979) Olfaction: responses of a decapod crustacean are enhanced by flicking. Science 205:204–206Google Scholar
  65. Schneider R, Price B, Moore P (1998) Antennal morphology as a physical filter of olfaction: temporal tuning of the antennae of the honeybee, Apis mellifera. J Insect Physiol 44:677–684PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Schuech R, Stacey M, Barad M, Koehl M (2012) Numerical simulations of odorant detection by biologically inspired sensor arrays. Bioinspiration Biomimetics 7(1):016001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Sharma N, Chen Y, Patankar NA (2005) A distributed Lagrange multiplier based computational method for the simulation of particulate-stokes flow. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194(45–47):4716–4730Google Scholar
  68. Shu CW (1997) Essentially non-oscillatory and weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes for hyperbolic conservation law. Tech. rep., Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering, NASA Langley Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  69. Snow P (1973) Antennular activities of hermit crab, Pagurus alaskensis (Benedict). J Exp Biol 58:745–765Google Scholar
  70. Sobol IM (1993) Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Math Model Comput Experiment 1:407–414Google Scholar
  71. Sobol IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55:271–280Google Scholar
  72. Solari P, Sollai G, Masala C, Loy F, Palmas F, Sabatini A, Crnjar R (2017) Antennular morphology and contribution of aesthetascs in the detection of food- related compounds in the shrimp Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1837 (Decapoda: Palaemonidae). Biol Bull 232(2):110–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Stacey M, Mead K, Koehl M (2002) Molecule capture by olfactory antennules: Mantis shrimp. J Math Biol 44(1):1–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Stensmyr M, Erland S, Hallberg E, Wallen R, Greenaway P, Hansson B (2005) Insect-like olfactory adaptations in the terrestrial giant robber crab. Curr Biol 15(2):116–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Strikwerda JC (2004) Finite difference schemes and partial differential equations. Society for Industrial and Applied MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  76. Sudret B (2008) Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(7):964–979Google Scholar
  77. Team Research Development (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www.r-project.org/
  78. Wainwright PC (2007) Functional versus morphological diversity in macroevolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:381–401Google Scholar
  79. Wainwright P, Alfaro M, Bolnick D, Hulsey C (2005) Many-to-one mapping to form to function: a general principle in organismal design? Integr Comp Biol 45:256–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Waldrop L (2013) Ontogenetic scaling of the olfactory antennae and flicking behavior of the shore crab, Hemigrapsus oregonensis. Chem Senses 38(6):541–550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Waldrop L, Koehl M (2016) Do terrestrial hermit crabs sniff? Air flow and odorant capture by flicking antennules. J R Soc Interface 13(114):20150850.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0850 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Waldrop L, Bantay R, Nguyen Q (2014) Scaling of olfactory antennae of the terrestrial hermit crabs Coenobita rugosus and Coenobita perlatus during ontogeny. PeerJ 2:e535.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.535 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Waldrop L, Hann M, Henry A, Kim A, Punjabi A, Koehl M (2015a) Ontogenetic changes in the olfactory antennules of the shore crab, Hemigrapsus oregonensis, maintain sniffing function during growth. J R Soc Interface 12:20141077PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Waldrop L, Reidenbach M, Koehl M (2015b) Flexibility of crab chemosensory sensilla enables flicking antennules to sniff. Biol Bull 229(2):185–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Waldrop L, Miller L, Khatri S (2016) A tale of two antennules: the performance of crab odour-capture organs in air and water. J R Soc Interface 13:20160615PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. Webster D, Weissburg M (2009) The hydrodynamics of chemical cues among aquatic organisms. Anne Rev Fluid Mech 41:73–90Google Scholar
  87. Weissburg M (2000) The fluid dynamical context of chemosensory behavior. Biol Bull 198(2):188–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Weissburg M (2011) Chemical communication in crustaceans, Springer Verlag, New York, chap Waterborne Chemical Communication: Stimulus Dispersal Dynamics and Orientation Strategies in Crustaceans, pp 63–83Google Scholar
  89. Weissburg M, Atkins L, Berkenkamp K, Mankin D (2012) Dine or dash? Turbulence inhibits blue crab navigation in attractive–aversive odor plumes by altering signal structure encoded by the olfactory pathway. J Exp Biol 215:4175–4182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Wellins CA, Rittschof D, Wachowiak M (1989) Location of volatile odor sources by ghost Crabocypode quadrata (Fabricius). J Chem Ecol 15(4):1161–1169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Wiener N (1938) The homogeneous chaos. Am J Math 60(4):897–936Google Scholar
  92. Willis MA, Arbas EA (1991) Odor-modulated upwind flight of the sphinx moth, Manduca sexta. J Comp Physiol A 169(4):427–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Xiu D, Karniadakis G (2002) Modeling uncertainty in flow simulations via generalized polynomial chaos. J Comput Phys 187:137–167Google Scholar
  94. Zacharuk RY (1980) Ultrastructure and function of insect chemosensilla. Annu Rev Entomol 25:27–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Depatment of BiologyNew Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology SocorroSocorroUSA
  2. 2.Depatment of MathematicsNew Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology SocorroSocorroUSA
  3. 3.Applied Mathematics Unit School of Natural SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaMercedUSA

Personalised recommendations