Fisheries Science

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 350–355 | Cite as

The eyes of the common carp and Nile tilapia are sensitive to near-infrared

Article

Abstract

Fish biologists have shown little interest in near-infrared (NIR) sensitivity because water absorbs light in the red and near-infrared and because downward irradiance in clear ocean water is mostly blue light. In recent years, however, Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus was shown to be NIR sensitive by behavioral techniques. This study confirmed NIR sensitivity in the common carp Cyprinus carpio and Nile tilapia by using a more sensitive technique than a behavioral one. Cardiac conditioning experiments showed that both fishes are sensitive to 865 nm NIR. The conditioned response to 865 nm NIR was observed in Nile tilapia when the eyes were not covered and the pineal window was covered, but not when the same fish had its eyes covered and the pineal window exposed to the NIR. The eyes are thus, the NIR-sensitive organs in Nile tilapia. To identify the NIR photoreceptor, the retina was examined by histology. The retina exposed to 865 nm NIR showed incomplete dark adaptation with rods exposed from retinal epithelial pigment. Though the reaction to NIR seemed to be mediated mainly by the red cone, the involvement of the rod could not be ruled out.

Key Words

cardiac conditioning common carp eyes near-infrared sensitivity Nile tilapia pineal organ 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jerlov NG, Kinne O (ed). Marine Ecology. Vol. 1 Environmental Factors, Part 1. Willey, London, New York, Sydney, Toronto. 1970; 95–102.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffin DR, Hubbard R, Wald G. The sensitivity of the human eye to infra-red radiation. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1947; 37: 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brindley GS. The colour of light of very long wavelength. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 1955; 130: 35–44.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baylor DA, Nunn BJ, Schnapf JL. Spectral sensitivity of cones of the monkey Macaca fascicularis. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 1987; 390: 145–160.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kobayashi R, Endo M, Yoshizaki G, Takeuchi T. Sensitivity of tilapia to infrared light measured using a rotating striped drum differs between two strains. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 2002; 68: 646–651.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endo M, Kobayashi R, Ariga K, Yoshizaki G, Takeuchi T. Postural control in tilapia under microgravity and the near infrared irradiated conditions. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 2002; 68: 887–892.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishi T, Kawamura G, Matsumoto K. Magnetic sense in the Japanese eel, Anguilla japonica, as determined by conditioning and electrocardiography. J. Exp. Biol. 2004; 207: 2965–2970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kawamura G, Shibata A, Yonemori T. Response of teleosts to the plane of polarized light as determined by the heart rate. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 1981; 47: 727–729.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rommel SA, McCleave JD. Oceanic electric fields: perception by American eels? Science 1972; 176: 1233–1235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ali MA. Retinomotor responses. In: Ali MA (ed). Vision in Fishes. Plenum, New York, London. 1975; 313–355.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Govardovskii VI, Fyhrquist N, Reuter T, Kuzmin DG, Donner K. In search of the visual pigment template. Vis. Neurosci. 2000; 17: 509–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mooij JEM, van den Berg TJTP. The spectral shape of A2 visual pigments. Vision Res. 1983; 23: 701–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stiles WS. The physical interpretation of the spectral sensitivity curve of the eye. In: Transactions of the Optical Convention of the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers. Spectacle Makers Company, London. 1948; 97–107.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ali MA, Wagner HJ. Visual pigments: phylogeny and ecology. In: Ali MA (ed). Vision in Fishes. Plenum Press, New York. 1975; 481–516.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ebrey TG, Honig B. New wavelength dependent visual pigment nomograms. Vision Res. 1977; 17: 147–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dewan S, Saha SN. Food and feeding habits of Tilapia nilotica-(L) (Perciformes: Cichlidae). 2. Diel and seasonal patterns of feeding. Bangladesh. J. Zool. 1979; 7: 75–80.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boujard T. The circadian rythms of feeding activity in teleosts species. Cybium Suppl. 1999; 23: 89–112.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lythgoe JN. The Ecology of Vision. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richards EA. Contrast-enhancement in imaging devices by selection of input photosurface spectral response. Adv. Electron. Electron. Phys. 1969; 28B: 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walls GL. The Vertebrate Eye and Its Adaptive Radiation. Hafner Publishing Company, New York. 1967.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke GL, James HR. Laboratory analysis of the selective absorption of light by sea water. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1939; 29: 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burt WV. Selective transmission of light in tropical Pacific waters. Deep-Sea Res. 1958; 5: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jerlov NG. Marine Optics. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Fisheries Science 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of FisheriesKagoshima UniversityKagoshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations