Fisheries Science

, Volume 74, Issue 4, pp 781–786 | Cite as

Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst

Article

Abstract

The cephalopod receptor of particle motion was identified. In a previous study, it was suggested that statocysts served this function, but there was no direct supporting evidence, and epidermal hair cells had not been conclusively ruled out. Experiments on Octopus ocellatus were conducted using respiratory activity as an indicator of sound perception. Intact animals clearly responded to 141-Hz particle motion at particle accelerations below 1.3×10−3 m/s2, and the mean perception threshold at this frequency was approximately 6.0×10−4 m/s2. Specimens in which the statoliths had been surgically removed did not show any response for accelerations up to 3.9×10−3 m/s2 at 141 Hz, which was approximately 16 dB greater than the mean perception threshold at this frequency. Specimens that had undergone a control operation in which the statoliths remained intact showed positive responses at 2.8×10−3 m/s2 for the same frequency stimulus. This indicates that the statocyst, which is morphologically similar to the inner ear system in fish, is responsible for the observed responses to particle motion in O. ocellatus. This is the first direct evidence that cephalopods detect kinetic sound components using statocysts.

Key Words

cephalopod hearing octopus particle motion statocyst 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sand O. The lateral line and sound reception. In: Tavolga WN, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds). Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1981; 459–480.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers PH, Cox M. Underwater sound as a biological stimulus. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds). Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1988; 131–149.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coombs S, Janssen J, Montgomery J. Functional and evolutionary implications of peripheral diversity in lateral line systems. In: Webster DB, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds). The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1992; 267–294.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karlsen HE. The inner ear is responsible for detection of infrasound in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). J. Exp. Biol. 1992; 171: 163–172.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sand O, Karlsen HE. Detection of infrasound by the Atlantic cod. J. Exp. Biol., 1986; 125: 197–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalmijn AJ. Hydrodynamic and acoustic field detection. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds). Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1988; 83–130.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Popper AN, Rogers PH, Saidel WM, Cox M. Role of the fish ear in sound processing. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds). Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1988; 687–710.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Young JZ. The statocysts of Octopus vulgaris. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1960; 152: 3–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budelmann BU, Bleckmann H. A lateral line analogue in cephalopods: water waves generate microphonic potentials in the epidermal head lines of Sepia and Lolliguncula. J. Comp. Physiol. A 1988; 164: 1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maturana HR, Sperling S. Unidirectional response to angular acceleration recorded from the middle cristal nerve in the statocyst of Octopus vulgaris. Nature 1963; 197: 815–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Budelmann BU, Williamson R. Directional sensitivity of hair cell afferents in the Octopus statocyst. J. Exp. Biol. 1994; 187: 245–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williamson R. Vibration sensitivity in the statocyst of the northern octopus, Eledone cirrosa. J. Exp. Biol. 1988; 134: 451–454.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williamson R, Budelmann BU. The response of the Octopus angular acceleration receptor system to sinusoidal stimulation. J. Comp. Physiol. A 1985; 156: 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Packard A, Karlsen HE, Sand O. Low-frequency hearing in cephalopods. J. Comp. Physiol. A 1990; 166: 501–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaifu K, Segawa S, Tsuchiya K. Behavioral responses to underwater sound in the small benthic octopus Octopus ocellatus. J. Mar. Acoust. Soc. Jpn 2007; 34: 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Packard A, Trueman ER. Muscular activity of the mantle of Sepia and Loligo (Cephalopoda) during respiratory movements and jetting, and its physiological interpretation. J. Exp. Biol. 1974; 61: 411–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lovell JM, Findlay MM, Moate RM, Yan HY. The hearing abilities of the prawn Palaemon serratus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 2005; 140: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Budelmann BU. Hearing in nonarthropod invertebrates. In: Webster DB, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds). The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1992; 141–155.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anken RH, Rahmann H. Gravitational zoology: how animals use and cope with gravity. In: Horneck G, Baumstark-Khan C (eds). Astrobiology: The Quest for the Conditions of Life. Springer, Berlin. 2002; 314–332.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Vries HI. Physical aspects of the sense organs. In: Butler JAV (ed.). Progress in Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry. Pergamon Press, London. 1956; 208–264.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maniwa Y. Attraction of bony fish, squid and crab by sound. In: Schuijf A, Hawkins AD (eds). Sound Reception in Fish. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 1976; 271–283.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanlon RT, Budelmann BU. Why cephalopods are probably not ‘deaf’. Am. Nat. 1987; 129: 312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karlsen HE. Infrasound sensitivity in the plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). J. Exp. Biol. 1992; 171: 173–187.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sand O, Karlsen HE. Detection of infrasound and linear acceleration in fishes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2000; 355: 1295–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Fisheries Science 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ocean SciencesTokyo University of Marine Science and TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.National Research Institute of Fisheries EngineeringFisheries Research AgencyKamisu, IbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations