Mantis Shrimp: Olfactory Apparatus and Chemosensory Behavior

Chapter

Abstract

Mantis shrimp (stomatopods) are known to recognize individuals, but this ability varies with species, with reproductive mode, and with the degree of competition for burrow space. In this chapter, we describe the sensory basis, focusing on chemosensory sensilla (aesthetascs) located on the antennules, that allowed the evolution of the intricate communication system found in stomatopods. The efficiency of these chemosensors is supported by self-generated currents, which mantis shrimp employ to both send and receive chemical information. Multiple behavioral experiments, involving paired aggressive contests or studies of mating pairs, highlight the robust abilities of several stomatopod species to both recognize and remember individual opponents and mates. The extent of these capacities can be understood within the context of each species’ social and mating systems. Among the main factors selecting for individual recognition, we identified the limited supply of suitable dwellings and the high possibility of repeated encounters among individuals. These, together with powerful weapons (that could inflict lethal damage) and high site fidelity, have led to the evolution of diverse mating systems, some of which (monogamy, for example) facilitate the evolution of individual recognition. Chemical signaling is essential for this, but it is also employed in other contexts: signals indicate sex but not sexual receptiveness, and some species exploit this fact to deceive and to gain access to burrows during mating encounters. Based on our results we suggest that the signaling mechanisms and chemical recognition systems are highly developed in stomatopods, but might also have evolved in other crustaceans that are exposed to similar selective pressures. We end with a projection of future work, focusing on experiments that could improve our understanding of signaling mechanisms, the role of multimodal signaling, and the opportunity to investigate deception and its role in sexual conflict.

References

  1. Boltaña S, Thiel M (2001) Associations between two species of snapping shrimp Alpheus inca and Alpheopsis chilensis (Decapoda: Caridea: Alpheidae). J Mar Biol Assoc UK 81:633–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Breithaupt T (2001) Fan organs of crayfish enhance chemical information flow. Biol Bull 200:150–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Breithaupt T, Eger P (2002) Urine makes the difference: chemical communication in fighting crayfish made visible. J Exp Biol 205:1221–1231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell RL (1979) Cavity occupation and defensive behaviour in the mantis shrimp Gonodactylus festae: evidence for chemically mediated individual recognition. Anim Behav 27:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldwell RL (1982) Interspecific chemically mediated recognition in two competing stomatopods. Mar Behav Physiol 8:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caldwell RL (1985) A test of individual recognition in the mantis shrimp Gonodactylus festae. Anim Behav 33:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldwell RL (1986) Withholding information on sexual condition as a competitive mechanism. In: Drickamer LC (ed) Behavioral ecology and population biology. Privat, Toulouse, pp 83–88Google Scholar
  8. Caldwell RL (1987) Assessment strategies in stomatopods. Bull Mar Sci 41:135–150Google Scholar
  9. Caldwell RL (1991) Variation in reproductive behavior in stomatopod crustacean. In: Bauer RT, Martin JW (eds) Crustacean sexual biology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 67–90Google Scholar
  10. Caldwell RL (1992) Recognition, signaling, and reduced aggression between former mates in a stomatopod. Anim Behav 44:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caldwell RL, Dingle H (1976) Stomatopods. Sci Am 234:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cate HS, Derby CD (2001) Morphology and distribution of setae on the antennules of the Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus reveal new types of bimodal chemo-mechanosensilla. Cell Tissue Res 304:349–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheroske AG, Cronin TW, Durham MF, Caldwell RL (2009) Adaptive signaling behavior in stomatopods under varying light conditions. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 42:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christy JH, Salmon M (1991) Comparative studies of reproductive behavior in mantis shrimps and fiddler crabs. Am Zool 31:329–337Google Scholar
  15. Derby CD, Fortier JK, Harrison PJH, Cate HS (2003) The peripheral and central antennular pathway of the Caribbean stomatopod crustacean Neogonodactylus oerstedii. Arthropod Struct Dev 32:175-–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Detto T, Backwell PRY (2009) Social monogamy in a fiddler crab Uca capricornus. J Crust Biol 29:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dingle H (1983) Strategies of agonistic behavior in Crustacea. In: Rebach S, Dunham DW (eds) Studies in adaptation: the behavior of higher crustacea. New York, Wiley, pp 85–111Google Scholar
  18. Duffy JE (2007) The evolution of eusociality in sponge-dwelling shrimp. In: Duffy JE, Thiel M (eds) Evolutionary ecology of social and sexual systems: crustaceans as model organisms. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 387–409Google Scholar
  19. Gherardi F, Tricarico E (2007) Can hermit crabs recognize social partners by odors? And why? Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 40:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gleeson RA (1982) Morphological and behavioral identification of the sensory structures mediating pheromone reception in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Biol Bull 163:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gleeson RA, Carr WES, Trapido-Rosenthal HG (1993) Morphological characteristics facilitating stimulus access and removal in the olfactory organ of the spiny lobster. Panulirus argus: insight from the design. Chem Senses 18:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hallberg E, Johansson KUI, Elofsson R (1992) The aesthetasc concept: structural variations of putative olfactory receptor cell complexes in Crustacea. Micros Res Tech 22:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horner AJ, Weissburg MJ, Derby CD (2004) Dual antennular chemosensory pathways can mediate orientation by Caribbean spiny lobsters in naturalistic flow conditions. J Exp Biol 207:3785–3796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson ME, Atema J (2005) The olfactory pathway for individual recognition in the American lobster Homarus americanus. J Exp Biol 208:2865–2872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Katija K, Dabiri JO (2008) In situ field measurements of aquatic animal-fluid interactions using a self-contained underwater velocimetry apparatus (SCUVA). Limnol Oceanogr Methods 6:162–171Google Scholar
  26. Marshall J, Cronin TW, Kleinlogel S (2007) Stomatopod eye structure and function: a review. Arthropod Struct Dev 36:420–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mead K, Koehl MAR (2000) Particle image velocimetry measurements of fluid flow through a model array of mantis shrimp chemosensory sensilla. J Exp Biol 203:3795–3808PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mead KS, Weatherby TM (2002) Morphology of mantis shrimp chemosensory sensilla facilitates fluid sampling. Invert Biol 121:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mead K, Koehl MAR, O’Donnell MJ (1999) Mantis shrimp sniffing: the scaling of chemosensory sensilla and flicking behavior with body size. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 241:235–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montgomery EL, Caldwell RL (1984) Aggressive brood defense by females in the stomatopod Gonodactylus bredini. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Patek SN, Caldwell RL (2005) Extreme impact and cavitation forces of a biological hammer: strike forces of the peacock mantis shrimp Odontodactylus scyllarus. J Exp Biol 208:3655–3664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rufino MM, Jones DA (2001) Binary individual recognition in Lysmata debelius. J Crust Biol 21:388–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stacey MT, Mead KS, Koehl MAR (2003) Molecular capture by olfactory antennules: mantis shrimp. J Math Biol 44:1–30Google Scholar
  34. Wickler W (1973) Biology of Hymenocera picta Dana. Micronesica 9:225–230Google Scholar
  35. Wickler W, Seibt U (1981) Monogamy in crustacean and man. Z Tierpsychol 57:215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson JR, Kuehn RE, Beach FA (1963) Modification in the sexual behavior of male rats produced by changing the stimulus female. J Comp Physiol Psychol 56:636–644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyDenison UniversityGranvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations