Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Behavioural relevance of AC and DC in prey detection by the brown bullhead, Ameiurus nebulosus

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Animal Biology
For more content, see Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie (Vol 1-17) and Netherlands Journal of Zoology (Vol 18-52).

A large range of aquatic vertebrates employs passive electroreception to detect the weak bioelectric fields that surround their prey. Bioelectric fields are dynamic in strength and frequency composition, but typically consist of a direct current (DC) and an alternating current (AC) component. We examined the biological relevance of these components for prey detection behaviour in the brown bullhead by means of a preference test. We gave each fish the choice between two small dipoles emitting a DC step or AC stimulus of variable strength, respectively. We used AC stimuli that were either representative for ventilatory movements by prey (1 Hz sine wave) or optimal for the ampullary electroreceptor cells (10 Hz sine wave). In an attempt to present a more complex stimulus, we also used slightly modified recordings of bioelectric prey fields, but this yielded no results. Brown bullheads prefer DC stimuli to 10 Hz sine waves if the stimulus intensity of either component is much larger. When the stimulus presentation consists of DC versus 1 Hz, most fish will choose randomly unless the stimulus intensities differ greatly. Then, they favour the component that had a higher amplitude during training. Our results suggest an intrinsic behavioural preference for very low frequency signals (<10 Hz) as well as plasticity in prey detection behaviour.

Affiliations: 1: Functional Neurobiology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands;, Email: eeuwes@vancouver.wsu.edu; 2: Functional Neurobiology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands

10.1163/157075608X344640
/content/journals/10.1163/157075608x344640
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157075608x344640
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157075608x344640
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157075608x344640
2008-07-01
2016-12-04

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Animal Biology — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation