Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey

Autores
Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier; Kiørboe, Thomas
Año de publicación
2015
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Feeding-current feeding copepods detect and capture prey individually, but the mechanism by which nonmotile prey is detected has been unclear. Early reports that copepods detect phytoplankton prey at distances of one body length or more led to the hypothesis that solutes leaking from the prey would be carried to the copepod by the sheared feeding current and arrive prior to the prey, thus allowing the copepod to adjust the feeding current to bring the prey within reach of the feeding appendages. Many subsequent studies have been interpreted assuming this mechanism, which appears currently to be the main accepted view. Here, we review the observations available in the literature and add our own data to show that in most cases the prey, whether phytoplankton cells or inert particles, has to be within a few prey radii from the setae of the feeding appendages to elicit a capture response. We further demonstrate that (1) long-range chemical detection is incompatible with known algal leakage rates and reasonable assumptions of sensitivity, (2) that near-field chemical detection is constrained by diffusion across the boundary layer of the sensor and takes longer than observed near-contact times, and (3) that most reported detection distances are well predicted by models of fluid mechanical signal generation and detection. We conclude that near-field mechanoreception is the common prey detection mode in pelagic copepods. Prey detection distances are thus governed mainly by the reach of the feeding appendages, in contrast to the strong prey size-dependency implied by remote chemical prey detection.
Fil: Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier. Technical University Of Denmark. National Institute For Aquatic Resources. Section Of Ocean Ecology And Climate; Dinamarca. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Fundación Playa Unión. Estación de Fotobiología Playa Unión; Argentina
Fil: Kiørboe, Thomas. Technical University Of Denmark. National Institute For Aquatic Resources. Section Of Ocean Ecology And Climate; Dinamarca
Materia
ZOOPLANKTON
PREY CAPTURE
FEEDING
PREY DETECTION
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/98844

id CONICETDig_12f98f3a96e243bff02835aaa7bb4f01
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/98844
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile preyGonçalves, Rodrigo JavierKiørboe, ThomasZOOPLANKTONPREY CAPTUREFEEDINGPREY DETECTIONhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Feeding-current feeding copepods detect and capture prey individually, but the mechanism by which nonmotile prey is detected has been unclear. Early reports that copepods detect phytoplankton prey at distances of one body length or more led to the hypothesis that solutes leaking from the prey would be carried to the copepod by the sheared feeding current and arrive prior to the prey, thus allowing the copepod to adjust the feeding current to bring the prey within reach of the feeding appendages. Many subsequent studies have been interpreted assuming this mechanism, which appears currently to be the main accepted view. Here, we review the observations available in the literature and add our own data to show that in most cases the prey, whether phytoplankton cells or inert particles, has to be within a few prey radii from the setae of the feeding appendages to elicit a capture response. We further demonstrate that (1) long-range chemical detection is incompatible with known algal leakage rates and reasonable assumptions of sensitivity, (2) that near-field chemical detection is constrained by diffusion across the boundary layer of the sensor and takes longer than observed near-contact times, and (3) that most reported detection distances are well predicted by models of fluid mechanical signal generation and detection. We conclude that near-field mechanoreception is the common prey detection mode in pelagic copepods. Prey detection distances are thus governed mainly by the reach of the feeding appendages, in contrast to the strong prey size-dependency implied by remote chemical prey detection.Fil: Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier. Technical University Of Denmark. National Institute For Aquatic Resources. Section Of Ocean Ecology And Climate; Dinamarca. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Fundación Playa Unión. Estación de Fotobiología Playa Unión; ArgentinaFil: Kiørboe, Thomas. Technical University Of Denmark. National Institute For Aquatic Resources. Section Of Ocean Ecology And Climate; DinamarcaAmerican Society of Limnology and Oceanography2015-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/98844Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier; Kiørboe, Thomas; Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey; American Society of Limnology and Oceanography; Limnology and Oceanography; 60; 4; 3-2015; 1286-12971939-5590CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10102/abstractinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1002/lno.10102info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:50:52Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/98844instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:50:52.723CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
title Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
spellingShingle Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier
ZOOPLANKTON
PREY CAPTURE
FEEDING
PREY DETECTION
title_short Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
title_full Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
title_fullStr Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
title_full_unstemmed Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
title_sort Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier
Kiørboe, Thomas
author Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier
author_facet Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier
Kiørboe, Thomas
author_role author
author2 Kiørboe, Thomas
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv ZOOPLANKTON
PREY CAPTURE
FEEDING
PREY DETECTION
topic ZOOPLANKTON
PREY CAPTURE
FEEDING
PREY DETECTION
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Feeding-current feeding copepods detect and capture prey individually, but the mechanism by which nonmotile prey is detected has been unclear. Early reports that copepods detect phytoplankton prey at distances of one body length or more led to the hypothesis that solutes leaking from the prey would be carried to the copepod by the sheared feeding current and arrive prior to the prey, thus allowing the copepod to adjust the feeding current to bring the prey within reach of the feeding appendages. Many subsequent studies have been interpreted assuming this mechanism, which appears currently to be the main accepted view. Here, we review the observations available in the literature and add our own data to show that in most cases the prey, whether phytoplankton cells or inert particles, has to be within a few prey radii from the setae of the feeding appendages to elicit a capture response. We further demonstrate that (1) long-range chemical detection is incompatible with known algal leakage rates and reasonable assumptions of sensitivity, (2) that near-field chemical detection is constrained by diffusion across the boundary layer of the sensor and takes longer than observed near-contact times, and (3) that most reported detection distances are well predicted by models of fluid mechanical signal generation and detection. We conclude that near-field mechanoreception is the common prey detection mode in pelagic copepods. Prey detection distances are thus governed mainly by the reach of the feeding appendages, in contrast to the strong prey size-dependency implied by remote chemical prey detection.
Fil: Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier. Technical University Of Denmark. National Institute For Aquatic Resources. Section Of Ocean Ecology And Climate; Dinamarca. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Fundación Playa Unión. Estación de Fotobiología Playa Unión; Argentina
Fil: Kiørboe, Thomas. Technical University Of Denmark. National Institute For Aquatic Resources. Section Of Ocean Ecology And Climate; Dinamarca
description Feeding-current feeding copepods detect and capture prey individually, but the mechanism by which nonmotile prey is detected has been unclear. Early reports that copepods detect phytoplankton prey at distances of one body length or more led to the hypothesis that solutes leaking from the prey would be carried to the copepod by the sheared feeding current and arrive prior to the prey, thus allowing the copepod to adjust the feeding current to bring the prey within reach of the feeding appendages. Many subsequent studies have been interpreted assuming this mechanism, which appears currently to be the main accepted view. Here, we review the observations available in the literature and add our own data to show that in most cases the prey, whether phytoplankton cells or inert particles, has to be within a few prey radii from the setae of the feeding appendages to elicit a capture response. We further demonstrate that (1) long-range chemical detection is incompatible with known algal leakage rates and reasonable assumptions of sensitivity, (2) that near-field chemical detection is constrained by diffusion across the boundary layer of the sensor and takes longer than observed near-contact times, and (3) that most reported detection distances are well predicted by models of fluid mechanical signal generation and detection. We conclude that near-field mechanoreception is the common prey detection mode in pelagic copepods. Prey detection distances are thus governed mainly by the reach of the feeding appendages, in contrast to the strong prey size-dependency implied by remote chemical prey detection.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-03
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/98844
Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier; Kiørboe, Thomas; Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey; American Society of Limnology and Oceanography; Limnology and Oceanography; 60; 4; 3-2015; 1286-1297
1939-5590
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/98844
identifier_str_mv Gonçalves, Rodrigo Javier; Kiørboe, Thomas; Perceiving the algae: How feeding-current feeding copepods detect their nonmotile prey; American Society of Limnology and Oceanography; Limnology and Oceanography; 60; 4; 3-2015; 1286-1297
1939-5590
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10102/abstract
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1002/lno.10102
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
publisher.none.fl_str_mv American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613566973345792
score 13.070432