CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 184Fish biology, ecology, and behaviorIchthyology and Marine BiologyPlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies

Prey-capture behavior in gymnotid electric fish: motion analysis and effects of water conductivity

Maciver, Malcolm A., Sharabash, Noura M., Nelson, Mark E.·2001·Journal of Experimental Biology
DOI 10.1242/jeb.204.3.543
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Animals can actively influence the content and quality of sensory information they acquire from the environment through the positioning of peripheral sensory surfaces. This study investigated receptor surface positioning during prey-capture behavior in weakly electric gymnotiform fish of the genus Apteronotus. Infrared video techniques and three-dimensional model-based tracking methods were used to provide quantitative information on body position and conformation as black ghost (A. albifrons) and brown ghost (A. leptorhynchus) knifefish hunted for prey (Daphnia magna) in the dark. We found that detection distance depends on the electrical conductivity of the surrounding water. Best performance was observed at low water conductivity (2.8 cm mean detection distance and 2 % miss rate at 35 microS cm(-)(1), A. albifrons) and poorest performance at high conductivity (1.5 cm mean detection distance and 11 % miss rate at 600 microS cm(-)(1), A. albifrons). The observed conductivity-dependence implies that nonvisual prey detection in Apteronotus is likely to be dominated by the electrosense over the range of water conductivities experienced by the animal in its natural environment. This result provides the first evidence for the involvement of electrosensory cues in the prey-capture behavior of gymnotids, but it leaves open the possibility that both the high-frequency (tuberous) and low-frequency (ampullary) electroreceptors may contribute. We describe an electrosensory orienting response to prey, whereby the fish rolls its body following detection to bring the prey above the dorsum. This orienting response and the spatial distribution of prey at the time of detection highlight the importance of the dorsal surface of the trunk for electrosensory signal acquisition. Finally, quantitative analysis of fish motion demonstrates that Apteronotus can adapt its trajectory to account for post-detection motion of the prey, suggesting that it uses a closed-loop adaptive tracking strategy, rather than an open-loop ballistic strike strategy, to intercept the prey.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1242/jeb.204.3.543

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The distinction between wide-field and narrow-field distortions was not fully understood until prey capture behavior was automatically tracked in three dimensions and empirically validated models were used to compute the neuronal signal going to the brain over the course of prey capture behavior.

    “This was not fully understood until prey capture behavior was automatically tracked in three dimensions, and then an entire suite of empirically validated models was used to compute the neuronal signal going to the brain over the course of prey capture behavior (MacIver et al., 2001;Nelson and MacIver, 1999;Snyder et al., 2007).”

    From Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias (2017) · cites this paper as MacIver et al., 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Maciver, M. A., Sharabash, N. M., & Nelson, M. E.
Affiliations
  • 1 The Neuroscience Program
  • 2 Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Biology
Publisher
The Company of Biologists
Published
2001-02-01
Volume
204
Issue
3
Pages
543-557
ISSN
  • 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9145
DOI
10.1242/jeb.204.3.543
OpenAlex
W2103225200
Cited by
184
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 15
FWCI
6.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.biologists.com/user-licence-1-1/ (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH49242, R01MH049242)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish biology, ecology, and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ichthyology and Marine Biology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Keywords
Apteronotus, black ghost knifefish, prey capture, water conductivity, Daphnia magna, body motion tracking, adaptive tracking
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Locomotion, Sensory Receptor Cells, Static Electricity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review