Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:14:41.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial Resolution Determined by Electrophysiological Measurement of Acceptance Angle in two Species of Benthic Decapod Crustacean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

P.M.J. Shelton  and
E. Gaten
P.M.J. Shelton
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Leicester, Leicester, LEI 7RH
E. Gaten
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Leicester, Leicester, LEI 7RH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Angular sensitivity functions were determined electrophysiologically for retinula cells in Nephrops norvegicus and Munida rugosa. For such aquatic species it is shown that reliable measurements cannot be obtained unless the eyes are submerged. In both cases, for submerged eyes, there is a significant reduction in retinula cell acceptance angles with light adaptation. In N. norvegicus the change is from 11·3° dark adapted (DA) to 8·85° light adapted (LA). In M. rugosa there is a larger difference, 12·5° (DA)–6·58° (LA). The changes in acceptance angle with adaptational state can be attributed to differences in screening pigment position between light- and dark-adapted eyes. In N. norvegicus only the retinula cell proximal pigment is migratory. The small change in acceptance angle with adaptation is consistent with the fact that the eye uses superposition optics even when light-adapted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , May 1996 , pp. 391 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bryceson, K.P. & McIntyre, P., 1983. Image quality and acceptance angle in a reflecting superposition eye. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 151A, 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaten, E., 1990. The ultrastructure of the compound eye of Munida rugosa (Crustacea: Anomura) and pigment migration during light and dark adaptation. Journal of Morphology, 205, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaten, E., 1994. Geometrical optics of a galatheid compound eye. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 175A, 749–759.Google Scholar
Gaten, E., Shelton, P.M.J., Chapman, C.J. & Shanks, A.M., 1990. Depth related variation in structure and functioning of the compound eyes of the Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 70, 343–355.Google Scholar
Glantz, R.M., 1968. Light adaptation in the photoreceptor of the crayfish, Procambarus clarki. Vision Research, 8, 1407–1421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glantz, R.M., 1991. Motion detection and adaptation in crayfish photoreceptors. A spatiotemporal analysis linear movement sensitivity. Journal of General Physiology, 97, 777–797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glantz, R.M. & Bartels, A., 1994. The spatiotemporal transfer function of crayfish lamina monopolar neurons. Journal of Neurobiology, 71, 2168–2182.Google ScholarPubMed
Horridge, G.A., Giddings, C. & Stange, G., 1972. The superposition eye of skipper butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 182, 457–495.Google Scholar
Horridge, G.A., Marcelja, L. & Jahnke, R., 1983. Retinula cell responses in a moth superposition eye. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 220, 47–68.Google Scholar
Horridge, G.A., Marcelja, L., Jahnke, R. & McIntyre, P., 1983. Daily changes in the compound eye of a beetle (Macrogyrus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 217, 265–285.Google Scholar
Horridge, G.A., McLean, M., Stange, G. & Lillywhite, P.G., 1977. A diurnal moth superposition eye with high resolution Phalaenoides tristifica (Agaristidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 196, 233–250.Google Scholar
Horridge, G.A., Walcott, B. & Ioannides, A.C., 1970. The tiered retina of Dytiscus: a new type of compound eye. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 175, 83–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Land, M.F., 1981. Optics and vision in invertebrates. In Handbook of sensory physiology, vol. VII/ 6B (ed. H., Autrum), pp. 471–192. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Land, M.F., 1984. The resolving power of diurnal superposition eyes measured with an ophthalmoscope. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 154A, 515–533.Google Scholar
Laughlin, S.B., 1981. Neural principles in the peripheral visual systems of invertebrates. In Handbook of sensory physiology, vol. VII/6B (ed. H., Autrum), pp. 133–280. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Laughlin, S.B. & Hardie, R.C., 1978. Common strategies for light adaptation in the peripheral visual systems of fly and dragonfly. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 128A, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loew, E.R., 1976. Light, and photoreceptor degeneration in the Norway Lobster, Nephrops norvegicus (L.). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 193, 31–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Meyer-Rochow, V.B., 1974. Fine structural chanes in dark-light adaptation in relation to unit studies of an insect compound eye with a crustacean-like rhabdom. Journal of Insect Physiology, 20, 573–589.Google Scholar
Meyer-Rochow, V.B. & Horridge, G.A., 1975. The eye of Anoplognathus (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 188, 1–30.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Sosa, L. & Aréchiga, H., 1982. Range of modulation of light sensitivity by accessory pigments in the crayfish compound eye. Vision Research, 22, 1515–1524.Google Scholar
Shelton, P.M.J., Gaten, E. & Chapman, C.J., 1985. Light and retinal damage in Nephrops norvegicus (L.). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 211, 217–236.Google Scholar
Shelton, P.M.J., Gaten, E. & Chapman, C.J., 1986. Accessory pigment distribution and migration in the compound eye of Nephrops norvegicus (L.) (Crustacea: Decapoda). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 98, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, P.M.J., Gaten, E. & Chapman, C.J., 1989. Light-induced retinal damage in Nephrops norvegicus (L.). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 69, 737.Google Scholar
Snyder, A.W., 1979. Physics of vision in compound eyes. In Handbook of sensory physiology, vol. VII/6A (ed. H., Autrum), pp. 225–314. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Stavenga, D.G., 1979. Pseudopupils of compound eyes. In Handbook of sensory physiology, vol. VII/6A (ed. H., Autrum), pp. 357–439. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Walcott, B., 1974. Unit studies on light-adaptation in the retina of the crayfish, Cherax destructor. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 94A, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang-Bennett, L.T. & Glantz, R.M., 1987. The functional organization of the crayfish lamina ganglionaris. I. Nonspiking monopolar cells. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 161A, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warrant, E.J. & McIntyre, P.D., 1990. Limitations to resolution in superposition eyes. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 167A, 785–803.Google Scholar
Warrant, E.J., McIntyre, P.D. & Caveney, S., 1990. Maturation of optics and resolution in adult dung beetle superposition eyes. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 167A, 817–825.Google Scholar
Washizu, Y., Burkhardt, D. & Streck, P., 1964. Visual field of single retinula cells and interommatidial inclination in the compound eye of the blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie, 48, 413–428.Google Scholar