Active hydrodynamic imaging of a rigid spherical particle

Takagi, Daisuke; Strickler, J. Rudi

doi:10.1038/s41598-020-58880-0

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, Stokes equations neglect the unsteady effects associated with the small, but finite, time scale for vorticity diffusion. These unsteady effects have long been suggested to be used by microswimmers for locomotion (Brennen 1974; Wang & Ardekani 2012; Ishimoto 2013), sensing (Takagi & Strickler 2020) and interacting with each other in a way that is different from what predicted by the Stokes equations (Li, Ostace & Ardekani 2016). Additionally, the unsteadiness alone is also suggested to be sufficient to establish hydrodynamic synchronization in minimal models (Theers & Winkler 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurements of the unsteady flow field around beating cilia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurements of the unsteady flow field around beating cilia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we suspect that, while the chemical gradient informs the approximate direction that the fish must swim to approach the source of food in a still-water pool [ 28 ], the precise location of any suspended food particle is difficult to identify based on chemical sensing because of the slow diffusion of molecules, which are advected by the fluid flow over a long time before they reach the fish’s chemoreceptors. In contrast, the relatively fast diffusion of momentum through the viscous boundary layer around the fish enables particles near the boundary layer to be located quickly based on mechanical sensing [ 29 ]. Further study is needed to confirm this in a noisy environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blind cavefish evolved higher foraging responses to chemo- and mechanostimuli

Kuball,

Fernandes,

Takagi

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nature, animals must navigate to forage according to their sensory inputs. Different species use different sensory modalities to locate food efficiently. For teleosts, food emits visual, mechanical, chemical, and/or possibly weak-electrical signals, which can be detected by optic, auditory/lateral line, and olfactory/taste buds sensory systems. However, how fish respond to and use different sensory inputs when locating food, as well as the evolution of these sensory modalities, remain unclear. We examined the Mexican tetra, Astyanax mexicanus, which is composed of two different morphs: a sighted riverine (surface fish) and a blind cave morph (cavefish). Compared with surface fish, cavefish have enhanced non-visual sensory systems, including the mechanosensory lateral line system, chemical sensors comprising the olfactory system and taste buds, and the auditory system to help navigate toward food sources. We tested how visual, chemical, and mechanical stimuli evoke food-seeking behavior. In contrast to our expectations, both surface fish and cavefish did not follow a gradient of chemical stimulus (food extract) but used it as a cue for the ambient existence of food. Surface fish followed visual cues (red plastic beads and food pellets), but, in the dark, were likely to rely on mechanosensors—the lateral line and/or tactile sensor—as cavefish did. Our results indicate cavefish used a similar sensory modality to surface fish in the dark, while affinity levels to stimuli were higher in cavefish. In addition, cavefish evolved an extended circling strategy to forage, which may yield a higher chance to capture food by swimming-by the food multiple times instead of once through zigzag motion. In summary, we propose that ancestors of cavefish, similar to the modern surface fish, evolved extended food-seeking behaviors, including circling motion, to adapt to the dark.

show abstract

“…However, we suspect that, while the chemical gradient informs the approximate direction that the fish must swim to approach the source of food in a still-water pool [20], the precise location of any suspended food particle is difficult to identify based on chemical sensing because of the slow diffusion of molecules, which are advected by the fluid flow over a long time before they reach the fish's chemoreceptors. In contrast, the relatively fast diffusion of momentum through the viscous boundary layer around the fish enables particles near the boundary layer to be located quickly based on mechanical sensing [21]. Further study is needed to confirm this in a noisy environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blind cavefish evolved food-searching behavior without changing sensory modality compared with sighted conspecies in the dark

Kuball

Fernandes

Takagi

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nature, animals must navigate to forage according to their sensory inputs. Different species use different sensory modalities to locate food efficiently. For teleosts, food emits visual, mechanical, chemical, and/or possibly weak-electrical signals, which can be detected by optic, auditory/lateral line, and olfactory/taste buds sensory systems. However, how fish respond to and use different sensory inputs when locating food, as well as the evolution of these sensory modalities, remain unclear. We examined the Mexican tetra, Astyanax mexicanus, which is composed of two different morphs: a sighted riverine (surface fish) and a blind cave morph (cavefish). Compared with surface fish, cavefish have enhanced non-visual sensory systems, including the mechanosensory lateral line system, chemical sensors comprising the olfactory system and taste buds, and the auditory system to help navigate toward food sources. We tested how visual, chemical, and mechanical stimuli evoke food-seeking behavior. In contrast to our expectations, both surface fish and cavefish did not follow a gradient of chemical stimulus (food extract) but used it as a cue for the ambient existence of food. Surface fish followed visual cues (red plastic beads and food pellets), but, in the dark, were likely to rely on mechanosensors-the lateral line and/or tactile sensor-as cavefish did. Our results indicate cavefish used similar sensory modality to surface fish in the dark, while adherence levels to stimuli were higher in cavefish. In addition, cavefish evolved an extended circling strategy to capture food, which may yield a higher chance to capture food by swimming-by the food multiple times instead of once through zigzag motion. In summary, we propose ancestors of cavefish similar to surface fish may have needed little modification in food-seeking strategy to adapt to the dark.

show abstract

Active hydrodynamic imaging of a rigid spherical particle

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Measurements of the unsteady flow field around beating cilia

Measurements of the unsteady flow field around beating cilia

Blind cavefish evolved higher foraging responses to chemo- and mechanostimuli

Blind cavefish evolved food-searching behavior without changing sensory modality compared with sighted conspecies in the dark

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About