Skip Navigation

Integrative and Comparative Biology 2003 43(4):559-570; doi:10.1093/icb/43.4.559
© 2003 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frank, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Effects of Light Adaptation on the Temporal Resolution of Deep-sea Crustaceans1

Tamara M. Frank2,1
1 Department of Visual Ecology, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, 5600 U.S. 1 N, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34946

The effects of light adaptation on flicker fusion frequency were examined in the photoreceptors of 13 species of deep-sea crustaceans. Light adaptation produced a significant increase in the maximum critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFmax) in 7 species—all 6 species of euphausiids in the study, and 1 species of oplophorid (Group 1). This is the first example of an increase in temporal resolution due to light adaptation in a deep-sea species. In the other six species—2 oplophorids, 1 pandalid, 1 pasiphaeid, 1 penaeid and 1 sergestid (Group 2)—light adaptation had no effect, or resulted in a decrease in the flicker fusion frequency. The mean dark-adapted CFFmax of the Group 1 species was significantly higher, and the mean response latency significantly lower, than those of the Group 2 species. Possible explanations for these differences include the activity and bioluminescence mode of preferred prey items, as well as the retention of larval/juvenile adaptations in adult eyes.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Biol. Bull.Home page
T. Matsumoto, H. Ihara, Y. Ishida, T. Okada, M. Kurata, Y. Sawada, and Y. Ishibashi
Electroretinographic Analysis of Night Vision in Juvenile Pacific Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus orientalis)
Biol. Bull., October 1, 2009; 217(2): 142 - 150.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
A. Z. Horodysky, R. W. Brill, E. J. Warrant, J. A. Musick, and R. J. Latour
Comparative visual function in five sciaenid fishes inhabiting Chesapeake Bay
J. Exp. Biol., November 15, 2008; 211(22): 3601 - 3612.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol. Bull.Home page
J. H. Cohen and T. M. Frank
Visual Physiology of the Antarctic Amphipod Abyssorchomene plebs.
Biol. Bull., October 1, 2006; 211(2): 140 - 148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.