The visual system of the Australian wolf spider Lycosa leuckartii (Araneae: Lycosidae): visual acuity and the functional role of the eyes

  • Published on
    27-Feb-2017

  • View
    217

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, researchlibraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

    The visual system of the Australian wolf spider Lycosa leuckartii (Araneae:Lycosidae): visual acuity and the functional role of the eyesAuthor(s): Christofer J. Clemente, Kellie A. McMaster, Elizabeth Fox, Lisa Meldrum, Tom Stewart, andBarbara York MainSource: Journal of Arachnology, 38(3):398-406. 2010.Published By: American Arachnological SocietyDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1636/B09-96.1URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1636/B09-96.1

    BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books publishedby nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

    Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOnes Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

    Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiriesor rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1636/B09-96.1http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1636/B09-96.1http://www.bioone.orghttp://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

  • The visual system of the Australian wolf spider Lycosa leuckartii (Araneae: Lycosidae): visual acuity andthe functional role of the eyes

    Christofer J. Clemente1, Kellie A. McMaster2, Elizabeth Fox3, Lisa Meldrum4, Tom Stewart4 and Barbara YorkMain4: 1The Rowland Institute at Harvard, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. E-mail:

    clemente@rowland.harvard.edu; 2Outback Ecology, 1/71 Troy Terrace Jollimont, Western Australia 6014, Australia;3Ecologia Environment, 1025 Wellington Street, West Perth, Western Australia 6005, Australia; 4School of Animal

    Biology M092, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia, 6009, Australia

    Abstract. Ocular arrangement and visual acuity were examined in Lycosa leuckartii Thorell 1870 (Araneae: Lycosidae),using histological techniques. Major structural and functional features of the visual system, including external and internalocular organizations, resolution, sensitivity, focal lengths and the field of view, were characterized for each eye. Lycosaleuckartii had a large developmental investment in a specialized visual system with high visual acuity. The field of viewextended 360u and displayed the potential for good depth perception. Anterior eyes showed average focal lengths (AL eyes230.88 mm, AM eyes 276.84 mm), while the posterior eyes far exceeded them (PL eyes 499.26 mm, PM eyes 675.35 mm).Resolution of the anterior eyes was comparable to records in the literature for other lycosids (inter-receptor angle AL eyes2.45u, AM eyes 1.85u), while the resolution of the posterior eyes was higher (PL eyes 0.78u, PM eyes 0.67u). Sensitivity of thelens (f-numbers) was highest in the secondary eyes and was close to some of the highest reported for Araneae (f-numbersPM eyes 0.58), but when receptor diameters were included in estimates, S-numbers were similar or lower than closelyrelated species (PL eyes 17.5 mm2, PM eyes 17.6 mm2). There is a clear distinction in organization and function between theposterior and anterior eyes of L. leuckartii. The posterior eyes suit long- range predator and prey detection, while theanterior eyes are best for distance judgment and prey capture.

    Keywords: Field of view, focal length, resolution, sensitivity

    The modern arachnids are the only group of arthropods inwhich the eyes are camera-type, similar to our own, ratherthan compound eyes (Land 1985). Despite this, the structureand function of the visual system of spiders has beeninadequately studied in many families of spiders whencompared to chemo- and mechanoreception. This is likelybased on the assumption that most spiders are nocturnal andvision may be of limited use (Foelix 1982). However, for somespecies, vision can be very important. Members from at leastone family, the Salticidae, have been shown to hunt exclusivelyusing vision (Jackson 1977), and members of five otherfamilies of spiders, Lycosidae, Pisauridae, Thomisidae, Oxyo-pidae and Deinopidae, show visually guided behaviors duringlocomotion, homing, prey capture, and courtship (Bristowe &Locket 1926; Kaston 1936; Whitcomb & Eason 1965;Robinson & Robinson 1971; Forster 1982; Uetz & Stratton1982; Rovner 1996).

    The visual acuity of a species is determined by character-istics of the eyes such as field of view, focal length, resolution,and sensitivity. The external placement and internal arrange-ment determine the field of view of each eye (Land 1985). Theancestral eye arrangement, as hypothesized by Homann(1971), consists of two transverse rows, each containing foureyes. The first row consists of the anterior median (AM) eyesin the middle and the anterior lateral (AL) eyes on theperiphery. Similarly, the posterior eyes are grouped intoposterior median (PM) eyes and posterior lateral (PL) eyes.The visual angle of the field of view for each eye can varygreatly, from relatively narrow pinpoint views of only 24u inthe PL eyes of Badumna insignis Koch 1872 (Clemente et al.2005) to 182u wide-angle views in the AM eyes of Octonobasinensis Simon 1880 (Opell 1988). Forward-facing binocular

    vision is a product of overlapping visual fields, and isnecessary for good distance judgment.

    The distance over which an eye can focus upon an object isdetermined by the focal length of its lens (Homann 1971). Thisranges from 38 mm in the AL eyes of the uloborid Hyptiotescavatus Hentz 1847 (Opell & Ware 1987), to 448 mm in the PMeyes of Cupiennius salei Keyserling 1877 (Land & Barth 1992),up to 1980 mm in the AM eyes of the jumping spider Portia(Williams & McIntyre 1980).

    The ability of the eye to resolve detail depends on thefineness of the retinal mosaic, usually expressed as the inter-receptor angle. The finer this angle, the better the resolution ofthe eye. The finest inter-receptor angles reported in theliterature are for members of Salticidae, the diurnal jumpingspiders, for which the inter-receptor angle in the AM eyes canbe less than 1u. The largest angle reported for hunting spidersis 7u in the AL eyes of a lycosid species (Homann 1931; Land1969, 1985).

    Sensitivity, or the ability to see in low light levels, is acombination of the physical properties of an optical systemand the physiological sensitivity of photoreceptors. Thephysical ability of the lens to admit light is often expressedin the literature as an fnumber, which decreases withincreasing sensitivity (Opell & Ware 1987). This ranges from2.685.90 in diurnally active jumping spiders (Land 1969;Foelix 1982) to 0.58 in the PM eyes of the wholly nocturnalogre-faced spider Deinopis subrufa, Koch 1879 (Blest & Land1977). However, a more complete estimate of sensitivity isgiven by an S-number (Land 1981), which is a product of therelative aperture of the eye, determining the light flux passingthrough to the retina, the cross sectional area of the receptor,and the proportion of light entering a receptor that is actually

    2010. The Journal of Arachnology 38:398406

    398

  • absorbed by it. This has the advantage of increasing assensitivity increases, and can range from 0.09 mm2 in the AMeyes of jumping spiders to 387 mm2 in the PM eyes of Deinopis(Land 1985).

    Both resolution and sensitivity vary in relation to the lightconditions under which species operate (Opell & Ware 1987).While resolution improves as the ratio of receptor diameter tofocal length decreases, sensitivity improves as the same ratioincreases. Therefore, in the structure of the eyes, there is atrade-off between resolution and sensitivity. The only solutionto the trade-off is to increase the total size of the eye;therefore, total eye size can be an indicator of the relativeimportance of vision.

    Many studies link various eyes to their probable role orrelative use in prey acquisition (Uehara et al. 1978; Forster1979; Kovoor et al. 1992; Rovner 1993; Schmid 1998; Ortega-Escobar & Munoz-Cuevas 1999). There are two importantcomponents of prey acquisition. The first is prey detection,which incorporates initial detection of an item, specificallydistinguishing the item as prey, predator or conspecific, andsome orientation and movement toward the prey item.Therefore, prey detection requires long-distance detectionand image clarity. The second component is prey capture. Thismay involve some identification of prey or non-prey items andorientation toward the prey, but mainly comprises judgmentof distance for accurate lunging and striking (Lizotte &Rovner 1988).

    Previous studies have demonstrated that the visual systemof lycosid spiders is particularly complex. The eyes of lycosidshave intricate visual fields (Homann 1931), high resolutionand sensitivity (Lizotte & Rovner 1988; Kovoor et al. 1992;Rovner 1993; Ortega-Escobar & Munoz-Cuevas 1999) and theability to detect polarized light (Kovoor et al. 1993; Dacke etal. 2001; Ortega-Escobar 2006). However, much of this workhas been performed on relatively few species of lycosids, and itis unclear how much variation exists within the family. Arecent molecular phylogeny of lycosids has suggested that thefamily consists of several clades (Murphy et al. 2006). Whilemuch of the work on vision in lycosids has focused onPalaeartic and Nearctic species, the Australian species form aseparate distinct clade. Almost no information is available onvariation among clades. As a taxonomic aside, it is noted that

    the generic position of Lycosa leuckartii is currently underreview by V.W. Framenau with a proposed reallocation of thespecies pending. We present details of the visual acuity ofLycosa leuckartii and compare them to other lycosids andother families of spiders.

    METHODS

    External ocular organization.Twenty individual Lycosaleuckartii were used to record external measurements. Theseincluded total eye width (TEW), total eye depth (TED) andeye diameters (Figs. 1A & B). We took measurements under abinocular dissecting microscope with an eyepiece micrometer.The values were then standardized for the animals size bydividing each measurement by the carapace length. Arepeated-measures ANOVA with one within-subject factorand no between-subject factors, and Student-Newman-Keulspost-hoc test, were used to determine significant differences inthe relative eye diameters.

    Internal ocular organization.Two specimens of L. leuck-artii were killed, using CO2 gas, trimmed to a small block oftissue and fixed in Karnovskys fixative for at least 72 h. Wethen washed and further trimmed down specimens in spidersaline (scorpion saline excluding the CaCl2: Zwicky 1968) andplaced them in phosphate buffer prior to their being embeddedin araldite/procure. Longitudinal and transverse (frontalplane) sections (1 mm thin) were cut using an LKB ultratomeand a diamond knife. We mounted sections on slides andstained them with toluidine blue. As well as determining theinternal ocular organization, we also used these sections inmeasurements of resolution and sensitivity.

    Focal length.The focal length (f) of each lens wasdetermined using the hanging drop method described inHomann (1928) and Land (1985). The lens, along with a smallproportion of the surrounding cuticle, was dissected from thehead and stored in spider saline. After being cleared of excesstissue in warm, dilute, sodium hydroxide, the lens wassuspended in a drop of spider saline from the underside of acover slip. Using a microscope, we then viewed the imagethrough the lens, targeting an object of known size (o). Thedistance between the slide and the object was then measuredusing calipers (u). The size of the image (i) was ascertained,using calibrated digital images, and the focal length was

    Figure 1.External measurements taken on L. leuckartii. A 5 anterior view, B 5 dorsal view. AM, anterior median eyes; AL, anterior lateraleyes; PM, posterior median eyes; PL, posterior lateral eyes; TED, total eye diameter; TEW, total eye width; IS, interocular space.

    CLEMENTE ET AL.VISUAL SYSTEM OF A WOLF SPIDER 399

  • calculated, using the formula (1) described by Opell & Ware(1987):

    f~ i=o u 1

    For each lens type, we determined an average of the valuesmeasured. Repeated-measures ANOVA, with one within-subject factor (eye) and no between-subject factors, with aTukey-Kramer post-hoc test, were used to determine differ-ences between the focal lengths of the different eyes.

    Sensitivity.Sensitivity (f-number), or the eyes ability toadmit light, was calculated using values for focal length (f) andthe diameter of the retina (d), measured from the extremities ofthe rhabdomeres in each species (Opell & Ware 1987). Wedetermined focal lengths by the above methods and ascer-tained retinal diameters by taking measurements from slidesobtained using methods described for internal ocular organi-zation. These values were then entered into the sensitivityequation (2) outlined in Opell & Ware (1987):

    f -number~f =d 2

    The sensitivity of the eye can also be given in terms of an S-number, as described by Land (1985). Here sensitivity isdefined, not only by the relative aperture of the eye, but alsoby the cross sectional area of the receptor and the amount oflight absorbed by the receptor, as shown in equation (3):

    S~(p

    4)2(

    D

    f)2(d2r )(1{e

    {kl) 3

    where D is the diameter of the lens, f is the focal length, dr isthe receptor diameter (assumed to equal the center-to-centerspacing of the receptors), l is the length of the receptor and k isthe extinction coefficient of the photopigment in the receptors.Following Land (1981, 1985) k was approximated to be 0.0067for rhabdomeric photoreceptors, and l was multiplied by 2 inthe secondary eyes as the reflective tectum may allow photonsto bounce back past the receptor, effectively lengthening it.

    Resolution.We counted the numbers of axons exiting eacheye from sections cut using the same methods as for internalocular organization. Resolution is dependent upon thenumber of photoreceptors, or rhabdomeric cells per eye. Thehigher the density of cells, the finer the resolution of an image(Land 1985). The number of nerve axons exiting a spiders eyeis in a 1:1 ratio with the number of photoreceptors (Uehara &Uehara 1996). To compare the density of visual cells per eye,we figured the inter-receptor angle (D) based upon Land(1985) as given by equation (4):

    Dw~dcc

    f4

    where dcc is the center-to-center spacing of retinal receptorsand f is the focal length. The inter-receptor angle wascalculated by measuring the pigment ring diameter of theretinal mosaic from histological sections and using theaverage maximum visual angle from the field of view(see below) to calculate the to...

Recommended

View more >