Dynamic polarization vision in mantis shrimps

Insect-Like Organization of the Stomatopod Central Complex: Functional and Phylogenetic Implications

One approach to investigating functional attributes of the central complex is to relate its various elaborations to pancrustacean phylogeny, to taxon-specific behavioral repertoires and ecological settings. Here we review morphological similarities between the central complex of stomatopod crustaceans and the central complex of dicondylic insects. We discuss whether their central complexes possess comparable functional properties, despite the phyletic distance separating these taxa, with mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda) belonging to the basal branch of Eumalacostraca. Stomatopods possess the most elaborate visual receptor system in nature and display a fascinating behavioral repertoire, including refined appendicular dexterity such as independently moving eyestalks. They are also unparalleled in their ability to maneuver during both swimming and substrate locomotion. Like other pancrustaceans, stomatopods possess a set of midline neuropils, called the central complex, which in dicondylic insects have been shown to mediate the selection of motor actions for a range of behaviors. As in dicondylic insects, the stomatopod central complex comprises a modular protocerebral bridge (PB) supplying decussating axons to a scalloped fan-shaped body (FB) and its accompanying ellipsoid body (EB), which is linked to a set of paired noduli and other recognized satellite regions. We consider the functional implications of these attributes in the context of stomatopod behaviors, particularly of their eyestalks that can move independently or conjointly depending on the visual scene.

Can invertebrates see the e-vector of polarization as a separate modality of light?

The visual world is rich in linearly polarized light stimuli, which are hidden from the human eye. But many invertebrate species make use of polarized light as a source of valuable visual information. However, exploiting light polarization does not necessarily imply that the electric (e)-vector orientation of polarized light can be perceived as a separate modality of light. In this Review, I address the question of whether invertebrates can detect specific e-vector orientations in a manner similar to that of humans perceiving spectral stimuli as specific hues. To analyze e-vector orientation, the signals of at least three polarization-sensitive sensors (analyzer channels) with different e-vector tuning axes must be compared. The object-based, imaging polarization vision systems of cephalopods and crustaceans, as well as the water-surface detectors of flying backswimmers, use just two analyzer channels. Although this excludes the perception of specific e-vector orientations, a two-channel system does provide a coarse, categoric analysis of polarized light stimuli, comparable to the limited color sense of dichromatic, 'color-blind' humans. The celestial compass of insects employs three or more analyzer channels. However, that compass is multimodal, i.e. e-vector information merges with directional information from other celestial cues, such as the solar azimuth and the spectral gradient in the sky, masking e-vector information. It seems that invertebrate organisms take no interest in the polarization details of visual stimuli, but polarization vision grants more practical benefits, such as improved object detection and visual communication for cephalopods and crustaceans, compass readings to traveling insects, or the alert 'water below!' to water-seeking bugs.

The copepod Calanus spp. (Calanidae) is repelled by polarized light

Both attraction and repulsion from linearly polarized light have been observed in zooplankton. A dichotomous choice experiment, consisting of plankton light traps deployed in natural waters at a depth of 30 m that projected either polarized or unpolarized light of the same intensity, was used to test the hypothesis that the North Atlantic copepod, Calanus spp., is linearly polarotactic. In addition, the transparency of these copepods, as they might be seen by polarization insensitive vs. sensitive visual systems, was measured. Calanus spp. exhibited negative polarotaxis with a preference ratio of 1.9:1. Their transparency decreased from 80% to 20% to 30% in the unpolarized, partially polarized, and electric (e-) vector orientation domains respectively - that is, these copepods would appear opaque and conspicuous to a polarization-sensitive viewer looking at them under conditions rich in polarized light. Since the only difference between the two plankton traps was the polarization cue, we conclude that Calanus spp. are polarization sensitive and exhibit negative polarotaxis at low light intensities (albeit well within the sensitivity range reported for copepods). We hypothesize that Calanus spp. can use polarization vision to reduce their risk of predation by polarization-sensitive predators and suggest that this be tested in future experiments.