|
|
||||||||
1 School of Marine & Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4810, and National Marine Stinger Advisor, Surf Life Saving, Bondi Beach, New South Wales 2026, Australia
2 Surf Life Saving, 18 Manning Street, South Brisbane, Queensland 4101, Australia, and Royal National Lifeboat Institution, West Quay Road, Poole, Dorset BH15 1HZ, England
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lisa.gershwin{at}stingeradvisor.com
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The tourism industry in the Great Barrier Reef region currently contributes over A$5 billion annually to Queensland's economy (Hand, 2003). Although we were unable to quantify the dollar amount attributable to nighttime activities—for example, swimming, boating, diving, and fishing—we believe it is a respectable amount, and would likely be higher if these activities could be made safer. Currently, the number one marine aquatic health hazard in tropical Australia is dangerous marine stingers, including the large, rapidly lethal, many-tentacled Chironex-type box jellyfish and the smaller, four-tentacled irukandjis, a lesser known group of 10 or more species that causes a constellation of debilitating symptoms that may be life-threatening.
The attraction of cubozoans to light and light-colored objects is well documented. Matsumoto (1995) gave a good summary of numerous earlier observations on cubozoan light responses, and further reported that Carybdea rastonii in the field was typically found over sandy patches and avoided dark regions such as seagrass beds. Scoresby Shepherd (pers. comm., South Australian Research and Development Institute) also reported that members of this species can often be observed hunting along the sand-seagrass border. Stewart (1996) observed that the feeding behavior of breeding individuals involved making repeated passes through light shafts among the mangroves. Ueno et al. (2000) found that Carybdea rastonii (probably C. mora) would strike grey panels more frequently than either black or white ones, and they had the best results raising medusae with black-sided aquariums.
Although Chironex fleckeri is well known to respond to light, few experiments have actually been performed to test the limits of this reaction. Barnes (1966) reported that in full daylight, surface and subsurface light intensities seem to have little effect, but in semi-darkness, these animals "are very markedly phototaxic. The light of a match is detected at distances up to 5 ft and ... [they] show a remarkable accuracy in turning towards the light source, even though the latter be extinguished before the turning movement is completed." Hamner et al. (1995) experimented with black and white panels and objects, and found a strong preference for light-colored panels over dark-colored panels, and avoidance of dark-colored objects but not light ones. Many fascinating discoveries have recently been made about cubozoans eye structures and optical properties (Coates, 2003; Martin, 2004; Nilsson et al., 2005; Coates et al., 2006; Garm et al., 2007), but we remain relatively naïve about what they actually see and how they interpret their world.
Although their attraction to light remains one of the best methods of luring cubozoans for collection, this same characteristic is, unfortunately, a hazard for night divers. The research described here was prompted by a request from the Queensland tourism industry to find whether lights of different colors might elicit different behavioral responses from cubomedusae; specifically, could a light be found that does not attract irukandjis and box jellies? In 2004, we had an opportunity to test the responses of acclimated animals to different colors of lights. A similar opportunity has not arisen since; we therefore present these data in hope of stimulating interest should an opportunity arise again for us or for another research group.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Medusae were placed together in a 650-l acrylic aquarium measuring 180 x 60 x 60 cm. The aquarium was gently aerated in opposite corners throughout the experiment, but was otherwise still. The aquarium had been freshly filled with filtered natural seawater.
Five colors of Philips Partylight 40-W incandescent bulbs were tested in the following order, chosen haphazardly: red, yellow, green, orange, blue. White light (Philips Classictone 40-W, clear) was used as a control, since it is often used as an effective cubozoan attractant (Arneson and Cutress, 1976; Larson, 1976; Kinsey, 1986, 1988; Hartwick, 1991) and we could therefore estimate relative response to a known stimulus. Lights were masked off so that the light beam was relatively focused; they were clamped onto a pipe 5 cm above the water's surface and aimed downward at about 45° across the width of the aquarium.
Trials were run at an interval of 10 min. Three replicates of each color were tested, without breaks between same-color trials but with breaks of 5–10 min between colors. Trials were conducted from late in the afternoon into the middle of the night, in order to identify confounding effects, if any, associated with behavioral periodicity. White lights (our control) were used before and after the color trials to see whether there was a difference in response associated with day-night cycles.
For most trials we switched the light from one far side to the opposite far side of the aquarium; however, for the following trials we placed the light in the middle to test whether the medusae were merely swimming to an edge and staying there, or purposely remaining within the light even though they could swim past it: yellow trial 2, orange trial 3, and blue trial 2.
The position of each individual was assessed at the following times: time zero, the time of the first arrival to the light, about 5 min, about 8 min, and 10 min.
Because of the small number of samples, statistics were not performed on the data; however, we believe that these preliminary results are worth presenting due to the public safety implications of light attraction in this lethal species.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Position of the light (in the middle half of the tank compared to at one end or the other) had no apparent effect. The fastest times to the light were independent of the light position, as were the numbers drawn to the light.
Qualitatively, the smallest juvenile tended to be the fastest to respond and the fastest to arrive at the light stimulus, despite having to work harder due to its smaller size. Not all specimens came all the way to the light, or stayed in the light once arriving; however, the majority of specimens for all colors were in the lighted half of the tank at 10 min, regardless of where they began at time zero and regardless of position of the light.
A graphical comparison of time to first arrival (in seconds) is presented in Figure 1, in the order in which the trials were conducted. The red, white, and blue lights elicited the fastest overall response; the yellow elicited the least interest; the green and orange the most variable responses. However, all colors of light elicited positive response, typically characterized by a rapid and deliberate swimming toward the light with the tentacles retracted, and once the light was reached, a continued pattern of pulsations upward, as if to come up out of the water.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Other than Coates's (2005) unpublished thesis work, as far as we know, this experiment is the first of its kind to test the behavioral responses of a species of jellyfish to colors of light. It was hoped that one of the colors might be invisible to Chironex fleckeri, as is the case with red light for sandflies (Mellor and Hamilton, 2003), for the green alga Monostroma angicava (Togashi et al., 1999), and for the cubozoan Tripedalia cystophora (Coates et al., 2006), but this experiment clearly demonstrates that juvenile C. fleckeri are attracted to the five major colors of light—that is, C. fleckeri is not "blind" to any of the tested colors.
The recent spectral studies of Coates and her colleagues (2006) and Garm and his colleagues (2007) on Tripedalia cystophora and Chiropsella bronzie (identified as Chiropsalmus sp.) indicated that both species displayed peak sensitivity in the blue-green region near 500 nm. Garm et al. (2007) speculated that both species were color-blind. However, in their behavioral experiments, Coates et al. (2006) found that T. cystophora was attracted to blue or green light shafts but ignored the red; they hypothesized that because the mangrove world of T. cystophora is primarily green, the blue bias in sensitivity might help improve contrast. We find this particularly intriguing, because our experiment on Chironex fleckeri indicated a very special reaction to blue light, which we interpreted as feeding behavior. Therefore, C. fleckeri seemed to us to have two levels of response: first, the positive response to all colors of light, and second, the feeding behavioral response to the blue light.
It was unclear to us at the time whether the conspicuous behavior difference that we observed in reaction to blue was due to luminosity or to some spectral property of the color blue. Our red and blue lights seemed to us qualitatively to give off similar low levels of light, but the "feeding behavior" observed with the blue light was not exhibited with the red light, which produced an attraction similar to that of the other colors. However, in light of Coates's observations, it would seem that blue may have some quality that, to the eyes of C. fleckeri, is visually different from other colors.
Other "unsophisticated" organisms display unique positive responses to blue light, including flagellates (Suzaki and Williamson, 1983) and mosquito larvae (Hribar and Hribar, 2006). Mellor and Hamilton (2003) noticed a pattern similar to that for Tripedalia with their sandflies, and interpreted their attraction to blue light as an aid to navigation at dusk or in moonlight or starlight. It was previously reported that C. fleckeri sleeps at night (Seymour et al., 2004) based on few observations; however, this was rapidly demonstrated to be erroneous (Currie and Jacups, 2005). Indeed, more than 30% of fatal and nonfatal box jellyfish stings occur during the proposed nap time (P. Fenner, Surf Life Saving Australia, pers. comm. 2004). Furthermore, preferential response to low levels of light was reported for Carybdea "rastonii" (probably C. mora) from Japan (Yatsu, 1917), in observing that medusae come to the surface "only in the morning and towards the evening" (pg. 2). As a strange coincidence, blue lights are commonly used along foreshores throughout North Queensland; if blue light is further demonstrated to stimulate C. fleckeri, and especially if a similar phenomenon is demonstrated for irukandji species, the choice of light color for swimming and boating areas would need to be reevaluated.
A flurry of media interest in mid-2005 speculated that irukandjis might be deterred by the color red (Gerard, 2005; Jeffery, 2005; Robinson, 2005). Our results, along with those of Coates and her colleagues (2006) indicate that this is unlikely to be accurate. However, Coates's results indicate the possibility that irukandjis might nonetheless be blind to red light; if this is someday demonstrated to be the case, it would be a tremendous step forward for the tropical diving industry.
Another curious pattern that we observed was the overwhelmingly faster and more assertive response by the smallest juvenile than by any of the other larger study subjects. Whether this was just this individual's response or something inherent in very small individuals could not be ascertained with our sample group. Positive phototaxis in larvae and juveniles has been well documented in many other types of animals and plants, including mosquitos (Hribar and Hribar, 2006), cephalopods (Moltschaniwskyj and Doherty, 1995), gastropods (Barile et al., 1994), intertidal crustaceans (Forward and Cronin, 1979), and even bathyal larvae (Bingham and Young, 1993). We speculate that this juvenile response in C. fleckeri may be due to ontogenetic priorities—that is, the priority of a juvenile is to survive and grow, and thus food capture is of the utmost importance. Food-linked positive phototaxis was demonstrated in Tripedalia cystophora (Stewart, 1996), by a study in which juveniles were drawn to light shafts to feed on copepods, but breeding males and gravid females did not feed. It might also be interesting to test sexually mature spawned and unspawned individuals, hungry individuals, and gorged individuals, to determine whether there is a reproductive-linked or hunger-linked response to light.
Finally, some taxa show a marked sexual dimorphism in their response to light—for example, glow worms (Booth et al., 2004), copepods (Chae and Nishida, 2004), sandflies (Mellor and Hamilton, 2003), mosquitos (Burkett and Butler, 2005), and fairy shrimp (Luc et al., 1995). A sex-linked response was not tested in C. fleckeri, but the possibility seems intriguing. To date, the only sexually dimorphic phenomena noted for cubozoans are velarial spots, which are present in females and absent in males of Carybdea sivickisi (Hartwick, 1991) and Tripedalia cystophora (Lewis and Long, 2005), and dimorphic gonads in the same two species (Werner, 1973; Hartwick, 1991); but then again, nobody has really pursued the question of sex-linked phenomena in jellyfish.
The behavioral morphology and swimming form that we observed in Chironex fleckeri in response to blue light was unique among the responses to different colors of light, and we believe that this phenomenon bears further study. We remain most curious as to whether the blue light feeding response was due to luminosity or to the spectrality of blue. Knowing which is the case will provide useful information for improved management of marine stingers in regions where they threaten human life, and will also provide interesting insights into the limits of brainless visual response.
Colors should be examined at random, rather than grouped as in our study. It was interesting to us that the first replicate of some colors elicited a lesser response than later replicates; we imagined a priori that the opposite might be true, based on initial response to the light without a food payoff. The indication that there was a habituation response at all seems curious, and should be tested.
A more rigorously quantified experiment could be conducted on a grid, to track the distance and direction traveled by each individual during the experiment. However, previous studies have indicated that cubozoans respond to substrate and background patterns (Matsumoto, 1995; Stewart, 1996; Ueno et al., 2000); therefore, one must be cautious about confounding the results with patterns that may confuse or deter the animals.
The highest priority for research would be to test whether Irukandji jellyfishes have a response similar to that we have demonstrated for C. fleckeri, or one closer to that previously reported for Tripedalia (Coates et al., 2006). The results of such a test could have important implications for night diving and fishing operations throughout the tropics and subtropics of the world where irukandjis occur.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
| Literature Cited |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |