The distribution and abundance of electrosensory pores in two benthic sharks: A comparison of the wobbegong shark, Orectolobus maculatus, and the angel shark, Squatina australis
Marine and Freshwater Research, ISSN: 1323-1650, Vol: 65, Issue: 11, Page: 1003-1008
2014
- 11Citations
- 19Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Electroreception is an ancient sense found in many aquatic animals, including sharks, which may be used in the detection of prey, predators and mates. Wobbegong sharks (Orectolobidae) and angel sharks (Squatinidae) represent two distantly related families that have independently evolved a similar dorso-ventrally compressed body form to complement their benthic ambush feeding strategy. Consequently, these groups represent useful models in which to investigate the specific morphological and physiological adaptations that are driven by the adoption of a benthic lifestyle. In this study, we compared the distribution and abundance of electrosensory pores in the spotted wobbegong shark (Orectolobus maculatus) with the Australian angel shark (Squatina australis) to determine whether both species display a similar pattern of clustering of sub-dermal electroreceptors and to further understand the functional importance of electroreception in the feeding behaviour of these benthic sharks. Orectolobus maculatus has a more complex electrosensory system than S. australis, with a higher abundance of pores and an additional cluster of electroreceptors positioned in the snout (the superficial ophthalmic cluster). Interestingly, both species possess a cluster of pores (the hyoid cluster, positioned slightly posterior to the first gill slit) more commonly found in rays, but which may be present in all benthic elasmobranchs to assist in the detection of approaching predators.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know