2010
DOI: 10.1163/000579509x12580965484148
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

American cockroaches prefer four cardinal geomagnetic positions at rest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…blowflies (Calliphora erythrocephala), houseflies (Musca domestica), fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) (Becker, 1963;Becker and Speck, 1964;Wehner and Labhart, 1970), as well as in honeybees (Apis mellifera) (Martin and Lindauer, 1977). A more recent study of resting American cockroaches (Periplaneta americana) also found a quadramodal magnetic preference coinciding with the cardinal compass axes (Vácha et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…blowflies (Calliphora erythrocephala), houseflies (Musca domestica), fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) (Becker, 1963;Becker and Speck, 1964;Wehner and Labhart, 1970), as well as in honeybees (Apis mellifera) (Martin and Lindauer, 1977). A more recent study of resting American cockroaches (Periplaneta americana) also found a quadramodal magnetic preference coinciding with the cardinal compass axes (Vácha et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…A double-blind experiment in which larvae were tested in the presence and absence of directional earth-strength magnetic cues confirmed that the quadramodal alignment is dependent on the magnetic field, and that no alternative, nonmagnetic cue was present in the testing environment (Fig.3). Although quadramodal compass responses appear to be widespread in insects (Roonwal, 1958;Becker and Speck, 1964;Becker, 1976;Martin and Lindauer, 1977;Vácha et al, 2010), the sensory mechanism(s) mediating this behavior has yet to be identified. As discussed earlier, there are two candidate mechanisms proposed to mediate magnetoreception in terrestrial organisms: (1) a magnetite-based mechanism (MBM), based on single-domain or interacting superparamagnetic particles of magnetite believed to produce mechanical deformation of, or torque on, cell membrane structures that activate a coupled transduction mechanism (Winklhofer and Kirschvink, 2010) or, in the case of freely rotating single-domain particles, to secondarily affect the rate of intracellular free-radical reactions that influence the opening or closing of membrane channels; and (2) a photoreceptor-based mechanism involving a specialized class of photopigments (cryptochromes) that form photo-excited radical pair intermediates sensitive to magnetic fields (radical pair mechanism or RPM) that in some animals may cause the magnetic field to be perceived as a pattern of light intensity superimposed on the animal's surroundings (Ritz et al, 2000;Phillips et al, 2010b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, several studies have reported evidence of spontaneous magnetic alignment (SMA) behavior across a range of vertebrates that show a strong tendency to align the anteroposterior axis bimodally along the north-south magnetic axis [for reviews see 15, 16, and recently 17]. Although SMA appears to be widespread, exhibited by a wide range of taxa including both vertebrate [15,16,17,18] and invertebrate groups [19][20][21][22], the functional significance and biophysical mechanism mediating this behavior remains poorly understood. Possibilities of the functional significance underlying SMA include that the magnetic field could provide a stable reference frame for coordinating movement in open landscapes [23], or help to coordinate group responses in social animals [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%