Behavioral responses of two deep-sea fish species to red, far-red, and white light

Abstract

The relatively unobtrusive deep-sea camera system Eye-in-the-Sea (EITS) was deployed in Monterey Bay Canyon, California, USA, to assess the relative photosensitivity of 2 deepsea fishes, Coryphaenoides acrolepis and Anoplopoma fimbria. Previous studies addressing the in situ response of deep-sea fishes to red and white light were done in the presence of ROV-induced stimuli. Here, we report on the behavioral response of C. acrolepis and A. fimbria in a vehicle-free environment when subjected to white (full visible spectrum), red (685 nm), and far-red (695 nm) illumination in situ. Under far-red light conditions, A. fimbria spent significantly more time in the fieldof-view and demonstrated an increase in entrances/exits when compared to the situation under red-light and white-light conditions. No significant difference in the average time C. acrolepis spent in the field-of-view was found between any of the test wavelengths; however, the entrances-to-exits ratio for C. acrolepis decreased during white-light conditions. While A. fimbria often displayed a flight response at the onset of white and sometimes red (685 nm) illumination, C. acrolepis did not demonstrate a similar behavioral response when exposed to light within its range of visual sensitivity. A. fimbria undergo a dramatic ontogenic shift in depth, inhabiting well-lit, near-shore waters as juveniles and moving into deeper waters as adults. It is thought that C. acrolepis spend part of their early life history in the light-limited mesopelagic, below the permanent thermocline, and move into deeper waters as they mature. Based on the results of the present study, we hypothesize that systematic differences in the phototactic responses of deep-sea fishes are a function of life history as well as spectral sensitivity. KEY WORDS: Deep sea · Red light · Fish behaviorResale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher OPEN PEN ACCESS CCESS

Comparison of the relative efficiencies of stereo-BRUVs and traps for sampling tropical continental shelf demersal fishes

“…The scant evidence that is available suggests that the eyes of many shallow water nocturnal fishes will be able to detect light between 487 and 575 nm (Lythgoe and Partridge, 1991;Lythgoe et al, 1994). Similar evidence exists from a comparative study in deep water (Raymond and Widder, 2007), which suggests that red light above 600 nm decreases the disturbance of lighting. In controlled laboratory experiments Ryer et al (2009) demonstrated that white light had a variable influence on fish behaviour and detectability and that this varied with the intensity and proximity of the light.…”

Effect of underwater lighting on observations of density and behavior of rockfish during camera surveys

“…This effect depends on the species and sizes observed. Raymond and Widder (2007) found that sablefish reacted strongly to illumination with white and red lights and less strongly with far-red lights, while a species of grenadier in the same study did not react to any of these same lighting treatments. Similar species-specific reactions have been reported in other in situ studies.…”

“…Infrared lighting is far outside the visible spectrum of most fish species and has been previously used in some studies to compare fish behavior in terms of light avoidance, swimming behavior, or detectible response between red and white lights (Olla et al, 2000;Widder et al, 2005;Raymond and Widder, 2007). Although it is largely invisible to fish, infrared light has the disadvantage of very high absorption in water, making realistic visual range of observation often limited to less than 1 m. This makes it unsuitable for studies where visual detection of fishes and identification to species is needed.…”

Behavioural responses of the yellow emitting annelid Tomopteris helgolandica to photic stimuli

“…The cumulative duration of light exposure [solar irradiance and 1 watt‐light emitting diode (LED) headlamp] did not exceed a few minutes. The specimens were subsequently handled under red or infrared (IR) light known to be significantly less disruptive than white light . Collected specimens were housed separately in plastic translucent aquaria (150 mm × 150 mm × 200 mm) in light and temperature conditions similar to natural (as retrieved from a CTD profile shown in Figure SI from the Supporting Information).…”