Number and Distribution of Superficial Neuromasts in Twelve Common European Cypriniform Fishes and Their Relationship to Habitat Occurrence

Abstract

This paper gives the first detailed data on the number and body part related distribution of superficial neuromasts in twelve common European Cypriniform species and examines whether such anatomical variables can be related to rough scale habitat occurrence. The fishes (Barbatula barbatula, Barbus barbus, Chondrostoma nasus, Cobitis taenia, Leuciscus cephalus, Leuciscus leuciscus, Phoxinus phoxinus, Rutilus rutilus, Rhodeus sericeus, Scardinius erythrophthalmus, Tinca tinca, Vimba vimba) were classified in two generalized 'ecological guilds', 1) rheophilic and 2) limnophilic or indifferent, based on literature data. The total number of superficial neuromasts was consistent within each species, but differed considerably between species. Lowest numbers of superficial neuromasts were found in Barbatula barbatula (21 ± 4.9 superficial neuromasts per cm body length) (mean ± SD), highest numbers in Vimba vimba (233 ± 36.1). Both species can be classified as rheophilic. Over all no relationship was found between the total number of superficial neuromasts and large scale habitat occurrence. IntroductionThe lateral line is a hydrodynamic sensory system unique to fishes and aquatic amphibians. Fish use lateral line information for many behaviours, including spatial orientation, rheotaxis, station holding, schooling, prey detection, predator avoidance and intraspecific communication (for review see BLECKMANN, 1994). The smallest sensory receptor of the lateral line is the neuromast, a sensory structure that occurs freestanding on the skin (superficial neuromast or SN) or in sub-epidermal fluid-filled canals (canal neuromast or CN) that open to the environment through a series of pores. SNs usually occur in distinct lines or groups on the head, trunk and tail fin, while lateral line canals often form a network over the head and occur as a single canal on the trunk (reviewed by COOMBS et al., 1988; MONT-GOMERY et al., 1995). Although our knowledge on the anatomy of the SN-system is relatively limited, it is well known that it shows a high diversity. Fish may have only a few or up to several thousand SNs located on the head, trunk and tail fin (for reviews see COOMBS et al., 1988;WEBB, 1989

Underwater artificial lateral line flow sensors

“…So, SNs are directly exposed to the environment while the CNs are embedded in fluid-filled canals with pores opening to outside. The SNs or CNs respond to different stimuli and play distinct roles in fish behaviors (Beckmann et al 2010;Klein and Bleckmann 2011).…”

Sensory trait variation contributes to biased dispersal of threespine stickleback in flowing water

“…Experimental ablation results in binary traits (neuromasts present or absent) that have little bearing on the quantitative lateral line variation we observe within and between stickleback populations. This quantitative variation has previously been studied in across‐species comparative studies, revealing that the number and type of neuromasts covary with habitat use (Dijkgraaf, ; Vischer, ; Wark & Peichel, ; Trokovic et al ., ; Vanderpham et al ., ; Coombs et al ., ; for a counter example, see Beckmann et al ., ). Species with more superficial neuromasts tend to live in slower‐moving water or are less active swimmers (Montgomery et al ., ; Coombs et al ., ).…”

Sensing External and Self-Motion with Hair Cells: A Comparison of the Lateral Line and Vestibular Systems from a Developmental and Evolutionary Perspective

“…Likewise the density of canal and superficial neuromasts potentially correlates with the hydrodynamics of a given habitat and/or lifestyle with limnophilic species tending to have more superficial neuromasts with wide but often reduced canals compared to rheophilic species [Janssen 2004]. However, despite correlations between morphological differences of superficial and canal neuromasts, no unifying pattern has yet been found to link hydrodynamic conditions and/or lifestyle with a particular morphology [Beckmann et al 2010; Schmitz et al 2008]. …”