Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T10:39:01.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Olfactory Epithelium in Plaice (Pleuronectes Platessa) And Sole (Solea Solea), Two Flatfishes With Contrasting Feeding Behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Robin Harvey
Robin Harvey
Affiliation:
Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, PO Box 3, Oban, Argyll, Scotland, PA34 4AD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The olfactory epithelium of developmental stages from yolk sac larvae to adults of plaice, Pleuronectes platessa L. (Pisces: Pleuronectidae) and Dover sole, Solea solea (L.) (Pisces: Soleidae) was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two ciliated cell types and a microvillar cell are present in both species soon after hatching and persist into adulthood. In juveniles and adults of plaice, there were significantly higher densities of ciliated sensory cells in the eyed side of the fish than in the blind side over all regions of the olfactory lamellae. Densities of microvillar cells were an order of magnitude less than those of ciliated cells in regions on the wider part of the lamellae, with no significant difference between organs in most of these regions. On the narrow part of the lamellae, densities of microvillar cells were significantly higher than on the wide part, and significantly higher in the eyed side organ. In sole, ciliated cells were significantly more dense in the blind side organ in three of the four regions examined in this species. In contrast, microvillar cells showed a similar pattern to that in plaice, being significantly more dense in the eyed side organ in two of the four regions. Comparisons between the species showed significantly higher densities of both cell types in sole, microvillar cells being an order of magnitude denser in comparable regions on the lamellae. In addition, the total area of the olfactory lamellae is around three times greater in sole. These data point to a possible morphological basis for the enhanced olfactory capabilities of sole apparent from behavioural studies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 127 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Appelbaum, S., Adron, J.W., George, S.G., Mackie, A.M. & Pirie, B.J.S., 1983. On the development of the olfactory and gustatory organs of the Dover sole, Solea solea, during metamorphosis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 63, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appelbaum, S. & Schemmel, C., 1983. Dermal sense organs and their significance in the feeding behaviour of the common sole Solea vulgaris. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 13, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannister, L.H., 1965. The fine structure of the olfactory surface of teleostean fishes. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 106, 333–342.Google Scholar
Bateson, W., 1890. The sense-organs and perceptions of fishes; with remarks on the supply of bait. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 1, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batty, R.S. & Hoyt, R.D., 1995. The role of sense organs in the feeding behaviour of juvenile sole and plaice. Journal of Fish Biology, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, J.H.S., Gray, J.A.B. & Best, A.C.G., 1983. Structure and development of the free neuromasts and lateral line system of the herring. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 63, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, M.T., Gibson, R.N., Robb, L. & Comely, C.A., 1994. Temporal patterns of movement in juvenile flatfishes and their predators: underwater television observations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 177, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J.F. & Johnstone, J., 1901. Pleuronectes (the plaice). LMBC Memoirs of Typical British Marine Plants and Animals, 8, 1–252.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J.T., 1890. A treatise on the common sole (Solea vulgaris), considered both as an organism and as a commodity. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Dempsey, C.H., 1977. Chemoreception in larval herring and plaice. PhD thesis, Stirling University.Google Scholar
Doving, K.B., 1986. Functional properties of the fish olfactory system. In Progress in sensory physiology, vol. 6 (ed. H., Autrum et al.), pp. 39–104. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, J.R. & Caprio, J., 1984. The spatial distribution of ciliated and microvillous olfactory receptor neurons in the Channel catfish is not matched by a differential specificity to amino acid and bile salt stimuli. Chemical Senses, 9, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, H.M., 1937. A comparative study of the brains in Pleuronectidae. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 122, 308–342.Google Scholar
Groot, S.J. de, 1971. On the inter-relationships between morphology of the alimentary tract, food and feeding behaviour in flatfishes (Pisces: Pleuronectiformes). Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 5, 121–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, T.J., 1994. The diversity of chemical stimulation in fish olfaction and gustation. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 4, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, T.J. & Zielinski, B., 1989. Structure and functional development of the olfactory organ in teleosts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 118, 183–194.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R., Blaxter, J.H.S. & Hoyt, R.D., 1992. Development of superficial and lateral line neuromasts in larvae and juveniles of plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and sole (Solea solea). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 72, 651–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holl, A., 1965. Vergleichende morphologische und histologische Untersuchungen am Geruchsorgan der Knockenfische. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Ökologie der Tiere, 54, 707–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, R.A. & Gibson, R.N., 1983. A comparison of predatory behaviour in flatfish. Animal Behaviour, 31, 1244–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvin, D.N., 1973. The growth and survival of Dover sole, Solea solea (L) (syn Solea vulgaris Quensel 1806), and some observations on the growth and survival of juvenile plaice, Pleuronectes platessa L., considered at various temperatures. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Knutsen, J.A., 1992. Feeding behaviour of North Sea turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) and Dover sole (Solea solea) larvae elicited by chemical stimuli. Marine Biology, 113, 543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruuk, H., 1963. Diurnal periodicity in the activity of the common sole, Solea vulgaris Quensel. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 2, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, A.M., Adron, J.W. & Grant, P.T., 1980. Chemical nature of feeding stimulants for the juvenile Dover sole, Solea solea (L.). Journal of Fish Biology, 16, 701–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marui, T. & Caprio, J., 1992. Teleost gustation. In Fish chemoreception (ed. T.J., Hara), pp. 171–198. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinero, A. & Flos, R., 1991. Influence of sex and age on the feeding habits of the common sole Solea solea. Marine Biology, 111, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, J.F. & Marc, R.E., 1984. Three distinct morphological classes of receptors in fish olfactory organs. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 222, 482–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nevitt, G.A., 1991. Do fish sniff? A new mechanism of olfactory sampling in pleuronectid flounders. Journal of Experimental Biology, 157, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryland, J.S., 1966. Observations on the development of the larvae of plaice, Pleuronectes platessa L., in aquaria. Journal du Conseil, 30, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute, 1990. SAS/STAT™ users guide, version 6, 4th ed., vol. 2. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Thommesen, G., 1983. Morphology, distribution, and specificity of olfactory receptor cells in salmonid fishes. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 117, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verheijen, F.J. & Groot, S.J. de, 1967. Diurnal activity pattern of plaice and flounder (Pleuronectidae) in aquaria. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 3, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitear, M., 1992. Solitary chemosensory cells. In Fish chemoreception (ed. T.J., Hara), pp. 103–125. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, M. & Ueda, K., 1979. Comparative morphology of fish olfactory epithelium. X. Perciformes, beryciformes, scorpaeniformes, and pleuronectiformes. Journal of the Faculty of Science. Section 4. Zoology. Tokyo University, 14, 273–297.Google Scholar
Zar, J.H., 1984. Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Zeiske, E., Melinkat, R., Breucker, H. & Kux, J., 1976. Ultrastructural studies on the epithelia of the olfactory organ of cyprinodonts (Teleostei, Cyprinodontoidea). Cell and Tissue Research, 172, 245–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeiske, E., Theisen, B. & Breucker, H., 1992. Structure, development, and evolutionary aspects of the peripheral olfactory system. In Fish chemoreception (ed. T.J., Hara), pp. 13–39. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar