Balıklarda İletişim
Özet
Balıklarda iletişim; görsel, işitsel, elektriksel ve kimyasal mekanizmalar aracılığıyla gerçekleşen, canlıların biyolojik, ekolojik ve davranışsal uyumlarında kritik rol oynayan karmaşık bir süreçtir. Görsel iletişimde; suyun ışık kırma, emme ve derinlik özelliklerine göre özelleşen göz yapılarının yanı sıra, derideki kromatoforlar ve pürin kristalleri vasıtasıyla kırmızı renklenme, poster renkler, dağınık renklenme, ters gölgeleme, kamuflaj ve göz aldatması gibi renklenme modelleri ile ışık üreten fotoforlar kullanılmaktadır. İşitsel iletişim kapsamında sesler; sert organların sürtünmesi, yüzme kesesi titreşimleri veya özel kas hareketleriyle üretilmekte; yan hat ve iç kulak organları tarafından algılanarak alan savunması, çiftleşme kurları, tehdit uyarıları ve sürü içi koordinasyonda işlev görmektedir. Elektriksel iletişim; kas ve sinir kökenli elektrik organları tarafından üretilen, elektroreseptörlerle algılanan akımlar sayesinde karanlık veya bulanık sularda yön bulma, tür içi tanınma, avlanma ve savunmayı mümkün kılar. Kimyasal iletişim ise koklama ve tatma reseptörleriyle amino asitler ve feromonların algılanmasına dayanmakta olup; beslenme, doğduğu sulara göç etme, sosyal hiyerarşi kurma, akraba ve yavru tanıma ile predatörlere karşı korku kokusu salgılama gibi vital süreçleri düzenler. Balık davranışlarını ve bu iletişim sistemlerini anlamak, ekoloji, biyoloji ve balıkçılık teknolojisi açısından büyük önem taşımaktadır.
Communication in fish is a complex process occurring through visual, auditory, electrical, and chemical mechanisms, playing a critical role in the biological, ecological, and behavioral adaptations of organisms. In visual communication, along with eye structures specialized according to the light refraction, absorption, and depth characteristics of water, photophores that produce light and coloration patterns—such as red coloration, poster colors, disruptive coloration, countershading, camouflage, and eye-deception—are utilized via chromatophores and purine crystals in the skin. Within auditory communication, sounds are produced by the friction of hard structures, swim bladder vibrations, or specific muscle movements, and are detected by the lateral line and inner ear organs to function in territory defense, courtship displays, threat warnings, and shoal coordination. Electrical communication enables navigation, species recognition, hunting, and defense in dark or turbid waters through currents generated by muscle and nerve-derived electric organs and detected by electroreceptors. Chemical communication relies on the perception of amino acids and pheromones through olfactory and gustatory receptors, regulating vital processes such as feeding, homing migration to natal waters, establishing social hierarchy, kin and offspring recognition, and releasing alarm substances against predators. Understanding fish behavior and these communication systems holds great significance for ecology, biology, and fisheries technology.
Referanslar
Ladich F. Ecology of sound communication in fishes. Fish and Fisheries; 2019;20(3): 552-563.
Demirci S, Ulaş F. Trol Torbasinda Farklı Görüntüleme Sistemleri İle Görsel Seçicilik Değerlendirmeleri. Aquaculture Studies; 2017;17(4): 501-510.
Ulaş F, Demirci S, Şimşek E. The importance of visual on trawl codend selectivity. International Advanced Researches & Engineering Congress; 2017: 2228.
Levine, J. S., Lobel, P. S., & MacNichol, E. F. (1980). Visual communication in fishes. In Environmental physiology of fishes (pp. 447-475). Springer, Boston, MA.
Walls GL. The vertebrate eye and its adaptive radiation. Hafner Publishing Company 1963. New York, London.
McGraw KJ. Melanins, metals, and mate quality. Oikos; 2003;402-406.
García-Chavarría M, Lara-Flores M. The use of carotenoid in aquaculture. Research Journal of Fisheries and Hydrobiology; 2013;8(2): 38-49.
Fox DL. Animal biochromes and structural colours. University of California Press; 2020.
Endler JA. A predator’s view of animal color patterns. In M. K. Hecht, W. C. Steere, & B. Wallace, (Eds.), Evolutionary Biology New York: Plenum Press; 1978: 319-364.
Price AC, Weadick CJ, Shim J, et al. Pigments, patterns, and fish behavior. Zebrafish; 2008;5(4): 297-307.
Lanzing WJR, Bower CC. Development of colour patterns in relation to behaviour in Tilapia mossambica (Peters). Journal of Fish Biology; 1974;6(1): 29-41.
Bakker TCM, Milinski M. The advantages of being red: sexual selection in the stickleback. Marine & Freshwater Behaviour & Phy; 1993;23: 287-300.
Gonçalves-de-Freitas E, da Silva Castro AL, Carvalho TB, de Mendonça FZ. Sexual selection and social hierarchy in fishes. Oecologia Australis; 2009;13(1): 80-88.
Ehrlich PR, Talbot FH, Russell BC, et al. The behavior of chaetodontid fishes with special reference to Lorenz’s “poster colouration“ hypothesis. Journal of Zoology; 1977;183:213-228.
Champ CM, Vorobyev M, Marshall NJ. Colour thresholds in a coral reef fish. Royal Society open science; 2016;3(9): 160399.
Barlow GW. Competition between color morps of the polychromatic Midas cichlid Cichlasoma citrinellum. Science; 1973;179: 806-807.
Josef N. Peri-Ocular Eye Patterning (POEP): More than Meets the Eye. Open Journal of Animal Sciences; 2017;7(03): 356.
Thresher RE. Eye ornamentation of Caribbean reef fishes. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie; 1977;43(2): 152-158.
Denton EJ. Review lecture: on the organization of reflecting surfaces in some marine animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences; 1970;258(824): 285-313.
Herring, PJ. Bioluminescence of marine organisms. Nature; 1977;267(5614): 788-793.
McPhail JD. A possible function of the caudal spot in characid fishes. Canadian Journal of Zoology;1977;55(7): 1063-1066.
McPhail JD. Sons and lovers: The functional significance of sexual dichromatism in a fish, Neoheterandria tridentiger (Garman). Behaviour; 1977;64(3-4): 329-339.
Haas R. Sexual selection in Nothobranchius guentheri (Pisces, Cyprinodontidae). Evolution; 1976;20: 614-622.
Haas R. Behavirol biology of the annual killifish, Northobranchius guentheri. Copeia; 1976;(1):80-91.
Hawkins AD. Underwater sound and fish behavior In T.J.Picher (Eds.), The behaviour of teleost fishes New York: Chapman and Hall; (1993: 129-170.
Fine ML, Winn HE, Olla BL. Communication in fishes. In T.A. Sebeok, (Eds.), How animals communicate Terre Haute: Indiana Univ. Press; 1977: 472-518.
Ladich F. Sound communication in fishes (Ed. Vol. 4). Springer; 2015.
Gerald JW. Sound production during courtship in six species of sunfish (Centrarchidae). Evolution; 1971; 75-87.
Westby GWM. The ecology, discharge activity, and predatory behavior of gymnotiform electric fish in the coastal streams of French Guiana. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology; 1988;22(5): 341-354.
Carlson BA. Electric signaling behavior and the mechanisms of electric organ discharge production in mormyrid fish. Journal of Physiology-Paris; 2002;96(5-6): 405-419.
Ladich F, Myrberg AA. Agonistic behavior and acoustic communication. Communication in fishes; 2006;1(1): 121-148.
Szamier RB, Wachtel AW. Special cutaneous receptor organs of fish: VI. Ampullary and tuberous organs of Hypopomus. Journal of Ultrastructure Research; 1970;30(3-4): 450-471.
Lissman HW. Electric location in fishes. Scientific American; 1963;208(3): 50-59.
Möller P. Electric fishes: History and behavior. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1995.
Døving KB, Pinching AJ. Selective degeneration of neurones in the olfactory bulb following prolonged odour exposure. Brain Research; 1973;52: 115-129.
Caprio J. High sensitivity of catfish taste receptors to amino acids. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology,; 1975;52(1): 247-251.
Wu G. Metabolism and functions of amino acids in sense organs. Amino Acids in Nutrition and Health; 2020; 201-217.
Sutterlin AM, Sutterlin N. Electirical responses of the olfactory epithelium of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada; 1971;28(4): 565-572.
Ağilkaya GŞ, Karaytuğ S, Şen İ. Balıklarda Feromonlar. Acta Aquatica Turcica; 2019;15(2): 252-261.
Tavolga WA. Visual, chemical, and sound stimuli as cues in the sex discriminatory behavior of the gobiid fish. Bathygobius soporator. Zoologica; 1956;41: 49-64.
MacGintie GE. The natural history of the blind goby (Typhlogobius californiensis Steindachner). American Midland Naturalist; 1939;21(2): 489-505.
Bardach JE, Todd JH. Chemical communication in fish. In: Advances in Chemoreception, vol. 1,J. W. Johnston, Jr., D. G. Moulton, and A. Turk, eds. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1970; 205-40.
McKaye KR, Barlow GW. Chemical recognition of young by the midas cichlid, Cichlasoma citrinellum. Copeia; 1976;76(2): 276-282.
Smith RJF. The adaptive significance of the alarm substance-fright reaction system. In T.J. Hara, (Eds.), Chemoreception in fishes Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1982; 327-342.
