Evaluation of swab and related tests as a bioassay for assessing responses by squamate reptiles to chemical stimuli
The ability of squamates to detect chemical cues from adaptively important sources including prey, predators, and conspecifics has been tested frequently by presenting stimuli on cotton-tipped swabs or ceramic tiles. In many such studies the primary response variable is tongue-flicking, which is wid...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of chemical ecology 1998-05, Vol.24 (5), p.841-866 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 866 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 841 |
container_title | Journal of chemical ecology |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | COOPER, W. E |
description | The ability of squamates to detect chemical cues from adaptively important sources including prey, predators, and conspecifics has been tested frequently by presenting stimuli on cotton-tipped swabs or ceramic tiles. In many such studies the primary response variable is tongue-flicking, which is widely interpreted to indicate sampling for vomerolfaction. I review the basic experimental method and consider limitations regarding its application and interpretation and ways to overcome them. Effects of experimenter proximity and the assumed invisibility of chemical stimuli are considered, as are use of cologne as a pungency control, senses used in making chemical discriminations, and interpretation of results when there are no significant response differences among stimulus classes. Although the assumption that tongue-flicking reveals vomerolfactory sampling and the necessity of an intact vomeronasal system for normal responses to pheromones have been demonstrated where tested, very few species have been examined. In some squamates for which these assumptions have not been examined experimentally, especially eublepharid geckos, attacks on swabs bearing prey chemicals and performance of antipredatory displays in response to predator chemicals occur with no prior tongue-flicking. Not only are assays based on tongue-flicking useless in such cases, but the discriminations are likely based on olfaction. Issues specific to the study of responses to prey chemicals, predator chemicals, and pheromones are discussed. For many purposes, swab tests provide rapid, conclusive assays of ability to respond differentially to biologically relevant stimuli. However, other methods may be superior for studying some responses, and swab tests are not always applicable.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1023/a:1022373517653 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pasca</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16522688</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>16522688</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-eb96eecba13343a2048a3f0222b2b2cea1bee787d54d9defd9e975902f21e2193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUE1LxDAQDaLgunr2GkS8VfPRNK03WdYPWPCi5zJtp5qlbbqdVNl_b8Q9yQwM83jzmPcYu5TiVgql7-A-DqWtNtJmRh-xhTRWJ9Jk8pgthCjyRGgtT9kZ0VYIobLcLBitv6CbITg_cN9y-oaKw9DwCTsI2PCAFIhDbF45D0Sw562fIkJI5IaPyKTRD3Hj1Z7TboY-HkZ0DK6LYPC8_sTe1dBxCq6fO3fOTlroCC8Oc8neH9dvq-dk8_r0snrYJLU2KiRYFRliXYHUOtWgRJqDbqNHVcWqEWSFaHPbmLQpGmybAgtrCqFaJVHJQi_ZzZ_uOPndHI2UvaMauw4G9DOVMjMqppBH4tU_4tbP0xB_K63WQqZ5-qt2fSABRTPtBEPtqBwn18O0L5WyqY0B_wAtkHiS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733014849</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of swab and related tests as a bioassay for assessing responses by squamate reptiles to chemical stimuli</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>COOPER, W. E</creator><creatorcontrib>COOPER, W. E</creatorcontrib><description>The ability of squamates to detect chemical cues from adaptively important sources including prey, predators, and conspecifics has been tested frequently by presenting stimuli on cotton-tipped swabs or ceramic tiles. In many such studies the primary response variable is tongue-flicking, which is widely interpreted to indicate sampling for vomerolfaction. I review the basic experimental method and consider limitations regarding its application and interpretation and ways to overcome them. Effects of experimenter proximity and the assumed invisibility of chemical stimuli are considered, as are use of cologne as a pungency control, senses used in making chemical discriminations, and interpretation of results when there are no significant response differences among stimulus classes. Although the assumption that tongue-flicking reveals vomerolfactory sampling and the necessity of an intact vomeronasal system for normal responses to pheromones have been demonstrated where tested, very few species have been examined. In some squamates for which these assumptions have not been examined experimentally, especially eublepharid geckos, attacks on swabs bearing prey chemicals and performance of antipredatory displays in response to predator chemicals occur with no prior tongue-flicking. Not only are assays based on tongue-flicking useless in such cases, but the discriminations are likely based on olfaction. Issues specific to the study of responses to prey chemicals, predator chemicals, and pheromones are discussed. For many purposes, swab tests provide rapid, conclusive assays of ability to respond differentially to biologically relevant stimuli. However, other methods may be superior for studying some responses, and swab tests are not always applicable.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-0331</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1561</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1023/a:1022373517653</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JCECD8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Springer</publisher><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Bioassays ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chemicals ; Conspecifics ; Experimental methods ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects. Techniques ; Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...) ; Olfaction ; Predators ; Prey ; Reptiles</subject><ispartof>Journal of chemical ecology, 1998-05, Vol.24 (5), p.841-866</ispartof><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-eb96eecba13343a2048a3f0222b2b2cea1bee787d54d9defd9e975902f21e2193</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2274703$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>COOPER, W. E</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of swab and related tests as a bioassay for assessing responses by squamate reptiles to chemical stimuli</title><title>Journal of chemical ecology</title><description>The ability of squamates to detect chemical cues from adaptively important sources including prey, predators, and conspecifics has been tested frequently by presenting stimuli on cotton-tipped swabs or ceramic tiles. In many such studies the primary response variable is tongue-flicking, which is widely interpreted to indicate sampling for vomerolfaction. I review the basic experimental method and consider limitations regarding its application and interpretation and ways to overcome them. Effects of experimenter proximity and the assumed invisibility of chemical stimuli are considered, as are use of cologne as a pungency control, senses used in making chemical discriminations, and interpretation of results when there are no significant response differences among stimulus classes. Although the assumption that tongue-flicking reveals vomerolfactory sampling and the necessity of an intact vomeronasal system for normal responses to pheromones have been demonstrated where tested, very few species have been examined. In some squamates for which these assumptions have not been examined experimentally, especially eublepharid geckos, attacks on swabs bearing prey chemicals and performance of antipredatory displays in response to predator chemicals occur with no prior tongue-flicking. Not only are assays based on tongue-flicking useless in such cases, but the discriminations are likely based on olfaction. Issues specific to the study of responses to prey chemicals, predator chemicals, and pheromones are discussed. For many purposes, swab tests provide rapid, conclusive assays of ability to respond differentially to biologically relevant stimuli. However, other methods may be superior for studying some responses, and swab tests are not always applicable.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Bioassays</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chemicals</subject><subject>Conspecifics</subject><subject>Experimental methods</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects. Techniques</subject><subject>Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)</subject><subject>Olfaction</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Reptiles</subject><issn>0098-0331</issn><issn>1573-1561</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUE1LxDAQDaLgunr2GkS8VfPRNK03WdYPWPCi5zJtp5qlbbqdVNl_b8Q9yQwM83jzmPcYu5TiVgql7-A-DqWtNtJmRh-xhTRWJ9Jk8pgthCjyRGgtT9kZ0VYIobLcLBitv6CbITg_cN9y-oaKw9DwCTsI2PCAFIhDbF45D0Sw562fIkJI5IaPyKTRD3Hj1Z7TboY-HkZ0DK6LYPC8_sTe1dBxCq6fO3fOTlroCC8Oc8neH9dvq-dk8_r0snrYJLU2KiRYFRliXYHUOtWgRJqDbqNHVcWqEWSFaHPbmLQpGmybAgtrCqFaJVHJQi_ZzZ_uOPndHI2UvaMauw4G9DOVMjMqppBH4tU_4tbP0xB_K63WQqZ5-qt2fSABRTPtBEPtqBwn18O0L5WyqY0B_wAtkHiS</recordid><startdate>19980501</startdate><enddate>19980501</enddate><creator>COOPER, W. E</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980501</creationdate><title>Evaluation of swab and related tests as a bioassay for assessing responses by squamate reptiles to chemical stimuli</title><author>COOPER, W. E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-eb96eecba13343a2048a3f0222b2b2cea1bee787d54d9defd9e975902f21e2193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Bioassays</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chemicals</topic><topic>Conspecifics</topic><topic>Experimental methods</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects. Techniques</topic><topic>Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)</topic><topic>Olfaction</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Reptiles</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>COOPER, W. E</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of chemical ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>COOPER, W. E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of swab and related tests as a bioassay for assessing responses by squamate reptiles to chemical stimuli</atitle><jtitle>Journal of chemical ecology</jtitle><date>1998-05-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>841</spage><epage>866</epage><pages>841-866</pages><issn>0098-0331</issn><eissn>1573-1561</eissn><coden>JCECD8</coden><abstract>The ability of squamates to detect chemical cues from adaptively important sources including prey, predators, and conspecifics has been tested frequently by presenting stimuli on cotton-tipped swabs or ceramic tiles. In many such studies the primary response variable is tongue-flicking, which is widely interpreted to indicate sampling for vomerolfaction. I review the basic experimental method and consider limitations regarding its application and interpretation and ways to overcome them. Effects of experimenter proximity and the assumed invisibility of chemical stimuli are considered, as are use of cologne as a pungency control, senses used in making chemical discriminations, and interpretation of results when there are no significant response differences among stimulus classes. Although the assumption that tongue-flicking reveals vomerolfactory sampling and the necessity of an intact vomeronasal system for normal responses to pheromones have been demonstrated where tested, very few species have been examined. In some squamates for which these assumptions have not been examined experimentally, especially eublepharid geckos, attacks on swabs bearing prey chemicals and performance of antipredatory displays in response to predator chemicals occur with no prior tongue-flicking. Not only are assays based on tongue-flicking useless in such cases, but the discriminations are likely based on olfaction. Issues specific to the study of responses to prey chemicals, predator chemicals, and pheromones are discussed. For many purposes, swab tests provide rapid, conclusive assays of ability to respond differentially to biologically relevant stimuli. However, other methods may be superior for studying some responses, and swab tests are not always applicable.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1023/a:1022373517653</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0098-0331 |
ispartof | Journal of chemical ecology, 1998-05, Vol.24 (5), p.841-866 |
issn | 0098-0331 1573-1561 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16522688 |
source | SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | Animal, plant and microbial ecology Bioassays Biological and medical sciences Chemicals Conspecifics Experimental methods Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects. Techniques Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...) Olfaction Predators Prey Reptiles |
title | Evaluation of swab and related tests as a bioassay for assessing responses by squamate reptiles to chemical stimuli |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T06%3A54%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pasca&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20swab%20and%20related%20tests%20as%20a%20bioassay%20for%20assessing%20responses%20by%20squamate%20reptiles%20to%20chemical%20stimuli&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20chemical%20ecology&rft.au=COOPER,%20W.%20E&rft.date=1998-05-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=841&rft.epage=866&rft.pages=841-866&rft.issn=0098-0331&rft.eissn=1573-1561&rft.coden=JCECD8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1023/a:1022373517653&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pasca%3E16522688%3C/proquest_pasca%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733014849&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |