Electroreception in Sharks

Questions:

Form and Function:

“What are its main parts and what do the parts do?  How does it use or generate electricity? How do electrons move through it?”

Electroreception in sharks first started out when sharks evolved, along with the rest of the elasmobranchs. Their lateral pores, branching off of the shark’s snout, developed a keen sensitivity to any differences in the electromagnetic fields in their habitat. The sensory organs are the ampullae of Lorenzini. They include large pores that contain gelatinous substances. These pores connect to the sharks’ cylindrical canals where the gelatinous secretions are kept. In each pore, there is a sensory nerve that signals electrical current to the brain. Most hunting sharks can have as many as 1500 ampullae around the snout and head, while other subspecies have much fewer, even as little as just over a hundred. These ampullae pores react to other changes in their habitat, such as temperature and water pressure.

The function of these ampullae pores helps aquatic predators like sharks catch prey by detecting their preys’ natural electric signals, even when there are unmoving, and silent. These pores can detect as little of a 10 millionth of a volt-the equivalent of an AA-Battery, with wires placed a mile apart in the ocean. The ampullae pores can take over sight or smell senses when a shark approaches their prey, leading them more precisely, and leaving the prey extremely vulnerable.

These ampullae act as homing devices and detect the electrical currents that other organisms emit. The salt in the water helps transport the electrical currents toward the shark, whose ampullae detect the electricity, and sends the information about it to the brain.

Electricity is simply the movement of electric charge, and every being has an electrical charge. Sharks track this charge using their ampullae pores. They track the flow of electrons in their preys’ electrical current. And this results in the preys’ last sights being the inside of the shark.

*Fun fact; Sharks can crash, attack the propellers and motors of human boats because the are attracted to the electrical current being produced. *

Social Implications:

“What are the social implications? (How might people be affected?) Consider less developed countries and locations with different climates or geography.

The main social implication is the increase of fear, from knowing that even hidden, this predator can track you anywhere. The public’s fear would grow knowing about the sharks’ electroreception abilities, being able to track any being in the ocean. The public’s fear could cause them to act irrationally, and viciously, which could cause them to harm the sharks, even though they are essential to our environment. These reactions can cause hunting, which in effect would cause fisherman, boaters, scuba divers, etc. to try to harm these sharks resulting in more human deaths that shark deaths; in result to the electrical current humans give off the sharks can detect this current because of the electroreception they have and be able to defend themselves and then go into survival mode, which results in death.

In our opinions, less developed countries would have the same reaction than in more developed countries, because each human is similar, with almost the same fundamentals and survival strategies in life. But not every person will be affect by these sharks with electroreception because one, sharks live in the ocean and not everyone lives near and ocean, two, sharks aren’t always trying to find something or someone to kill, and three, sharks can usually only use their electroreception sense in salt water because it is the best conductor to find the changes in the electromagnetic fields so sharks can use their strength.

Ethical Implications:

“What are the ethical implications? (What is morally right or wrong?)”

“Is it morally wrong or right?” The question has been asked for centuries whether it is wrong for a predator to hunt, for the prey to be hunted. However we don’t necessarily think it’s either. We believe that the cycle of hunting and being hunted was developed for a reason and has existed for millennia because it works to keep the natural balance. It might be unfair for the prey, who the shark has huge advantages over, being able to track it no matter what, but the sharks are preyed on by  killer whales… so it is morally wrong for the whales to eat the sharks? We think that survival in the wild is part of the natural process of life, and if they hunted for no reason, then we think that is wrong ( killing for no reason is a waste and goes against the natural order), but hunting to survive, for food, is natural, necessary, and will always be a part of life.

Environmental Implications:

“What are the environmental implications? (How does it affects the natural world?)”

Electroreception in sharks can effect the natural world, but only if sharks continue to exist, usually the salt water one. The affect could be the change in predator and prey, because if they public were to lash out on sharks, populations of species would fluctuate since sharks are a vital part of our world, a lot of things would change, like how many and what breeds in the ocean, it would also affect things outside of the ocean, because for example: If fisherman were to fish and a lot of sharks were killed a bigger population of fish and others would be in the ocean, and it would be overpopulated, which would be great at first and then and commercial fishers come, more and more will be coming and then the whole food chain would change. There would be massive environmental implications if sharks were to be hunted more than they already are, because the natural food chain needs all it links to stay attached. If sharks were taken out of the food chain, from unnatural causes, the whales would lose a food source, and the rest of the oceanic animals would become overpopulated, damaging their environment… the underwater coral and plant floor. Which could damage, even eradicate, several oceanic species. But for another point, if for some reason fish start to lose high rates of their population, being hunted by sharks could also make a species become extinct. If say, fishermen start targeting a certain, or two, breeds of fish, their population would diminish, which could harm both sides of this coin. The sharks would start to lose part of their food source, and the fish could start to become dangerously low populated, or even becoming extinct.

We think that if the natural world was left alone, it would balance itself, and there wouldn’t be any damage to the natural food chain and life cycle, but when humans intervene, the world becomes unbalanced and could cause damage to the cycle of life… species could become endangered, and take away other’s food sources, causing a chain reaction and harming different species.

Model:

Reflection:

Overall the project went very smoothly, we were able to work together seamlessly and easily. Our project, in my opinion, turned out very nicely, we had met all the requirements and were able to make everything the way we wanted to. We both had our own opinion and ideas and were able to compromise on things and we had no disagreements and no we both managed to do equal parts of the project and both of our ideas were realized and utilized in the creation of the model, and in the completion of the questions. I believe we were great partners and can work great in the future again if needed!