Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews

Coughing Seashells

A type of scallop expels water and waste through a sort of cough that could reveal clues about water quality.

By | November 28, 2012

ScallopsFlickr, adactioScallops, a commercially valuable food source, are known to exhibit slowed growth in poor quality water that contains toxic algae or low levels of oxygen. One method of testing the water quality, then, is to harvest the mollusks and check the ridges on the shell, which indicated the amount of growth like the thickness of rings in a tree.  The process, however, is labor intensive and disrupts the scallop colony. 

Now, researchers from the Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer, in France, in collaboration with acoustic experts, have found that they may be able to discern the bivalve’s health and metabolism by recording how often it coughs. In a study published in the Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, researchers were able to record the sound of the scallops as they expel waste and water through its valves, which sounds like a pop followed by a drawn out breath or swooshing sound. The recordings allowed the researchers to distinguish the sound of scallop cough from other benthic animals as far as tens of meters away amid the other ambient oceanic noise. (You can listen to the mollusk coughs here.)

By analyzing cough patterns in high and poor water quality, researchers hope to develop a non-invasive system of detection that could give clues about water quality, as well as other mollusk behaviors such as swimming, jumping, or spinning.

(Hat tip to ScienceNOW)

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: kitapbigi

kitapbigi

Posts: 20

February 11, 2013

 

To Dave20640, 65% is the proportion of the 2,000 retracted articles, not of all articles published. If 200,000 articles were published, that would be only 2/3 of one percent of all articles published; not a stunning number. I didn't see anything in the article (or the linked material) that indicated whether 2,000 was large or not, by comparison. What perplexes me is that these people think they are not going to get caught. That makes me wonder if there's a lot more going on than we know about, that they do know about. I then wonder why we don't see, in these reports, information that they were asked if, in their experience, this kind of behavior is widespread. Not that we would necessarily be confident about the veracity of their observations. kredi hesaplama-evim şahane - fragman izle - mobilya modelleri

 

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
Life Technologies