Thermal modeling of snake infrared reception: Evidence for limited detection range

Citation
Bs. Jones et al., Thermal modeling of snake infrared reception: Evidence for limited detection range, J THEOR BIO, 209(2), 2001, pp. 201-211
Citations number
21
Categorie Soggetti
Multidisciplinary
Journal title
JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
ISSN journal
00225193 → ACNP
Volume
209
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
201 - 211
Database
ISI
SICI code
0022-5193(20010321)209:2<201:TMOSIR>2.0.ZU;2-V
Abstract
For more than 40 years, information has circulated with regard to the sensi tivity of infrared pit organs in both bold and crotaline snakes (pythons an d pit vipers, respectively). The most often quoted sensitivity is 0.003 deg reesC and this value is based on the work of Bullock and co-workers (1956). Missing from previous work was a quantitative model of radiation transfer that would report sensitivity not in terms of degrees Celsius, but rather s ensing distance. Since prey detection is often cited as the function of the infrared pit organ, quantification of this sensing distance seemed to be a n important value that was missing from the literature. In this paper, we m odel the radiation transfer process from a 37 degreesC object, i.e. warm-bl ooded prey, to an infrared pit organ. The model tries to answer a very basi c question-at what distance does the thermal signature of a 37 degreesC obj ect blend into the background for a non-imaging biological infrared sensor? The output of the model, the sensing distance, is of particular interest i n comparing biological infrared sensors to current semiconductor-based infr ared (IR) detectors-largely because of inappropriate comparisons between th e temperature sensitivity of IR snake reception and imaging IR cameras. The purpose of the presented work to make more appropriate comparisons, i.e. s ensing distance. This sensing distance output indicates an extremely short detection distance (<5 cm)-contradictory to what is observed experimentally . This dichotomy raises further questions regarding how the biological syst em amplifies this weak signal. <(c)> 2001 Academic Press.