Subscription Services: Subscribe | Change | Unsubscribe | RSS
Advertising Media Kit: Introduction | Stats/Demographics | Rates | Testimonial | Contact
Miscellaneous: Reference Desk | Sitemap
Related Reading
Shark Smell Myth Found Fishy: No Better Than Other Fish At Sniffing Blood In The Water
email to a friend email print this print      Bookmark and Share   RSS 2.0 feed

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Everyone knows that sharks have an amazing sense of smell. Toss a chunk of salmon into the shark tank at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California, and you can see it in action.

"They know right away when the scent hits the water," said Erin Carter, an aquarist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium who works with several species of sharks. "If it's fresh food that's just been delivered that morning from the dock, they'll just go nuts for it."

But can these aquatic bloodhounds really detect a drop of blood in an Olympic-sized swimming pool or a mile away in the ocean, as the popular legend suggests?

This myth smelled a little fishy to scientists in Florida, who decided to put it to the test. They found that sharks don't live up to their reputation in the movies, documentaries, and pages of scientific journals. Although a shark's sense of smell is extremely keen, it's no better than that of a typical fish.

"From what we know now, they can't smell a drop of anything in an Olympic-sized swimming pool," said Tricia Meredith, a biologist at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.

Blood In The Water

The idea that sharks have the best noses in the ocean may be partly inspired by our fears of the toothy predators.

"People are afraid if they pee or bleed into the ocean, sharks are going to sniff them out and eat them," said Meredith.

In scientific circles, though, the shark's smelly reputation is based on its anatomy. Unlike human beings, sharks have separate openings for breathing and smelling. Gills on the sides of their heads capture oxygen in the water, while two nostrils at the front of the face pull water into a nasal chamber where smells are detected.

The amount of tissue in this cavity, folded over plates called lamellae, is huge in sharks compared to other fishes. Scientists have long thought that this greater surface area gives sharks a better sense of smell.

"It's a pretty logical jump to make, but no one had actually tested it," said Meredith.

To test this assumption, Meredith studied animals from five different species of elasmobranchii -- the scientific subclass that includes sharks -- captured in waters off the coast of Florida. They ranged from flat skates and stingrays to pointy-nosed lemon sharks and bonnethead sharks with hammer-like heads.

Each elasmobranch spent time in a tank with equipment attached to its nose: a tube that released 20 different kinds of amino acids -- the building blocks of animal proteins that lead sharks to their prey -- and an electrode that measured the electrical impulses in the nasal cavity generated in response to smells.

The recordings showed that, on average, sharks with more surface area in the folds inside their snouts were no better at detecting faint smells.

The five tested shark species had just about the same sensitivity as each other and as non-shark fish that have been tested in other studies. At their best, the sharks detected about one drop of scent dissolved in a billion drops of water.

One explanation for this is that being any more sensitive could actually confuse a shark. One part in a billion is roughly the natural background concentration of amino acids floating around in coastal waters. If sharks were adapted to detect smaller concentrations, it might be difficult for them to distinguish the byproducts of a potential meal from random bits of aquatic flotsam and jetsam.

"Imagine you were super-sensitive to sound, and you could hear whispering really well," said Meredith. "That would be awful if you always lived in a room with a stereo blaring."

When it comes to the myth of sharks having an unrivaled sense of smell, her conclusion is: "Myth busted."

But for Jelle Atema, who studies shark olfaction at Boston University, the myth is only mostly busted. Although impressed by the new research, he said that the science leaves a little room for further exploration.

The electrodes in Meredith's experiment work by adding up the entire electrical response of millions of smell receptors to a scent. Atema hopes to get a closer look by examining single cells -- some of which might be specialized to respond to certain smells.

"Pretend that these smell receptors are a singing choir," said Atema. "The choir itself may not be louder, but some voices may be singing louder than others if you listen closely."

Meredith's study focused on coastal sharks. Atema wonders if the same applies to sharks that live in the open ocean, where the background concentration of smells is lower.

His work has also shown that aquatic animals can detect extremely small concentrations of other chemicals that are not amino acids. Tuna can smell one drop of the chemical tryptophan -- a common compound in turkey meat -- dissolved in trillions of drops of water.

For now though, the best scientific evidence suggests an update to the popular myth: sharks can smell a drop of blood in a volume of water about the size of a backyard swimming pool. It's still impressive, but hardly as terrifying as Hollywood would have us believe.

Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of UnderwaterTimes.com, its staff or its advertisers.

Reader Comments

4 people have commented so far. cloud add your comment

Still very impressive smell. This article confirms that sharks can detect 1 part per billion, or 1 ml per billion mls. An olympic pool is 2500m3, or 2.5 billion ml of water (drops), so the shark can smell 2.5 drops of blood in an olympic size pool not 1 drop. Pretty awesome.
   comment# 1   - Craig Thorburn · New Zealand · Oct 14, 2010 @ 12:52pm

Of course, these studies cannot account for what "smell" pelagic sharks' olfactory systems are most highly tuned to respond to- or how they work in concert with other senses. In other words, the sharks' senses coalesce together- that is why the "drop of blood in an olypic sized pool" is fundamentally misleading. If someone with a knife stuck a tuna on a rope and placed it in an olympic sized pool, isn't it true that the shark's non-olfactory perceptive faculties (e.g., hearing, lateral lines, et al.) might cue the shark of the highly desirable opportunity first? At some point, the shark "smells" the tuna blood, but in the end, the other perceptive faculties draw the shark to the meal, whether struggling fish or stranded human in the open ocean. Ps. Is it me or do at least half of the shark science studies (reporting thereon) reference "Hollywood myths" or "Jaws", as if, in the end, the larger public is incapable of understanding the fact that sharks have man-eating propensities but are not like Jaws the Revenge? Just asking.
   comment# 2   - drudown · Solana Beach, CA · Oct 14, 2010 @ 6:12pm

the "metric" drop = 1/20 mL
   comment# 3   - Tricia · U.S. · Oct 15, 2010 @ 7:32am

Actually Craig, you're not taking into account considerable variables. It can detect a concentration that low, but how long would it take for a shark to pass that much water through its nose? The factor of time is missing from your consideration... as is current. Interesting research, and a good first step at better understanding.
   comment# 4   - Paul · trenton, nj · Oct 15, 2010 @ 9:11am
Add your comment


characters left

*required field.
Note: Comments are posted if they are not abusive and are compliant with our Terms and Conditions. Comments with foul language will be deleted without exception.

   


bottom_left
bottom_right
Privacy Policy     © Copyright 2014 UnderwaterTimes.com. All rights reserved