A circadian clock drives behavioral activity in Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) and provides a potential mechanism for seasonal timing

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Hüppe and colleagues had already developed an apparatus and an analytical approach to capture swimming activity rhythms in krill. In a previous manuscript they explained the system, and here they employ it to show a circadian clock, supplemented by exogenous light, produces an activity pattern consistent with "twilight" diel vertical migration (DVM; a peak at sunset, a midnight sink, and a peak in the latter half of the night).

They used light:dark (LD) followed by dark:dark (DD) photoperiods at two times of the year to confirm the circadian clock, coupled with DD experiments at four times of year to show rhythmicity occurs throughout the year along with DVM in the wild population. The individual activity data show variability in the rhythmic response, which is expected. However, their results showed rhythmicity was sustained in DD throughout the year, although the amplitude decayed quickly. The interpretation of a weak clock is reasonable, and they provide a convincing justification for the adaptive nature of such a clock in a species that has a wide distributional range and experiences various photic environments. These data also show that exogenous light increases the activity response and can explain the morning activity bouts, with the circadian clock explaining the evening and late-night bouts. This acknowledgement that vertical migration can be driven by multiple proximate mechanisms is important.

The work is rigorously done, and the interpretations are sound. I see no major weaknesses in the manuscript. Because a considerable amount of processing is required to extract and interpret the rhythmic signals (see Methods and previous AMAZE paper), it is informative to have the individual activity plots of krill as a gut check on the group data.

The manuscript will be useful to the field as it provides an elegant example of looking for biological rhythms in a marine planktonic organism and disentangling the exogenous response from the endogenous one. Furthermore, as high latitude environments change, understanding how important organisms like krill have the potential to respond will become increasingly important. This work provides a solid behavioral dataset to complement the earlier molecular data suggestive of a circadian clock in this species.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript provides experimental evidence on circadian behavioural cycles in Antarctic krill. The krill were obtained directly from krill fishing vessels and the experiments were carried out on board using an advanced incubation device capable of recording activity levels over a number of days. A number of different experiments were carried out where krill were first exposed to simulated light:dark (L:D) regimes for some days followed by continuous darkness (DD). These were carried out on krill collected during late autumn and late summer. A further set of experiments was performed on krill across three different seasons (summer, autumn, winter), where incubations were all DD conditions. Activity was measured as the frequency by which an infrared beam close to the top of the incubation tube was broken over unit time. Results showed that patterns of increased and decreased activity that appeared synchronised to the LD cycle persisted during the DD period. This was interpreted as evidence of the operation of an internal (endogenous) clock. The amplitude of the behavioural cycles decreased with time in DD, which further suggests that this clock is relatively weak. The authors argued that the existence of a weak endogenous clock is an adaptation to life at high latitudes since allowing the clock to be modulated by external (exogenous) factors is an advantage when there is a high degree of seasonality. This hypothesis is further supported by seasonal DD experiments which showed that the periodicity of high and low activity levels differed between seasons.

Strengths

Although there has been a lot of field observations of various circadian type behaviour in Antarctic krill, relatively few experimental studies have been published considering this behaviour in terms of circadian patterns of activity. Krill are not a model organism and obtaining them and incubating them in suitable conditions are both difficult undertakings. Furthermore, there is a need to consider what their natural circadian rhythms are without the overinfluence of laboratory-induced artefacts. For this reason alone, the setup of the present study is ideal to consider this aspect of krill biology. Furthermore, the equipment developed for measuring levels of activity is well-designed and likely to minimise artefacts.

Weaknesses

I have little criticism of the rationale for carrying out this work, nor of the experimental design. Nevertheless, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of the experimental design, particularly aimed at readers not familiar with research into circadian rhythms. Furthermore, I have a more fundamental question about the relationship between levels of activity and DVM on which I will expand below. Finally, it was unclear how the observational results made here related to the molecular aspects considered in the Discussion.

(1) Explanation of experimental design - I acknowledge that the format of this particular journal insists that the Results are the first section that follows the Introduction. This nevertheless presents a problem for the reader since many of the concepts and terms that would generally be in the Methods are yet to be explained to the reader. Hence, right from the start of the Results section, the reader is thrown into the detail of what happened during the LD-DD experiments without being fully aware of why this type of experiment was carried out in the first place. Even after reading the Methods, further explanation would have been helpful. Circadian cycle type research of this sort often entrains organisms to certain light cycles and then takes the light away to see if the cycle continues in complete darkness, but this critical piece of knowledge does not come until much later (e.g. lines 369-372) leaving the reader guessing until this point why the authors took the approach they did. I would suggest the following (1) that more effort is made in the Introduction to explain the exact LD/DD protocols adopted (2) that a schematic figure is placed early on in the manuscript where the protocol is explained including some logical flow charts of e.g. if behavioural cycle continues in DD then internal clock exists versus if cycle does not continue in DD, the exogenous cues dominate - followed by - major decrease in cyclic amplitude = weak clock versus minor decrease = strong clock and so on

(2) Activity vs kinesis - in this study, we are shown data that (i) krill have a circadian cycle - incubation experiments; (ii) that krill swarms display DVM in this region - echosounder data (although see my later point). My question here is regarding the relationship between what is being measured by the incubation experiments and the in situ swarm behaviour observations. The incubation experiments are essentially measuring the propensity of krill to swim upwards since it logs the number of times an individual (or group) break a beam towards the top of the incubation tube. I argue that krill may be still highly active in the rest of the tube but just do not swim close to the surface, so this approach may not be a good measure of "activity". Otherwise, I suggest a more correct term of what is being measured is the level of "upward kinesis". As the authors themselves note, krill are negatively buoyant and must always be active to remain pelagic. What changes over the day-night cycle is whether they decide to expend that activity on swimming upwards, downwards or remaining at the same depth. Explaining the pattern as upward kinesis then also explains by swarms move upwards during the night. Just being more active at night may not necessarily result in them swimming upwards.

(3) Molecular relevance - Although I am interested in molecular clock aspects behind these circadian rhythms, it was not made clear how the results of the present study allow any further insight into this. In lines 282 to 284, the findings of the study by Biscontin et al (2017) are discussed with regard to how TIM protein is degraded by light via the clock photreceptor CRYTOCHROME 1. This element of the Discussion would be a lot more relevant if the results of the present study were considered in terms of whether they supported or refuted this or any other molecular clock model. As it stands, this paragraph is purely background knowledge and a candidate for deletion in the interest of shortening the Discussion.

Other aspects
(i) 'Bimodal swimming' was used in the Abstract and later in the text without the term being fully explained. I could interpret it to mean a number of things so some explanation is required before the term is introduced.
(ii) Midnight sinking - I was struck by Figure 2b with regards to the dip in activity after the initial ascent, as well as the rise in activity predawn. Cushing (1951) Biol Rev 26: 158-192 describes the different phases of a DVM common to a number of marine organisms observed in situ where there is a period of midnight sinking following the initial dusk ascent and a dawn rise prior to dawn descent. Tarling et al (2002) observe midnight sinking pattern in Calanus finmarchicus and consider whether it is a response to feeding satiation or predation avoidance (i.e. exogenous factors). Evidence from the present study indicates that midnight sinking (and potential dawn rise) behaviour could alternatively be under endogenous control to a greater or lesser degree. This is something that should certainly be mentioned in the Discussion, possibly in place of the molecular discussion element mentioned above - possibly adding to the paragraph Lines 303-319.

(iii) Lines 200-207 - I struggled to follow this argument regarding Piccolin et al identifying a 12 h rhythm whereas the present study indicates a ~24 h rhythm. Is one contradicting the other - please make this clear.

(iv) Although I agree that the hydroacoustic data should be included and is generally supportive of the results, I think that two further aspects should be made clear for context (a) whether there was any groundtruthing that the acoustic marks were indeed krill and not potentially some other group know to perform DVM such as myctophids (b) how representative were these patterns - I have a sense that they were heavily selected to show only ones with prominent DVM as opposed to other parts of the dataset where such a pattern was less clear - I am aware of a lot of krill research where DVM is not such a clear pattern and it is disingenuous to provide these patterns as the definitive way in which krill behaves. I ask this be made clear to the reader (note also that there is a suggestion of midnight sinking in Fig 5b on 28/2).