Functional ecology of feeding in elasmobranchs

Wilga, Cheryl D.; Stoehr, Ashley A.; Duquette, Danielle C.; Allen, Rebecca M.

doi:10.1007/s10641-011-9781-7

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…predatory birds use talons to hold and suffocate prey, bats capture fish from rivers with their hindlimbs, and small and large mammals alike often grasp and rend prey using their forelimbs [45][46][47]). Although rare in bony fishes, prey capture using the pectoral fins occurs in other batoids, such as guitarfishes and skates [8,15,26,48]. We suggest that using the appendicular skeleton to trap prey is an innovation that was made possible by the evolution of the pectoral fins to encircle the front of the head, forming a flexible, flattened disc, and has evolved at least twice, independently in modern stingrays (Myliobatiformes) and skates (Rajiformes) [41].…”

Section: (B) Why Do Stingrays Chew?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Always chew your food: freshwater stingrays use mastication to process tough insect prey

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chewing, characterized by shearing jaw motions and high-crowned molar teeth, is considered an evolutionary innovation that spurred dietary diversification and evolutionary radiation of mammals. Complex prey-processing behaviours have been thought to be lacking in fishes and other vertebrates, despite the fact that many of these animals feed on tough prey, like insects or even grasses. We investigated prey capture and processing in the insect-feeding freshwater stingray Potamotrygon motoro using high-speed videography. We find that Potamotrygon motoro uses asymmetrical motion of the jaws, effectively chewing, to dismantle insect prey. However, CT scanning suggests that this species has simple teeth. These findings suggest that in contrast to mammalian chewing, asymmetrical jaw action is sufficient for mastication in other vertebrates. We also determined that prey capture in these rays occurs through rapid uplift of the pectoral fins, sucking prey beneath the ray's body, thereby dissociating the jaws from a prey capture role. We suggest that the decoupling of prey capture and processing facilitated the evolution of a highly kinetic feeding apparatus in batoid fishes, giving these animals an ability to consume a wide variety of prey, including molluscs, fishes, aquatic insect larvae and crustaceans. We propose Potamotrygon as a model system for understanding evolutionary convergence of prey processing and chewing in vertebrates.

show abstract

Section: (B) Why Do Stingrays Chew?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Always chew your food: freshwater stingrays use mastication to process tough insect prey

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bamboo sharks generate very strong suction pressure within a very short time frame (down to −99 kPa in as little as 45 ms) and are thought to use power amplification to achieve high suction powers (Wilga et al, 2007;Wilga and Sanford, 2008;Ramsay and Wilga, 2017). In addition to extraordinary performance, suction feeding in white-spotted bamboo sharks shows broad variation in peak pressure (mean coefficient of variation, CV=1.9) and kinematics (CV=0.74), even when feeding on a single prey type (Wilga et al, 2012). Hence, suction feeding in white-spotted bamboo sharks is both high performance, defined here as the potential for fast and strong suction pressure, and non-stereotyped, defined as high variability within a single prey type (Wainwright et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal kinematics of the hyoid arch in the suction-feeding sharkChiloscyllium plagiosum

Scott

Wilga

Brainerd

2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

White-spotted bamboo sharks, Chiloscyllium plagiosum, generate strong suction-feeding pressures that rival the highest levels measured in ray-finned fishes. However, the hyostylic jaw suspension of these sharks is fundamentally different from the actinopterygian mechanism, including more mobile hyomandibulae, with the jaws and ceratohyal suspended from the hyomandibulae. Prior studies have proposed skeletal kinematics during feeding in orectolobid sharks from indirect measurements. Here, we tested these hypotheses using XROMM to measure cartilage motions directly. In agreement with prior hypotheses, we found extremely large retraction and depression of the ceratohyal, facilitated by large protraction and depression of the hyomandibula. Somewhat unexpectedly, XROMM also showed tremendous long-axis rotation (LAR) of both the ceratohyal and hyomandibula. This LAR likely increases the range of motion for the hyoid arch by keeping the elements properly articulated through their large arcs of motion. XROMM also confirmed that upper jaw protraction occurs before peak gape, similarly to actinopterygian suction feeders, but different from most other sharks in which jaw protrusion serves primarily to close the mouth. Early jaw protraction results from decoupling the rotations of the hyomandibula, with much of protraction occurring before peak gape with the other rotations lagging behind. In addition, the magnitudes of retraction and protraction of the hyoid elements are independent of the magnitude of depression, varying the shape of the mouth among feeding strikes. Hence, the large variation in suction-feeding behavior and performance may contribute to the wide dietary breadth of bamboo sharks.

show abstract

“…This behavioural plasticity encompasses a complex set of displays that are generally related to algal grazing fishes (Hiatt & Strasburg, ; Sibbing & Witte, ), and is closely mirrored by dietary variation. This provides evidence that behavioural plasticity plays a key role in feeding success (Wilga et al , ).…”

Section: Ethogram Of Feeding Behaviour Categories Displayed By Bryconmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Feeding plasticity may be accompanied by modifications of feeding behaviour, as individuals are likely to alter their foraging strategy in response to changes in prey availability (Killen et al , ; Davis & Ottmar, ). This is a relevant aspect driving feeding success (Wilga et al , ) and therefore the survival of a species. Nevertheless, the extent and outcome of behavioural feeding plasticity is explored poorly in recent feeding ecology studies (Wolff et al , ; Manna et al , ; Mazzoni et al , ).…”

Section: Ethogram Of Feeding Behaviour Categories Displayed By Bryconmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing behaviour of a non‐herbivorous characin: revisiting plasticity

Marques

Costa

Corrêa

et al. 2014

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Functional ecology of feeding in elasmobranchs

Cited by 13 publications

References 29 publications

Always chew your food: freshwater stingrays use mastication to process tough insect prey

Always chew your food: freshwater stingrays use mastication to process tough insect prey

Skeletal kinematics of the hyoid arch in the suction-feeding sharkChiloscyllium plagiosum

Grazing behaviour of a non‐herbivorous characin: revisiting plasticity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About