Motor basis of suction feeding performance in largemouth bass,Micropterus salmoides

Grubich, Justin R.; Wainwright, Peter C.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-010x(19970101)277:1<1::aid-jez1>3.0.co;2-t

Cited by 29 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been recognized for some time that fish are able to alter their feeding behavior in response to prey type and satiation level (e.g., Lauder 1980c; Wainwright and Lauder 1986;Grubich and Wainwright 1997;Nemeth 1997b), but it is less clear what the functional implications of this modulation are. The approach used in this study allowed us to determine the consequences of variation in kinematics for buccal pressure and suction distance, providing tests of the expected links between musculoskeletal function, forces exerted on the water, and prey capture.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Measures of maximum displacement rarely made significant contributions to these models. These findings corroborate electromyographic results from this and related species that show that strikes with greater synchrony of muscle activity onset tend to have lower pressure and faster times to minimum pressure Grubich and Wainwright 1997). We note that during prey capture events, greater synchrony of activity in muscles does not imply a shorter overall cycle time, because more synchronized strikes also have longer bursts of muscle activity (see discussion in Grubich and Wainwright 1997).…”

Section: Kinematics and Pressuresupporting

confidence: 85%

“…It was chosen for this study because of its aggressive feeding behavior when in captivity and because it has been the subject of numerous studies of feeding functional morphology that provide us with a baseline regarding prey capture behavior (Nyberg 1971;Lauder 1983;Lauder and Clark 1984;Wainwright and Lauder 1986;Richard and Wainwright 1995;Grubich and Wainwright 1997). During prey capture, the largemouth bass is known to employ a range of kinematic strategies through modulation of motor activity and buccal pressure Grubich and Wainwright 1997).…”

Section: Study Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The general pattern of change in pressure in the buccal cavity during strikes by bass was similar to that reported previously for this and other fish species (Alexander 1970;Lauder 1980bLauder , 1983van Leeuwen and Muller 1983;Norton and Brainerd 1993;Grubich and Wainwright 1997). A pressure pulse in a typical strike sequence began with a small increase in buccal pressure followed by a rapid decrease in buccal pressure and then by a return to ambient pressure with an occasional pulse of superambient pressure (Fig.…”

Section: Buccal Pressurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because water is incompressible, continuity dictates that the initial expansion of the oral cavity causes water to rush into the opened mouth, creating a rapid drop in buccal pressure (van Leeuwen and Muller 1984;Muller 1989). This mechanical link between flow and pressure has allowed researchers to use buccal pressure as a metric of the magnitude of suction generated during prey capture (Norton and Brainerd 1993;Grubich and Wainwright 1997;Nemeth 1997b). During buccal expansion, pressure falls rapidly to values that may be as low as Ϫ70 to Ϫ1 kPa below ambient, depending on the predator species (Alexander 1969(Alexander , 1970Lauder 1980c;Lauder and Lanyon 1980;Muller et al 1982;van Leeuwen and Muller 1983;Norton and Brainerd 1993;Nemeth 1997aNemeth , 1997b.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Linking Cranial Kinematics, Buccal Pressure, and Suction Feeding Performance in Largemouth Bass

Svanbäck¹,

Wainwright²,

Ferry³

2002

Physiological and Biochemical Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rate and magnitude of buccal expansion are thought to determine the pattern of water flow and the change in buccal pressure during suction feeding. Feeding events that generate higher flow rates should induce stronger suction pressure and allow predators to draw prey from further away. We tested these expectations by measuring the effects of prey capture kinematics on suction pressure and the effects of the latter on the distance from which prey were drawn-termed suction distance. We simultaneously, but not synchronously, recorded 500-Hz video and buccal pressure from 199 sequences of four largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, feeding on goldfish. From the video, we quantified several kinematic variables associated with the head and jaws of the feeding bass that were hypothesized to affect pressure. In a multiple regression, kinematic data accounted for 79.7% of the variation among strikes in minimum pressure. Faster mouth opening and hyoid depression were correlated with lower pressures, a larger area under the pressure curve, and a faster rate of pressure reduction. In contrast, buccal pressure variables explained only 16.5% of the variation in suction distance, and no single pressure variable had a significant relationship with suction distance. Thus, although expected relationships between head kinematics and buccal pressure were confirmed, suction distance was only weakly related to buccal pressure. Three explanations are considered. First, bass may not attempt to maximize the distance from which prey are drawn. Second, the response of prey items to suction-induced flow depends on prey behavior and orientation and is, therefore, subject to considerable variation. Third, previous theoretical work indicates that water velocity decays exponentially with distance from the predator's mouth, indicating that variation among strikes in flow at the mouth opening is compressed away from the mouth. These findings are consistent with other recent data and suggest that suction distance is a poor metric of suction feeding performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Kinematics and Pressuresupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Study Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Buccal Pressurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Linking Cranial Kinematics, Buccal Pressure, and Suction Feeding Performance in Largemouth Bass

Svanbäck¹,

Wainwright²,

Ferry³

2002

Physiological and Biochemical Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of prey type on motor pattern variance in tetraodontiform fishes

Wainwright

Friel

2000

J. Exp. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is unclear whether the high variance of electromyographic parameters measured in feeding teleost fishes reflects functionally significant motor variation that is under control of the fish, or functionally insignificant variation characteristic of EMG data. We addressed this issue by examining the effect of three prey, differing in physical characteristics, on the feeding motor pattern in three fishes of the Order Tetraodontiformes: the filefish, Monacanthus hispidus; the triggerfish, Balistes capriscus; and the puffer, Sphoeroides nephelus. EMG recordings were made from subdivisions of the mouth closing adductor mandibulae muscle and the mouth opening levator operculi muscle in four fish from each species feeding on live fiddler crabs, live shrimp, and pieces of cut squid mantle. Analysis of variance was used to test for effects of prey type on the standard deviation of muscle burst duration, burst onset time, and average burst amplitude in the adductor muscles. The filefish exhibited a doubling of standard deviation of burst duration in all muscles when feeding on fiddler crabs; triggerfish showed increased standard deviations in onset times and duration of two muscles when feeding on squid mantle; and the puffer showed no effects of prey on motor variability. The observation that prey type can elicit more than a doubling in the standard deviation of some EMG traits indicates that a large portion of the within‐prey type variance is under direct control of the individual fish, suggesting an even greater level of fine motor control in teleost feeding mechanisms than previously recognized. J. Exp. Zool. 286:563–571, 2000.© 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Ecomorphology of Centrarchid Fishes

Collar

Wainwright

2009

Centrarchid Fishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the ecologist's perspective, centrarchid fishes are widely recognized as a model system for investigating the role of phenotypic variation in shaping ecological patterns. To the ichthyologist, this group is considered among the most morphologically and ecologically diverse of North America's freshwater ichthyofauna. This chapter is intended to bring these perspectives together, highlighting the contributions of studies linking resource use patterns to morphology in order to make sense of the ecological, functional, and morphological diversity exhibited within the Centrarchidae. We review literature on feeding and on locomotion.Historically, the diversity represented within this radiation helped inspire the development of ecomorphology, a research perspective that investigates hypothesized associations between organismal design and ecology. Working independently, Werner (1974Werner ( , 1977 and Keast (1978Keast ( , 1985Keast and Webb 1967) were among the first to point out a general association between head and body form and resource use in centrarchid species. Using bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) to represent the range of ecological and morphological diversity in centrarchids, Werner and coworkers developed the first mechanistic insights into the implications of variation in body and head morphology. The diversity of form and feeding habits represented by bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris) motivated Keast's proposal that different suites of morphological features confer varying prey capture and habitat use capabilities on these species and that these differences underlie the capacity for these species to coexist in sympatry. The rationale for ecomorphology research can be seen in both Werner's and Keast's work: an organism's morphology affects its capacity to perform an ecologically relevant task, and this performance capacity affects the resources available for its use.This research program was made more explicit (Werner 1977;Mittelbach 1984;Wainwright 1996) by emphasizing that researchers' ability to explain ecological phenomena through organismal design requires focus on characters whose performance consequences are predictable. This stipulation established a primary role for functional morphology research, which investigates the morphological basis of performance variation. Moreover, the ecomorphology research perspective led to widespread recognition that the choice of an appropriate performance measure is vital to the success of studies that seek to understand the relationship between morphology and resource use. Performance variables range from proximate measures that focus on the mechanical capacities of isolated functional units, such as maximum pharyngeal jaw bite force, to more integrative measures that involve multiple functional units, like prey handling time, which is influenced by the fish's ability to capture and process prey. In either ...

show abstract

Motor basis of suction feeding performance in largemouth bass,Micropterus salmoides

Cited by 29 publications

References 24 publications

Linking Cranial Kinematics, Buccal Pressure, and Suction Feeding Performance in Largemouth Bass

Linking Cranial Kinematics, Buccal Pressure, and Suction Feeding Performance in Largemouth Bass

Effects of prey type on motor pattern variance in tetraodontiform fishes

Ecomorphology of Centrarchid Fishes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About