scholarly journals Water Flow Patterns During Prey Capture by Teleost Fishes

1984 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEORGE V. LAUDER ◽  
BRIAN D. CLARK
Keyword(s):  
Water Flow ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Flow Patterns ◽  
The Body ◽  
Teleost Fishes ◽  
Small Particles ◽  
Suction Feeding ◽  
Mouth Cavity

Water flow into the mouth cavity during suction feeding in centrarchid sunfishes was studied by mapping the trajectories of small particles in the water during prey capture. In Lepomis, a circulation develops as the mouth opens, and water is drawn into the mouth from above, below and in front of the head. Water displaced by movement of the body as the prey is approached during the strike is entrained into the circulation towards the mouth. The parcel of water sucked into the mouth has a diameter approximately one-tenth that of the predator's length.

scholarly journals Prey Capture Hydrodynamics in Fishes: Experimental Tests of Two Models

1983 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEORGE V. LAUDER
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Regression Line ◽  
Lepomis Macrochirus ◽  
Experimental Tests ◽  
Relative Magnitude ◽  
Suction Feeding ◽  
Mouth Cavity ◽  
Large Pressure ◽  
Key Aspects

Three experimental modifications of the feeding mechanism in the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque: Centrarchidae) were performed to distinguish between two alternative hydrodynamic models of the high-speed suction-feeding process in fishes. These two models make different predictions about the change in slope of the regression line representing the relationship between buccal and opercular cavity pressures, and the three experiments provide a critical test of the models. The results from all three tests unequivocally support (1) the concept of the gill bars as a resistant element within the mouth cavity functionally dividing it into buccal and opercular cavities, (2) the negligible role of lateral movement of the gill cover (operculum) in generating negative mouth cavity pressures, and (3) the large pressure differentials previously reported between the buccal and opercular cavities. Measured pressures conform neither in relative magnitude nor waveform with pressures predicted from theoretical mathematical models. Inertial effects and accelerational flows are key aspects of high-speed suction feeding.

scholarly journals COUPLED VERSUS UNCOUPLED FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS: MOTOR PLASTICITY IN THE QUEEN TRIGGERFISH BALISTES VETULA

1993 ◽  
Vol 180 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. C. Wainwright ◽  
R. G. Turingan
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Activity ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Activity Patterns ◽  
Motor Pattern ◽  
Teleost Fishes ◽  
Suction Feeding ◽  
Motor Patterns ◽  
Jaw Apparatus ◽  
Adductor Muscles ◽  
Patterns Of Behavior

Teleost fishes typically capture prey with the oral jaws and perform most types of prey- processing behavior with the pharyngeal jaw apparatus. In these fishes, the motor patterns associated with the different stages of feeding are quite distinct, and fish can modify muscle activity patterns when feeding on different prey. We examined motor pattern variation in the queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula, a versatile predator that both captures and processes prey with its oral jaws. During feeding on three prey that differed in hardness and elusiveness, three distinct patterns of behavior could be identified on the basis of patterns of muscle activity: prey capture, buccal manipulation and blowing. During prey capture by suction feeding, the retractor arcus palatini muscle (RAP) commenced activity before the levator operculi muscle (LOP). In both buccal manipulation and blowing, the RAP began activity well after the onset of activity in the LOP. Both prey capture and buccal manipulation motor patterns varied when fish fed on different prey. When capturing hard-shelled and non-elusive prey, B. vetula did not employ suction feeding but, instead, the fish directly bit parts of its prey. The motor pattern exhibited during direct biting to capture prey was different from that during suction feeding, but was indistinguishable from the pattern seen during the repeated cycles of buccal manipulation. Harder prey elicited significantly longer bursts of activity in the jaw adductor muscles than did soft prey. In spite of the involvement of the oral jaws in virtually all stages of feeding, B. vetula shows levels of variation between patterns of behavior and types of prey characteristic of previously studied teleost fishes. Thus, the coupling of capture and processing behavior patterns in the repertoire of the oral jaws does not appear to constrain the behavioral versatility of this species.

Whole body withdrawal circuit and its involvement in the behavioral hierarchy of the mollusk Clione limacina

1996 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 529-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. P. Norekian ◽  
R. A. Satterlie
Keyword(s):  
Feeding Behavior ◽  
Motor Neurons ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
The Body ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
High Threshold ◽  
Behavioral Repertoire ◽  
Withdrawal Behavior ◽  
Cerebral Neurons ◽  
Clione Limacina

1. The behavioral repertoire of the holoplanktonic pteropod mollusk Clione limacina includes a few well-defined behaviors organized in a priority sequence. Whole body withdrawal takes precedence over slow swimming behavior, whereas feeding behavior is dominant over withdrawal. In this study a group of neurons is described in the pleural ganglia, which controls whole body withdrawal behavior in Clione. Each pleural withdrawal (Pl-W) neuron has a high threshold for spike generation and is capable of inducing whole body withdrawal in a semi-intact preparation: retraction of the body-tail, wings, and head. Each Pl-W neuron projects axons into the main central nerves and innervates all major regions of the body. 2. Stimulation of Pl-W neurons produces inhibitory inputs to swim motor neurons that terminate swimming activity in the preparation. In turn, Pl-W neurons receive inhibitory inputs from the cerebral neurons involved in the control of feeding behavior in Clione, neurons underlying extrusion of specialized prey capture appendages. Thus it appears that specific inhibitory connections between motor centers can explain the dominance of withdrawal behavior over slow swimming and feeding over withdrawal in Clione.

scholarly journals The benefits of planar circular mouths on suction feeding performance

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (73) ◽  
pp. 1767-1773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Skorczewski ◽  
Angela Cheer ◽  
Peter C. Wainwright
Keyword(s):  
Prey Capture ◽  
Peak Flow ◽  
Mouth Opening ◽  
Suction Feeding ◽  
Flow Rates ◽  
Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations ◽  
Enhance Efficiency ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Dynamics Simulations ◽  
Hydrodynamic Effects

Suction feeding is the most common form of prey capture across aquatic feeding vertebrates and many adaptations that enhance efficiency and performance are expected. Many suction feeders have mechanisms that allow the mouth to form a planar and near-circular opening that is believed to have beneficial hydrodynamic effects. We explore the effects of the flattened and circular mouth opening through computational fluid dynamics simulations that allow comparisons with other mouth profiles. Compared to mouths with lateral notches, we find that the planar mouth opening results in higher flow rates into the mouth and a region of highest flow that is positioned at the centre of the mouth aperture. Planar mouths provide not only for better total fluid flow rates through the mouth but also through the centre of the mouth near where suction feeders position their prey. Circular mouths are shown to provide the quickest capture times for spherical and elliptical prey because they expose the prey item to a large region of high flow. Planar and circular mouths result in higher flow velocities with peak flow located at the centre of the mouth opening and they maximize the capacity of the suction feeders to exert hydrodynamic forces on the prey.

Evaluating the use of ram and suction during prey capture by cichlid fishes

2001 ◽  
Vol 204 (17) ◽  
pp. 3039-3051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Wainwright ◽  
Lara A. Ferry-Graham ◽  
Thomas B. Waltzek ◽  
Andrew M. Carroll ◽  
C. Darrin Hulsey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Poecilia Reticulata ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Suction Feeding ◽  
Predator Species ◽  
Cichlid Fishes ◽  
Major Constraint ◽  
Exponential Decline ◽  
Astronotus Ocellatus ◽  
Limited Variation ◽  
Jaw Protrusion

SUMMARYWe characterized prey-capture strategies in seven species of cichlid fishes representing diverse trophic habits and anticipated feeding abilities. The species examined were Petenia splendida, Cichla ocellaris, Cichlasoma minckleyi, Astronotus ocellatus, Crenicichla geayi, Heros severus (formerly Cichlasoma severum) and Cyprichromis leptosoma. Three individuals per species were filmed with video at 500Hz as they captured live adult Artemia sp. and Poecilia reticulata. For each feeding sequence, we measured the contribution of predator movement towards the prey (i.e. ram) and the movement of prey towards the predator due to suction. The use of ram differed significantly among prey types and predator species, varying as much as sixfold across predator species. High values of ram resulted in high attack velocities. Jaw protrusion contributed as much as 50% to overall ram values in some species, verifying its role in enhancing attack velocity. Suction distance did not vary significantly among species. Diversity in prey-capture behavior was therefore found to reflect differences among species in the strategy used to approach prey. Limited variation in the distance from which prey were sucked into the mouth is interpreted as the result of an expected exponential decline in water velocity with distance from the mouth of the suction-feeding predator. We propose that this relationship represents a major constraint on the distance over which suction feeding is effective for all aquatic-feeding predators.

Flow Fields Inside Stocked Fish Cages and the Near Environment

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars C. Gansel ◽  
Siri Rackebrandt ◽  
Frode Oppedal ◽  
Thomas A. McClimans
Keyword(s):  
Atlantic Salmon ◽  
Water Flow ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Numerical Models ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Flow Patterns ◽  
Fish Swimming ◽  
Swimming Depth ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Fish Cages

This study explores the average flow field inside and around stocked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fish cages. Laboratory tests and field measurements were conducted to study flow patterns around and through fish cages and the effect of fish on the water flow. Currents were measured around an empty and a stocked fish cage in a fjord to verify the results obtained from laboratory tests without fish and to study the effects of fish swimming in the cage. Fluorescein, a nontoxic, fluorescent dye, was released inside a stocked fish cage for visualization of three-dimensional flow patterns inside the cage. Atlantic salmon tend to form a torus shaped school and swim in a circular path, following the net during the daytime. Current measurements around an empty and a stocked fish cage show a strong influence of fish swimming in this circular pattern: while most of the oncoming water mass passes through the empty cage, significantly more water is pushed around the stocked fish cage. Dye experiments show that surface water inside stocked fish cages converges toward the center, where it sinks and spreads out of the cage at the depth of maximum biomass. In order to achieve a circular motion, fish must accelerate toward the center of the cage. This inward-directed force must be balanced by an outward force that pushes the water out of the cage, resulting in a low pressure area in the center of the rotational motion of the fish. Thus, water is pulled from above and below the fish swimming depth. Laboratory tests with empty cages agree well with field measurements around empty fish cages, and give a good starting point for further laboratory tests including the effect of fish-induced currents inside the cage to document the details of the flow patterns inside and adjacent to stocked fish cages. The results of such experiments can be used as benchmarks for numerical models to simulate the water flow in and around net pens, and model the oxygen supply and the spreading of wastes in the near wake of stocked fish farms.

scholarly journals Fishes can use axial muscles as anchors or motors for powerful suction feeding

2020 ◽  
Vol 223 (18) ◽  
pp. jeb225649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel L. Camp ◽  
Aaron M. Olsen ◽  
L. Patricia Hernandez ◽  
Elizabeth L. Brainerd
Keyword(s):  
Ictalurus Punctatus ◽  
Micropterus Salmoides ◽  
The Body ◽  
Pectoral Girdle ◽  
Suction Feeding ◽  
Axial Muscles ◽  
X Ray Imaging ◽  
Oral Pressure ◽  
Volume Measurements ◽  
Epaxial Muscles

ABSTRACTSome fishes rely on large regions of the dorsal (epaxial) and ventral (hypaxial) body muscles to power suction feeding. Epaxial and hypaxial muscles are known to act as motors, powering rapid mouth expansion by shortening to elevate the neurocranium and retract the pectoral girdle, respectively. However, some species, like catfishes, use little cranial elevation. Are these fishes instead using the epaxial muscles to forcefully anchor the head, and if so, are they limited to lower-power strikes? We used X-ray imaging to measure epaxial and hypaxial length dynamics (fluoromicrometry) and associated skeletal motions (XROMM) during 24 suction feeding strikes from three channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). We also estimated the power required for suction feeding from oral pressure and dynamic endocast volume measurements. Cranial elevation relative to the body was small (<5 deg) and the epaxial muscles did not shorten during peak expansion power. In contrast, the hypaxial muscles consistently shortened by 4–8% to rotate the pectoral girdle 6–11 deg relative to the body. Despite only the hypaxial muscles generating power, catfish strikes were similar in power to those of other species, such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), that use epaxial and hypaxial muscles to power mouth expansion. These results show that the epaxial muscles are not used as motors in catfish, but suggest they position and stabilize the cranium while the hypaxial muscles power mouth expansion ventrally. Thus, axial muscles can serve fundamentally different mechanical roles in generating and controlling cranial motion during suction feeding in fishes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document