scholarly journals Kinematics of feeding in bluegill sunfish: is there a general distinction between aquatic capture and transport behaviors?

1995 ◽  
Vol 198 (3) ◽  
pp. 709-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Gillis ◽  
G Lauder
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Lepomis Macrochirus ◽  
Ambystoma Tigrinum ◽  
Bluegill Sunfish ◽  
Lower Vertebrate ◽  
Terrestrial Vertebrates ◽  
Aquatic Vertebrates ◽  
Food Transport ◽  
Nested Analysis

Despite numerous studies of food transport in terrestrial vertebrates, little is known about this aspect of the feeding repertoire in aquatic vertebrates. Previous work had predicted that the kinematics of aquatic prey capture by suction feeding should be similar to those of prey transport. However, recent analyses of aquatic prey capture and transport in the tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum have contradicted this hypothesis, and document numerous differences between these two behaviors. In this study, using high-speed video and statistical analyses, we compare prey capture and transport kinematics in a ray-finned fish (Lepomis macrochirus, the bluegill sunfish) to examine the generality of differences between capture and transport behaviors in aquatic vertebrates. Compared with prey capture, prey transport is significantly more rapid and tends to have reduced lower jaw excursions, while having similar hyoid movements. A nested analysis of variance was used to analyze six variables common to both this analysis of Lepomis macrochirus and a previous study of Ambystoma tigrinum; none of these six variables showed significant variation between taxa. These results indicate that aquatic prey transport is kinematically distinct from capture behavior and that the distinctions between these two behaviors are remarkably consistent in two phylogenetically divergent lower vertebrate taxa. Such consistent kinematic differences have not been found in amniote taxa studied to date, but may constitute a plesiomorphic feature of vertebrate feeding systems.

scholarly journals Hydrodynamics of linear acceleration in bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler N. Wise ◽  
Margot A. B. Schwalbe ◽  
Eric D. Tytell
Keyword(s):  
Swimming Speed ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Fluid Dynamic ◽  
Natural Habitat ◽  
Lepomis Macrochirus ◽  
Linear Acceleration ◽  
High Amplitude ◽  
The Body ◽  
Bluegill Sunfish ◽  
Tail Beat

SUMMARY STATEMENTBluegill sunfish accelerate primarily by increasing the total amount of force produced in each tail beat but not by substantially redirecting forces.ABSTRACTIn their natural habitat, fish rarely swim steadily. Instead they frequently accelerate and decelerate. Relatively little is known about how fish produce extra force for acceleration in routine swimming behavior. In this study, we examined the flow around bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus during steady swimming and during forward acceleration, starting at a range of initial swimming speeds. We found that bluegill produce vortices with higher circulation during acceleration, indicating a higher force per tail beat, but do not substantially redirect the force. We quantified the flow patterns using high speed video and particle image velocimetry and measured acceleration with small inertial measurement units attached to each fish. Even in steady tail beats, the fish accelerates slightly during each tail beat, and the magnitude of the acceleration varies. In steady tail beats, however, a high acceleration is followed by a lower acceleration or a deceleration, so that the swimming speed is maintained; in unsteady tail beats, the fish maintains the acceleration over several tailbeats, so that the swimming speed increases. We can thus compare the wake and kinematics during single steady and unsteady tailbeats that have the same peak acceleration. During unsteady tailbeats when the fish accelerates forward for several tailbeats, the wake vortex forces are much higher than those at the same acceleration during single tailbeats in steady swimming. The fish also undulates its body at higher amplitude and frequency during unsteady tailbeats. These kinematic changes likely increase the fluid dynamic added mass of the body, increasing the forces required to sustain acceleration over several tailbeats. The high amplitude and high frequency movements are also likely required to generate the higher forces needed for acceleration. Thus, it appears that bluegill sunfish face a tradeoff during acceleration: the body movements required for acceleration also make it harder to accelerate.

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 AQUATIC PREY TRANSPORT AND THE COMPARATIVE KINEMATICS OF AMBYSTOMA TIGRINUM FEEDING BEHAVIORS

1994 ◽  
Vol 187 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Gillis ◽  
G Lauder
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Morphological Changes ◽  
Single Species ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ambystoma Tigrinum ◽  
Feeding Behaviors ◽  
Motor Patterns ◽  
Feeding Mechanism ◽  
Feeding Kinematics

Four definable feeding behaviors used during the metamorphic life history of tiger salamanders are terrestrial prey capture and transport (as adults) and aquatic prey capture and transport (as larvae). Previous studies have focused primarily on the first three of these behaviors and thus aquatic prey transport is poorly understood. These studies have indicated that terrestrial prey capture has unique kinematic and motor patterns, whereas the other behaviors are quite similar to one another. Using high-speed video analysis, the kinematics of aquatic prey transport in larval Ambystoma tigrinum are described using both lateral and ventral views. These kinematic patterns are statistically compared with the kinematic patterns of aquatic prey capture, terrestrial prey capture and terrestrial prey transport. Statistical analyses allow us to assess the similarities and differences among the four behaviors and to determine the effect of the metamorphic environmental transition (water to land) and morphological changes of the feeding mechanism (suction- to lingual-based) on feeding kinematics. Our data do not support the notion that lingual-based terrestrial prey capture uses unique kinematic patterns compared with the other three behaviors, which consist of similar movements. Rather, each of the feeding behaviors has unique kinematic features that distinguish it from the others. In addition, variation in tiger salamander feeding kinematics is more a function of the feeding event (whether it is capture or transport) than of the environment in which the feeding takes place or the morphology of the feeding mechanism. Finally, we encourage the use of parsimony-based methods of phylogenetic analysis to analyze shared traits (such as kinematic and/or electromyographic variables) in comparative studies of behavior within a single species.

Do flatfish feed like other fishes? A comparative study of percomorph prey-capture kinematics.

1997 ◽  
Vol 200 (22) ◽  
pp. 2841-2859 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Gibb
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Lepomis Macrochirus ◽  
Experimental Methodology ◽  
Flatfish Species ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Jaw Protrusion ◽  
Suction Index ◽  
Post Hoc

The kinematics of prey capture in two bilaterally asymmetrical pleuronectiform flatfish species (Pleuronichthys verticalis and Xystreurys liolepis) and two symmetrical percomorph species (Lepomis macrochirus, a centrarchid, and Cheilinus digrammus, a labrid) were compared to test the hypothesis that flatfish have distinct prey-capture kinematics from those quantified for other percomorph fishes. Size-matched individuals of both flatfish species were video-taped feeding using a high-speed video system. Cephalic displacement and timing variables were quantified and compared with data from similarly sized L. macrochirus and C. digrammus previously collected by other researchers using similar experimental methodology. Nested multivariate analyses of variance indicated that there was no significant difference in prey-capture kinematics between flatfish and non-flatfish taxa, but that prey-capture kinematics did differ among the four taxa. Multiple nested analyses of variance revealed that the taxa differed in 7 of 11 kinematic variables. Post-hoc tests and comparisons with other fish taxa suggest that individuals of P. verticalis possess an unusual combination of prey-capture kinematics including large hyoid depression, large neurocranial rotation, large upper jaw protrusion and small gape. Previous research has suggested that this combination of traits is associated with suction-based prey capture. Correspondingly, the ram­suction index calculated for P. verticalis is more negative (indicating a greater use of suction) than that calculated for the other taxa. When homologous kinematic variables are compared across these four taxa, flatfish do not appear to have similar prey-capture kinematics. However, both flatfish species are distinct from the two symmetrical percomorph species in their asymmetrical jaw movements.

scholarly journals Kinematic integration during prey capture varies among individuals but not ecological contexts in bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus (Perciformes: Centrarchidae)

2020 ◽  
Vol 130 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-224
Author(s):  
Emily A Kane ◽  
Timothy E Higham
Keyword(s):  
Prey Capture ◽  
Lepomis Macrochirus ◽  
Bluegill Sunfish ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
Top Down ◽  
General Ability ◽  
Environmental Selection ◽  
Component Traits ◽  
Short Time ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract The general ability of components of an organism to work together to achieve a common goal has been termed integration and is often studied empirically by deconstructing organisms into component parts and quantifying covariation between them. Kinematic traits describing movement are useful for allowing organisms to respond to ecological contexts that vary over short time spans (milliseconds, minutes, etc.). Integration of these traits can contribute to the maintenance of the function of the whole organism, but it is unclear how modulation of component kinematic traits affects their integration. We examined the integration of swimming and feeding during capture of alternative prey types in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Despite the expected modulation of kinematics, integration within individuals was inflexible across prey types, suggesting functional redundancy for solving a broad constraint. However, integration was variable among individuals, suggesting that individuals vary in their solutions for achieving whole-organism function and that this solution acts as a ‘top-down’ regulator of component traits, which provides insight into why kinematic variation is observed. Additionally, variation in kinematic integration among individuals could serve as an understudied target of environmental selection on prey capture, which is a necessary first step towards the observed divergence in integration among populations and species.

scholarly journals Prey Capturing Dynamics and Nanomechanically Graded Cutting Apparatus of Dragonfly Nymph

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 559
Author(s):  
Lakshminath Kundanati ◽  
Prashant Das ◽  
Nicola M. Pugno
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
High Speed Photography ◽  
Sensory Organs ◽  
Dragonfly Nymph ◽  
Drag Forces ◽  
Predatory Insects ◽  
Dragonfly Nymphs

Aquatic predatory insects, like the nymphs of a dragonfly, use rapid movements to catch their prey and it presents challenges in terms of movements due to drag forces. Dragonfly nymphs are known to be voracious predators with structures and movements that are yet to be fully understood. Thus, we examine two main mouthparts of the dragonfly nymph (Libellulidae: Insecta: Odonata) that are used in prey capturing and cutting the prey. To observe and analyze the preying mechanism under water, we used high-speed photography and, electron microscopy. The morphological details suggest that the prey-capturing labium is a complex grasping mechanism with additional sensory organs that serve some functionality. The time taken for the protraction and retraction of labium during prey capture was estimated to be 187 ± 54 ms, suggesting that these nymphs have a rapid prey mechanism. The Young’s modulus and hardness of the mandibles were estimated to be 9.1 ± 1.9 GPa and 0.85 ± 0.13 GPa, respectively. Such mechanical properties of the mandibles make them hard tools that can cut into the exoskeleton of the prey and also resistant to wear. Thus, studying such mechanisms with their sensory capabilities provides a unique opportunity to design and develop bioinspired underwater deployable mechanisms.

Kinematics of Tongue Projection in Chamaeleo Oustaleti

1991 ◽  
Vol 159 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER C. WAINWRIGHT ◽  
DAVID M. KRAKLAU ◽  
ALBERT F. BENNETT
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Maximum Velocity ◽  
Head Movements ◽  
Florida State University ◽  
State University ◽  
Maximum Acceleration ◽  
Related Family ◽  
High Speed Cinematography ◽  
Tongue Movements

The kinematics of prey capture by the chamaeleonid lizard Chamaeleo oustaleti were studied using high-speed cinematography. Three feeding sequences from each of two individuals were analyzed for strike distances of 20 and 35 cm, at 30°C. Ten distances and angles were measured from sequential frames beginning approximately 0.5 s prior to tongue projection and continuing for about 1.0 s. Sixteen additional variables, documenting maximum excursions and the timing of events, were calculated from the kinematic profiles. Quantified descriptions of head, hyoid and tongue movements are presented. Previously unrecognized rapid protraction of the hyobranchial skeleton simultaneously with the onset of tongue projection was documented and it is proposed that this assists the accelerator muscle in powering tongue projection. Acceleration of the tongue occurred in about 20ms, reaching a maximum acceleration of 486 m s−2 and maximum velocity of 5.8m s−1 in 35 cm strikes. Deceleration of the tongue usually began within 5 ms before prey contract and the direction of tongue movement was reversed within 10 ms of prey contact. Retraction of the tongue, caused by shortening of the retractor muscles, reached a maximum velocity of 2.99 ms−1 and was complete 330 ms after prey contact. Projection distance influences many aspects of prey capture kinematics, particularly projection time, tongue retraction time and the extent of gape and head movements during tongue retraction, all of which are smaller in shorter feedings. Though several features of the chameleon strike have apparently been retained from lizards not capable of ballistic tongue projection, key differences are documented. Unlike members of a related family, the Agamidae, C. oustaleti uses no body lunge during prey capture, exhibits gape reduction during tongue projection and strongly depresses the head and jaws during tongue retraction. Note: Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document