spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berg, C.
Right arrow Articles by Osse, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berg, C.
Right arrow Articles by Osse, J.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 191, Issue 1 257-282, Copyright © 1994 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

IMPLICATIONS OF GILL ARCH MOVEMENTS FOR FILTER-FEEDING: AN X-RAY CINEMATOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF FILTER-FEEDING WHITE BREAM (BLICCA BJOERKNA) AND COMMON BREAM (ABRAMIS BRAMA)

C Berg, J Boogaart, F Sibbing and J Osse

Previous research shows that the reducible-channel model of filter-feeding can probably be applied to common bream, but not to white bream. According to this model, zooplankton are retained in the channels between the medial gill rakers; the mesh size of the sieve can be reduced by lowering the lateral rakers of the neighbouring gill arch into these channels. Gill arch movements may well disturb this mechanism; the depressed lateral gill rakers will move in and out of the medial channels and also shift out of their centre. We have quantified these disturbances by measuring the gill arch movements during filter-feeding in white bream and common bream, using dorsal X-ray films. In both species, the lateral rakers are long enough to bridge the gill slits. It was expected that common bream, which can reduce their channels, would have considerably less shift out of the channel centre than white bream, which cannot reduce their channels. However, the predicted shift is 40­50 % of the channel width in white bream and 75 % in common bream. A new, dynamic retention mechanism is proposed for common bream. According to this hypothesis, once a particle is trapped in a reduced channel, the channel walls release mucus and the particle becomes sticky. Hence, particles need to be retained mechanically only during part of the gulping cycle. According to the hypothesis, this is achieved by sideways rotation of the lateral rakers in combination with their tapering shape. Retention mechanisms with interdigitating rakers are expected chiefly in facultative filter-feeders, because such mechanisms are easily disturbed by gill arch movements.




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 1994