QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sanderson, S. Articles by Kaufman, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sanderson, S. Articles by Kaufman, L. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 199, Issue 8 1743-1756, Copyright © 1996 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Mucus entrapment of particles by a suspension-feeding tilapia (Pisces: Cichlidae)

S Sanderson, M Stebar, K Ackermann, S Jones, I Batjakas and L Kaufman

A miniature fiberoptic endoscope was used to observe the processes of particle encounter and retention inside the buccopharyngeal cavity of suspension-feeding tilapia. Small particles (38 µm to 1.0 mm in diameter) were trapped in strands and aggregates of mucus, which usually slid posteriorly on the ceratobranchials of arches I­IV towards the esophagus while the fish pumped water through the buccopharyngeal cavity. During stage 1 of periodic reversals of water flow inside the buccopharynx, mucus-bound particles usually lifted off the arch surfaces and travelled a short distance in an anterior or anterodorsal direction. During stage 2 of a reversal, the mucus usually resumed travel in a posterior or posteroventral direction and exited the field of view. Mucus was present less often during feeding on large particles (3­10 mm in diameter) than on small particles, and large particles were rarely observed to be attached to mucus. We discuss the advantages to suspension-feeding fishes of using aerosol filtration by mucus entrapment rather than sieving, and predict that many cichlid and cyprinid suspension feeders that consume bacteria and phytoplankton use mucus for aerosol filtration.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. J. Griffitt, K. Hyndman, N. D. Denslow, and D. S. Barber Comparison of Molecular and Histological Changes in Zebrafish Gills Exposed to Metallic Nanoparticles Toxicol. Sci., February 1, 2009; 107(2): 404 - 415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Smith and S. L. Sanderson Intra-Oral Flow Patterns and Speeds in a Suspension-Feeding Fish With Gill Rakers Removed Versus Intact Biol. Bull., December 1, 2008; 215(3): 309 - 318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Smith and S. L. Sanderson Mucus function and crossflow filtration in a fish with gill rakers removed versus intact J. Exp. Biol., August 1, 2007; 210(15): 2706 - 2713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. T. Callan and S. L. Sanderson Feeding mechanisms in carp: crossflow filtration, palatal protrusions and flow reversals J. Exp. Biol., March 1, 2003; 206(5): 883 - 892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Summers and L. Ferry-Graham Ventilatory modes and mechanics of the hedgehog skate (Leucoraja erinacea): testing the continuous flow model J. Exp. Biol., May 1, 2001; 204(9): 1577 - 1587. [Abstract] [PDF]