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 Gibb, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gibb, A.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 200, Issue 22 2841-2859, Copyright © 1997 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

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

A Gibb

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. W. Westneat Evolution of Levers and Linkages in the Feeding Mechanisms of Fishes Integr. Comp. Biol., November 1, 2004; 44(5): 378 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. P. Hernandez, M. J. F. Barresi, and S. H. Devoto Functional Morphology and Developmental Biology of Zebrafish: Reciprocal Illumination from an Unlikely Couple Integr. Comp. Biol., April 1, 2002; 42(2): 222 - 231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. C. Wainwright, L. A. Ferry-Graham, T. B. Waltzek, A. M. Carroll, C. D. Hulsey, and J. R. Grubich Evaluating the use of ram and suction during prey capture by cichlid fishes J. Exp. Biol., January 9, 2001; 204(17): 3039 - 3051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Hernandez Intraspecific scaling of feeding mechanics in an ontogenetic series of zebrafish, Danio rerio J. Exp. Biol., January 10, 2000; 203(19): 3033 - 3043. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H Dewar, M Deffenbaugh, G Thurmond, K Lashkari, and B. Block Development of an acoustic telemetry tag for monitoring electromyograms in free-swimming fish J. Exp. Biol., January 10, 1999; 202(19): 2693 - 2699. [Abstract] [PDF]