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

First published online December 14, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 107-117 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02634

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) 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 Higham, T. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Higham, T. E.

Feeding, fins and braking maneuvers: locomotion during prey capture in centrarchid fishes

Timothy E. Higham

Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Concord Field Station, Harvard University, 100 Old Causeway Road, Bedford, MA 01730, USA

e-mail: thigham{at}fas.harvard.edu

Accepted 7 November 2006

Locomotion is an integral aspect of the prey capture strategy of almost every predatory animal. For fishes that employ suction to draw prey into their mouths, locomotor movements are vital for the correct positioning of the mouth relative to the prey item. Despite this, little is known regarding the relationships between locomotor movements and prey capture. To gain insights into how fishes move during prey capture and the mechanisms underlying deceleration during prey capture, I measured the fin and body movements of largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, and bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Using a high-speed video camera (500 frames s^-1), I captured locomotor and feeding movements in lateral and ventral (via a mirror) view. Largemouth bass swam considerably faster than bluegill during the approach to the prey item, and both species decelerated substantially following prey capture. The mean magnitude of deceleration was significantly higher in largemouth bass (-1089 cm s^-2) than bluegill (-235 cm s^-2), and the timing of maximum deceleration was much later for largemouth bass (30.3 ms after maximum gape) than bluegill (6.7 ms after maximum gape). Both species employed their pectoral, anal and caudal fins in order to decelerate during prey capture. However, largemouth bass protracted their pectoral fins more and faster, likely contributing to the greater magnitude of deceleration in the species. The primary mechanism for increased deceleration was an increase in approach speed. The drag forces experienced by the fins and body are proportional to the velocity of the flow squared. Thus, the braking forces exerted by fins, without any change in kinematics, will increase exponentially with small increases in swimming speed, perhaps allowing these fishes to achieve higher braking forces at higher swimming speeds without altering body or fin kinematics. This result can likely be extended to other maneuvers such as turning.

Key words: kinematics, braking, swimming, locomotion, prey capture, pectoral fin, anal fin, caudal fin, maneuvering, deceleration, suction, feeding, ram speed, accuracy

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. E. Higham The integration of locomotion and prey capture in vertebrates: Morphology, behavior, and performance Integr. Comp. Biol., July 1, 2007; 47(1): 82 - 95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]