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

First published online July 20, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 2706-2713 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.000703

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Material 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 Smith, J. C. Articles by Sanderson, S. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, J. C. Articles by Sanderson, S. L. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Mucus function and crossflow filtration in a fish with gill rakers removed versus intact

Jennifer C. Smith^* and S. Laurie Sanderson

Department of Biology, College of William and Mary, PO Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA

Author for correspondence (e-mail: slsand{at}wm.edu)

Accepted 20 March 2007

Filtration mechanisms are known for only two species of suspension-feeding tilapia, each of which relies on a different method of particle retention. We used high-speed video endoscopy to assess whether a third species of tilapia, Oreochromis aureus, with gill rakers intact as well as surgically removed, uses mucus in the oropharyngeal cavity for hydrosol filtration or uses crossflow filtration to retain particles during suspension feeding. Although a large amount of mucus was visible during feeding with rakers intact, particles were rarely retained in the mucus. The hypothesis that the presence of mucus results in particle entrapment by hydrosol filtration is rejected for O. aureus. Rather than functioning as a sticky filter, mucus is proposed to function in this species to regulate the loss of water between the rakers and between the anterior branchial arches, increasing crossflow speed and thereby increasing the inertial lift force that transports particles radially away from the arches. Gill raker removal resulted in an almost complete lack of observable mucus in the oropharyngeal cavity, probably due to the removal of mucus-secreting cells attached to the gill rakers. However, endoscopic videotapes showed that crossflow filtration continued to operate in the absence of gill rakers and mucus, indicating that the surfaces of the branchial arches play an important role in crossflow filtration.

Key words: suspension feeding, filter feeding, hydrosol filtration, tilapia, Oreochromis aureus

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]