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

First published online October 7, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 3873-3881 (2004)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2004
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01227

This Article Summary 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 Related articles in JEB 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 Carroll, A. M. Articles by Turingan, R. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Carroll, A. M. Articles by Turingan, R. G.

Morphology predicts suction feeding performance in centrarchid fishes

Andrew M. Carroll^1,*, Peter C. Wainwright¹, Stephen H. Huskey², David C. Collar¹ and Ralph G. Turingan³

¹ Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
² Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101, USA
³ Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901, USA

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Shape and size variation among individual fish used in this study. In order, from top to bottom, the species are: black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus); largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); spotted sunfish (Lepomis punctatus); redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) and bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Histograms illustrate the sizes of fish used in performance experiments.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (A) Model parameters and torque balance during epaxial rotation. This figure illustrates the force transmission model used in this study. Epaxial force during suction feeding (Fepaxial) is a product of epaxial physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) and normalized muscle stress during suction feeding (Pm). Pm was not estimated a priori but was derived from the correlation between morphology and performance as an additional test of the model. The force of buccal pressure (Fpressure) is equal to measured pressure divided by buccal projected area (Abuccal). Fpressure must be less than or equal to Fepaxial multiplied by the epaxial moment (Lin) divided by buccal moment (Lout), otherwise the neurocranium could not rotate dorsally. Therefore, measured pressure should be limited by epaxial PCSA, Lin, Lout and Abuccal. The measurements or estimations of these parameters are described in the text. (B) Location of PCSA measurement. PCSA was measured at the minimum perpendicular distance from the line of surface fascicle orientation to the joint axis.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Representative pressure traces from three species. Pressure magnitude and timing differed among the species used in this study. For clarity, only L. macrochirus, M. salmoides and P. nigromaculatus are illustrated here. Pressure profiles and magnitudes are similar to those measured in other studies of the same species (Grubich and Wainwright, 1997; Lauder, 1983b; Lauder et al., 1986; Norton and Brainerd, 1993; Sanford and Wainwright, 2002).

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Scaling of morphological parameters from the model. 67% Buccal projected area (A), epaxial physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) (B), buccal moment (C) and epaxial moment (D) are shown as a function of standard length in each of the species used in this study. Projected area measurements were made from a separate group of individuals of each species. The scaling relationships of these individuals are given in Table 1. The other three measurements were made from the individuals from whom pressure was recorded.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationship between morphological potential and maximum pressure magnitude measured from individual fish. Morphological potential, as described in the text, significantly accounted for variation in pressure among the individuals used in this study (r2=0.71). The solid line depicts this linear regression. The muscle stress estimated from this regression is 68.5 kPa. The bold, broken line indicates the theoretical maximum performance predicted by the model (200 kPa, assuming an intercept of 11.8). The lighter, broken lines indicate reasonable predictions of normalized muscle stress during suction feeding (Pm) of 50 and 75 kPa, based on in vivo muscle dynamics.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Scaling relationships of morphological potential and measured pressure in L. macrochirus and M. salmoides. Differences in slope were not significant between the two species. The difference in r2 between species indicates that pressure and morphological potential were more size dependent in L. macrochirus than in M. salmoides.