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

First published online November 28, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 3826-3835 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.014464

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 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Case, J. E. Articles by Marshall, C. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Case, J. E. Articles by Marshall, C. D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Feeding biomechanics of juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) from the northwestern Gulf of Mexico

Janelle E. Case¹, Mark W. Westneat² and Christopher D. Marshall^1,*

¹ Texas A&M University at Galveston, Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries Science and Marine Biology, 5007 Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77551, USA
² Field Museum of Natural History 1400, S Lakeshore Dr., Chicago, IL 60605, USA

View larger version (122K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Morphometric measurements used as inputs in the jaw lever model, MandibLever 3.2.

View larger version (86K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (A) Points used for digitizing juvenile red snapper cranial kinematics from feeding trials. (B) Landmark configuration on juvenile red snapper used in geometric morphometric analyses.

View larger version (47K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Simulation results (mean ± s.e.m.) from the lever model, MandibLever 3.2, for the A2 and A3 muscles of juvenile red snapper from three size classes and two different habitats. Capital letters represent significant differences of A2 muscle output parameters and lower case letters represent significant differences of A3 muscle output parameters (P<0.05).

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Comparison of model predictions and video data for jaw closing parameters of juvenile red snapper. (A) Time plot of mean gape distance change as the jaws close, starting at peak gape, illustrating the tight relationship between the average model predictions and the average video kinematics. (B) Mean gape change of the model illustrated with two representative red snapper individuals. (C) Time plot of mean gape angle as the jaws close, starting at peak gape, showing that the living fish kinematics were slower than simulated kinematics, based on a Vmax of 10 muscle lengths per second contraction speed. (D) Mean gape change of the model illustrated with three representative red snapper individuals. Error bars on all plots in A and C are standard deviations of the mean.

View larger version (87K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Selected high-speed video frames and kinematic profiles of displacement variables from a representative prey capture event for one (A) on-ridge and (B) off-ridge juvenile red snapper. In the profiles, phases are indicated across the top by horizontal bars and labeled: I, preparatory; II, expansive; III, compressive; and IV, recovery. Vertical lines represent time of prey capture.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Morphological responses by juvenile red snapper to habitat. Habitat axis scores plotted with transformation grids for illustration. Grids are magnified 10x to enhance habitat effect.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter