|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online September 19, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 3128-3138 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.018002
Suction generation in white-spotted bamboo sharks Chiloscyllium plagiosum
1 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
02881, USA
2 Department of Biology, 114 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: cwilga{at}uri.edu)
Accepted 14 July 2008
 |
Summary |
|---|
 TOP Summary INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Key words: suction feeding, biomechanics, shark, sonomicrometry
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
; Lauder and Shaffer,
1993; Ferry-Graham and Lauder,
2001; Motta and Wilga,
2001; Motta,
2004). Rapid expansion of the mouth and hyoid cavities generates
the rapid pressure drop in the buccal cavity that draws water and prey into
the mouth of a suction-feeding fish (Liem,
1978; Liem, 1980;
Lauder, 1980a;
Lauder, 1980b;
Lauder, 1983;
Van Leeuwen and Muller, 1983;
Muller and Osse, 1984;
Lauder et al., 1986;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002;
Svanbäck et al., 2002).
An anterior to posterior progression of gape, hyoid and branchial expansion
occurs during suction capture of prey
(Liem, 1980;
Lauder, 1985;
Lauder and Shaffer, 1993;
Wilga and Motta, 1998a;
Wilga and Motta, 1998b). This
progression of expansion functions to move water and prey through the cavities
of the head towards the esophagus (Lauder,
1985; Liem, 1980;
Wilga and Motta, 1998a;
Wilga and Motta, 1998b;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002).
Only two studies have measured internal kinematics simultaneously with
intraoral pressure recordings to investigate suction feeding in largemouth
bass (Sanford and Wainwright,
2002; Carroll and Wainwright,
2006). In those studies, peak gape pressure was found to coincide
with the time of peak rate of percentage change in hyoid area
(Sanford and Wainwright,
2002). Furthermore, kinematics using internal sonometric data was
able to account for considerably more of the variation (90–99%) among
suction-feeding events (Sanford and
Wainwright, 2002) than that using external video recordings
(<55%) (Svanbäck et al.,
2002).
The structure and function of the feeding apparatus diverged considerably
after the split between chondrichthyan and teleostome fishes
(Lauder and Shaffer, 1993;
Wilga et al., 2000;
Wilga, 2002;
Westneat, 2006;
Wilga, 2008). The head
skeleton of elasmobranchs is relatively simple compared with that of
actinopterygians due to the fewer number of cranial elements representing
fewer degrees of freedom. The hyoid arch is composed of hyomandibular,
ceratohyal and basihyal cartilages while that of teleosts has several
additional dermal bones interconnecting the hyomandibula and ceratohyal
cartilages (Wilga, 2002). The
decreased number of musculoskeletal elements and degrees of freedom has been
shown to limit hyoid kinetics in some sharks compared with that in
actinopterygians (Wilga,
2008). In both groups, the hyoid depresses ventrally during
suction feeding, thus expanding hyoid volume
(Lauder and Shaffer, 1993;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002;
Westneat, 2006). In
actinopterygians, the hyoid is ventrally directed from the cranium and also
expands laterally during suction feeding
(Lauder and Shaffer, 1993;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002;
Westneat, 2006). However, in
shark species with laterally directed hyomandibulae, the lateral width of the
hyoid (between hyomandibular tips) becomes smaller during feeding
(Wilga, 2008). In these shark
species the distal tips of the hyomandibulae are already maximally distant at
rest and are constrained to adduct and therefore move ventrally when the
basihyal is depressed, causing the inter-tip distance to decrease
(Wilga, 2008). How this
disparity in hyomandibular morphology between actinopterygians and sharks
affects the generation of suction feeding is of great interest since hyoid
movement is a key component in the suction-feeding mechanism of
actinopterygians (Lauder and Shaffer,
1993; Westneat,
2006).
The mechanism for lower jaw depression also differs between chondrichthyans
and actinopterygians (Wilga et al.,
2000). Chondrichthyans have one muscular linkage between the
pectoral girdle and lower jaw to depress the lower jaw and another linkage
between the pectoral girdle and basihyal that depresses the hyoid. These
muscles have been replaced by other muscles in actinopterygians, resulting in
a linkage whereby depression of the hyoid also depresses the lower jaw
(Lauder and Shaffer, 1993;
Wilga et al., 2000;
Van Wassenbergh et al., 2005).
In essence, chondrichthyans have independent parallel mechanisms for
depressing the lower jaw and hyoid, while actinopterygians have a linked
in-series mechanism for depressing the hyoid and lower jaw simultaneously
(Wilga et al., 2000). This
disparity in jaw depression in chondrichthyans may affect the generation of
suction feeding compared with that in teleosts.
The functional separation of pharyngeal and parabranchial cavities differs
between chondrichthyans and actinopterygians. In elasmobranchs, the pharyngeal
cavity contains at least five branchial arches with parabranchial cavities
that are functionally continuous (Summers
and Ferry-Graham, 2001) and lie posterior to the cranium. In
contrast, the branchial arches lie ventral to the cranium with a well-defined
opercular cavity that is functionally separate in bony fishes
(Lauder, 1983;
Lauder, 1984). Whether
pharyngeal expansion assists buccal expansion in generating suction pressure
to capture prey has not yet been determined. These fundamental morphological
distinctions between chondrichthyans and actinopterygians may alter details of
the suction mechanism, yet yield similar results, i.e. prey capture by
suction. How the suction mechanism has been altered after the evolutionary
divergence between chondrichthyans and actinopterygians is of great interest
to functional and evolutionary biologists.
In this study, we investigated how white-spotted bamboo sharks, Chiloscyllium plagiosum, which have laterally directed hyomandibulae, generate intraoral suction pressure to capture prey and evaluated whether the mechanism for generating that suction has diverged between chondrichthyans and actinopterygians. We measured internal expansion and pressure generation in the buccal, hyoid and pharyngeal cavities using sonomicrometry and internal pressure probes. More specifically, we asked the following questions that test previous hypotheses regarding suction feeding in fishes. (1) Does the progression of maximum subambient pressure during suction feeding in C. plagiosum parallel the progression of kinematic expansion? (2) Does the time of peak area change coincide with the time of maximum suction pressure in the three regions during suction feeding in C. plagiosum? (3) Is the temporal relationship between expansion of the buccal cavity and the resulting subambient pressure generated in C. plagiosum similar to that of teleosts? (4) Does the morphological constraint in hyomandibular function causing adduction in sharks during feeding impede the generation of suction? (5) Does pharyngeal expansion directly contribute to suction generation that assists in capturing prey?
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Sonomicrometry
The kinematics of 13 internal locations on the walls of the buccal, hyoid
and pharyngeal cavities was measured using sonometric crystals
(Fig. 1). Gape distance was
transduced using crystals 2 and 3. Upper jaw protrusion was transduced using
crystals 1 and 2. Gape area was calculated based on an expanding circle,
verified by video recordings, using gape distance. Hyoid lateral width
(expansion) was transduced from crystals 5 and 6. Hyoid vertical depression
was calculated by using the law of cosines to calculate a vertical distance
between crystal 7 and a line formed by crystals 1 and 4. The law of cosines
required transducing distances between crystals 7 and 1, 7 and 4, and 1 and 4
(for details, see Sanford and Wainwright,
2002). Hyoid area was calculated based on an expanding ellipse
using hyoid vertical depression and lateral width expansion. Pharyngeal
lateral width (expansion) was transduced from crystals 9 and 10. Pharyngeal
vertical depression was calculated in a similar way to hyoid depression using
the law of cosines to calculate a vertical distance between crystal 11 and a
line formed by crystals 12 and 13. The law of cosines required transducing
distances between crystals 11 and 12, 11 and 13, and 12 and 13. Pharyngeal
area was calculated based on an expanding ellipse using pharyngeal vertical
depression and lateral width. Gape, hyoid and pharyngeal expansion could not
be quantified simultaneously due to the large number of wires and pressure
probes that would have filled the orobranchial cavity; therefore, gape
expansion served as the reference and was measured with either hyoid or
pharyngeal expansion, and thus pharyngeal volume could not be calculated.
|
). The sharks did not appear to be bothered by the wires
running through the fifth gill slit; they ate readily and ventilated normally
during the experiments.
The kinematics of gape–hyoid and gape–pharyngeal expansion was
recorded using a 16 channel digital sonomicrometer (Sonometrics) with
resolution enhancement to 0.015 mm. SonoVIEW software (Sonometrics) was used
to record sonometric data of feeding sharks at a sampling rate of 409.16 Hz
and transmit pulse of 250 ns with an inhibit delay of 3.44 µs and 4.57 mm.
The distance between selected pairs of crystals was transduced in SonoVIEW and
exported to SigmaPlot (Jandel, CA, USA) for graphing; Excel (Microsoft, WA,
USA) was used to calculate the variables not directly transduced. Plots
versus time were used to derive temporal, displacement and velocity
variables for each feeding sequence. Temporal variables included time of
onset, and duration to and time of peak for gape, hyoid and pharyngeal area.
Chiloscyllium plagiosum is a suction ventilator, thus there are
continuous cycles of subambient to superambient pressures in the buccal,
hyoid, pharyngeal and parabranchial cavities and small opening and closing
cycles of the mouth that a feeding sequence interrupts. As a result, the time
at which 10% of peak gape height was attained was defined as the time of onset
of gape area (Sanford and Wainwright,
2002). The time of peak suction pressure in the buccal cavity was
set as time zero (t0) for reference to other variables.
Displacement variables calculated included peak area and change in area for
gape, hyoid and pharyngeal area and buccal volume. Velocity variables
calculated included time of peak and peak velocity, and time of peak and peak
rate of percentage change in gape, hyoid and pharyngeal area.
Buccal volume using the volume of a conical frustum was calculated for each
feeding event using sonometric crystals
(Fig. 1C). A conical frustum,
or a truncated cone, with a parallel base and top roughly resembles the shape
of the buccal cavity of a bamboo shark. Thus, the equation for the volume of a
conical frustum, 
, was
used to estimate the volume of the buccal cavity, where H is the
height of the cone, and B and b are parallel areas of
opposite ends of the cone. In this model, the cone rests on one side with
H representing the length of the buccal cavity, B is the
base representing the cross-sectional area at the hyoid arch, and b
is the truncated cross-sectional top area at the mouth end. However, the
ventral length of the buccal cavity is shorter than the dorsal length of the
buccal cavity, particularly at peak gape when the lower jaw and basihyal have
rotated posteroventrally. The volume based on using the dorsal length of the
buccal cavity Hd, represented by crystals 1 to 4, is an
overestimate of buccal cavity volume at peak gape due to the posteroventral
movement of the lower jaw. Similarly, the volume based on using the ventral
length of the buccal cavity Hv, represented by crystals 3
to 7, is an underestimate of buccal cavity volume at peak gape because the
anterior cranial volume is not included. Since the lower jaw swings in an even
arch, a better estimate of buccal volume used here was calculated by taking
the mean of both volumes. Areas B and b remain the same in
the two calculations. Area B is peak hyoid area calculated as above
by transducing the vertical height from crystals 1, 4 and 7. Area b
is the anterior mouth end described by peak gape width (crystals 2 to 3)
multiplied by the distance from the anterior cranium to the lower jaw
(crystals 1 to 3).
Pressure
Pressure was recorded simultaneously with sonomicrometry using two Millar
SPR-799 microcatheter side-tipped pressure transducers. The pressure probes
were threaded through a plastic cannula, then inserted through the fifth gill
slit and fixed to the skin by suture. One probe was sutured on the midline
buccal cavity roof just behind the teeth while the second was sutured to the
midline of the roof either between the hyomandibulae or between the second
gill arches. The pressure probes were connected to an analog channel on the
sonomicrometry system for precise synchronization of pressure and kinematic
data. Pressure recordings were analyzed using SonoVIEW for the following
pressure variables relative to ambient for buccal, hyoid and pharyngeal
cavities: time of onset, duration from onset to peak, time of peak, peak
magnitude, peak rate of change, and time of peak rate of change of subambient
pressure.
Statistical analysis
Multiple stepwise linear regressions were used as an exploratory tool to
find relationships between pressure and gape, hyoid and pharyngeal area
changes. Two sets of analyses were run for each of the areas, one using the
onset of pressure and one using peak pressure (kPa) as the dependent variable
and 10 gape and hyoid or gape and pharyngeal kinematic variables as the
independent variables: time of onset of buccal and hyoid–pharyngeal
expansion, time of peak buccal and hyoid–pharyngeal pressure, peak
buccal and hyoid–pharyngeal area (mm2), the rate of change in
gape and hyoid–pharyngeal area (mm2 ms–1)
and time of peak rate of change in buccal and hyoid–pharyngeal expansion
area. We removed variables that could be derived from other variables to
eliminate autocorrelation. All of the variables with P-values greater
than 0.3 (to be conservative) were removed. Each analysis was run in a
stepwise manner. In the reduced model all of the variables with
P-values greater than 0.3 were removed. This step was rerun until all
P-values were less than 0.3, which are the models presented here.
Standardized estimates as well as r2 values are reported
to indicate the explanatory power that each variable contributes to the
reduced model. Standard estimates indicate the magnitude and direction of a
change incurred while r2 values provide the magnitude of
covariation. Individuals were included as a categorical variable. Interaction
effects were not included for clarity.
A mixed model two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test pressure and area variables among gape, buccal, hyoid and pharyngeal regions. Individual is a random main effect, and region is a fixed main effect tested by the individualxregion term. If a difference was detected by ANOVA, a Tukey's Studentized range test was applied. Several paired t-tests were performed to determine which kinematic variables may be responsible for pressure variables; the reference time (0 ms) was set at the time of peak gape pressure. Linear regressions were used to evaluate the contribution of buccal volume to suction generation. Statistical tests were calculated using SAS (v.8.1; Cary, NC, USA) or SigmaStat (v.3.1; San Jose, CA, USA). Buccal variables were combined from hyoid and pharyngeal experiments; N=4, 10 feeding events per individual. Hyoid and pharyngeal variables were from hyoid or pharyngeal experiments; N=4, five feeding events per individual per protocol. The same individuals were used in the two protocols for a total of 40 feeding events.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
). An anterior to posterior progression of expansion begins in
the gape and hyoid cavities followed by the pharyngeal cavity
(Fig. 2;
Table 1). The onset of pressure
in the buccal, hyoid and pharyngeal cavities begins immediately after the
mouth opens. The gape attains peak expansion just prior to peak buccal
pressure. The hyoid and pharyngeal cavities continue to expand until well
after peak buccal pressure and peak simultaneously. Hyoid expansion is greater
than pharyngeal expansion, which is greater than that of the gape
(Table 2). Peak rate of change
in area is greater in the hyoid than in the gape and pharynx. The time of peak
rate of change occurs later in the pharyngeal cavity than in the gape and
hyoid cavities.
|
|
|
A representative raw sonometric and pressure trace of a gape–hyoid suction feeding event shows that lower jaw and hyoid movements occur as pressure in the buccal and hyoid regions rapidly decreases (Fig. 3; Table 1). Lower jaw and hyoid depression are simultaneous with a subambient pressure decrease in the buccal and hyoid regions. As the basihyal is depressed ventrally, the distal ends of the hyomandibulae move closer together medially. Inflection points where hyoid pressure drop stalls momentarily occur as hyoid width begins to decrease laterally and then again as hyoid width increases laterally. The basihyal moves posteroventrally in an arc during the expansive phase of suction feeding (Fig. 4A). Peak posterior movement of the basihyal occurs after peak subambient hyoid pressure and coincides with minimum hyoid lateral width. Hyoid vertical depression occurs early and rapidly, while hyoid lateral width does not begin to decrease until about 20 ms later (Fig. 3; Fig. 4B). Due to the shape of the hyoid cavity, the lateral span is larger than the vertical span, even at peak hyoid area expansion.
|
|
|
|
|
Linear regression plots show a weak, but nevertheless significant, relationship between several variables during suction feeding (Fig. 8). Buccal volume contributes little to the variation in time to peak area in the gape (r2=0.13, P<0.001) and hyoid (r2=0.07, P<0.001) regions. Buccal volume also contributes little to the variation in buccal (r2=0.16, P=0.001) and hyoid (r2=014, P=0.002) pressure. Multiple regression models recovered kinematic variables that account for 77% of the variation in the onset of buccal pressure, 60% of the variation in peak buccal pressure, 74% of the variation in the onset of hyoid pressure and 63% of the variation in peak hyoid pressure in the gape–hyoid events (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6). The models recovered kinematic variables accounting for 96% of the variation in the onset of pharyngeal pressure and 81% of the variation in peak pharyngeal pressure in the gape–pharyngeal events (Tables 7 and 8). The only variable with an individual effect is time of peak pharyngeal area expansion (P=0.001, individual 4 differs from 1, 2 and 3); however, this variable was not a major factor in any of the analyses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The onset of subambient pressure is similar in the three cavities and is coincident with the onset of gape opening (Table 2). However, subambient pressure peaks first in the pharynx, then hyoid and lastly in the buccal cavity. The magnitude of peak subambient pressure is similar in the buccal and hyoid cavities and larger than that in the pharynx. The mean rate of pressure drop is similar in the buccal, hyoid and pharyngeal cavities. The time of pressure peak velocity occurs earlier in the hyoid and pharyngeal cavities than that in the buccal cavity. Several paired t-tests were run with a Bonferroni correction of P=0.005. The peak in buccal pressure occurs at the same time as peak gape opening (P=0.517). The onset of buccal pressure occurs at the same time as the onset of gape opening (P=0.419). The onset of hyoid pressure occurs at the same time as the onset of hyoid expansion (P=0.006). The onset of pharyngeal pressure occurs prior to the onset of pharyngeal expansion (P<0.001). The time of peak rate of change (velocity) in gape area occurs earlier than the time of peak gape pressure (P<0.001). The time of peak percentage velocity in gape area occurs earlier than the time of peak gape pressure (P<0.001). The peak velocity in the hyoid area occurs at the same time as peak hyoid pressure (P=0.005). The time of peak percentage velocity in the hyoid area occurs earlier than the time of peak hyoid pressure (P<0.001). The peak pharyngeal pressure occurs at the same time as the peak velocity and the peak percentage velocity in the pharyngeal area (P<0.006 and P=0.012).
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
). The
progression of anterior to posterior expansion in the buccal, hyoid and
pharyngeal cavities is accompanied by the sequential onset of subambient
pressure in those cavities as prey is drawn into the mouth by suction. This
conserved pattern exists even in taxa that are considered to be bite feeders,
which also sequentially expand the buccal, hyoid and pharyngeal cavities,
albeit less rapidly (Wilga and Motta,
2000; Motta and Wilga,
2001; Motta,
2004), to provide adequate space for the prey to enter the
oropharyngeal cavity. Thus, the pattern may be ubiquitous and does not appear
to limit the range of feeding strategies utilized in fishes. Interestingly,
pressure in the three cavities peaks in the posterior to anterior direction.
The pharynx functions as a sink to accumulate water influx from the buccal
cavity rather than directly generating suction to assist in prey capture.
Multiple stepwise linear regressions based on internal kinematics account for
60–96% of the variation in onset and peak pressure among suction capture
events, similar to the 61–74% variation detected in Micropterus
salmoides (excluding individual and interaction effects)
(Sanford and Wainwright,
2002). The relationship between kinematics and pressure appears to
be tightly integrated. Several kinematic variables function together, each
contributing to the variation in pressure over relatively long gape cycles,
compared with teleosts, to generate the very low subambient pressures used by
C. plagiosum to capture prey.
Factors driving the onset of buccal and hyoid pressure
The onset of pressure in the buccal and hyoid cavities occurs
simultaneously indicating that the two regions are not functionally distinct
during the initial phase of suction generation. It is primarily the onset of
gape area increase that triggers the onset of subambient pressure in the
buccal and hyoid cavities during suction feeding in Chiloscyllium
plagiosum (Fig. 8). The
onset of buccal and hyoid pressure occurs simultaneously with the onset of
mouth opening and hyoid expansion. The onset of hyoid expansion also assists
the gape in initiating the subambient pressure drop in the buccal cavity.
Mouth opening allows water to be drawn in by the subambient pressure gradient
as the hyoid simultaneously beings to expand: a finding originally suggested
by Van Leeuwen (Van Leeuwen,
1984). Indeed, subambient pressure drops rapidly as the mouth
opens during suction feeding in teleosts as well
(Lauder, 1980b;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002).
In contrast, the onset of subambient pressure in the buccal cavity more
closely corresponds with the onset of hyoid depression in Micropterus
salmoides (Sanford and Wainwright,
2002). The same kinematic variables account for 66% and 59% of the
variation in the onset of pressure in the buccal and hyoid regions, with the
same variables contributing similar proportions. The onset of gape and hyoid
area and peak velocity of gape and hyoid area contribute the most to variation
in the onset of subambient pressure in the buccal and hyoid cavities. An
earlier onset of gape opening and the faster rate of expansion in gape area
contribute to an earlier onset of subambient pressure in the buccal and hyoid
cavities.
Factors driving peak buccal and hyoid pressure
The velocity of gape and hyoid expansion appears to drive peak pressure in
the buccal and hyoid cavities (Fig.
8). However, peak subambient pressure in the buccal and hyoid
cavities is the result of complex interactions between gape and hyoid
kinematics, hyoid lateral width decreasing as hyoid vertical depth increases,
likely causing unsteady flow, which obscures the detection of a single
predominant variable that is responsible for generating peak pressure. The
time of peak buccal pressure also occurs simultaneously with peak area while
the time of peak hyoid pressure coincides with peak velocity in the hyoid
area. The faster the change in volume, the greater the subambient pressure
generated. The lower the subambient pressures in the buccal and hyoid
cavities, the greater the influx of water to draw prey into the mouth. This
rapid mouth opening and expansion of the hyoid cavity also generates the sharp
pressure drop in the buccal cavity that draws water and prey into the mouth of
suction-feeding fishes (Liem,
1978; Liem, 1980;
Lauder, 1980a;
Lauder, 1980b;
Lauder, 1983;
Van Leeuwen and Muller, 1983;
Muller and Osse, 1984;
Lauder et al., 1986;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002;
Svänback et al., 2002).
Once peak gape is attained, water inflow and further subambient pressure
decrease is limited. The same kinematic variables provide 60–63% of the
variation in peak buccal and hyoid pressure. The velocity of gape and hyoid
area expansion contribute the most to variation in peak buccal and hyoid
pressure in Chiloscyllium plagiosum. A rapid velocity of gape and
hyoid expansion leads to a rapid increase in the change of volume in the
buccal cavity resulting in lower subambient pressure. The buccal and hyoid
regions generate the same mean magnitude of subambient pressure although hyoid
pressure peaks prior to buccal pressure.
The peak rate of change in gape and hyoid area contributes more to the
variation in peak pressure in C. plagiosum than the time of peak
velocity or the time of peak percentage rate of change in area. Although the
time of peak rate of change in gape area occurs earlier than the time of peak
gape pressure, the time of peak rate of change in hyoid area occurs at the
same time as peak hyoid pressure. The peak rate of percentage change in buccal
area coincides with peak subambient buccal pressure in M. salmoides
(Sanford and Wainwright,
2002), while peak gape area coincides with peak subambient buccal
pressure in C. plagiosum. However, peak subambient pressure in the
buccal cavity occurs much earlier than peak gape in teleosts, midway to peak
gape in M. salmoides (Sanford and
Wainwright, 2002; Higham et
al., 2006) but 76% of the way to peak gape in L.
macrochirus (Higham et al.,
2006). It may be that the hyoid compression during the expansive
phase in C. plagiosum delays the time to peak pressure as indicated
by the inflection points in the pressure traces. Peak subambient pressure in
the buccal and hyoid cavities of C. plagiosum (–5 to –99
kPa) is similar to that of other teleosts that are considered to be strong
suction feeders, Lepomis species and Hexagrammos decagrammus
(–30 to –71 kPa) (Lauder,
1980b; Nemeth,
1997; Higham et al.,
2006). Other teleosts that rely more on bite or ram suction to
capture prey generate relatively smaller peak subambient pressures (M.
salmoides, Cichlasoma severum, Cichla ocellaris; –24.0 to 15.6 kPa)
(Norton and Brainerd, 1993;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002;
Svänback et al., 2002).
As expected, the peak velocity of pressure change corresponds to the magnitude
of peak subambient buccal pressure in these fish.
Factors driving the onset and peak pharyngeal pressure
Curiously, expansion of the branchial arches is not responsible for the
initial drop in pressure in the pharynx in Chiloscyllium plagiosum.
The onset of gape area is the predominant factor in contributing to the onset
of, and variation in, subambient pressure in the pharynx
(Fig. 8). The onset of
pharyngeal pressure occurs simultaneously with the onset of increase in gape
area, rather than with the onset of pharyngeal expansion. A possible
explanation for this is that it appears that the conservation of flow momentum
from the increasingly open gape through the hyoid to the pharynx and out of
the fifth gill slit, which remains open throughout most of the feeding event,
triggers the onset of subambient pressure in the pharyngeal cavity. Although
the spiracle and first four gill slits are closed consistently during the
expansive phase (Karch et al., 2007), leakage from the spiracle or fifth gill
slit could also be responsible for a drop in pharyngeal pressure. A reversal
in flow from the parabranchial to the pharyngeal cavity occurs in
Lepomis species and other elasmobranchs during feeding and
ventilation and is accompanied by a positive pressure spike
(Lauder, 1980b;
Ferry-Graham, 1997;
Ferry-Graham, 1999;
Summers and Ferry-Graham,
2001). However, once the flow of water from the anterior to
posterior expansion of the oropharyngeal cavities is established the momentum
of water prevents flow reversal (Lauder,
1980a; Day et al.,
2007). A positive pressure spike does not occur in the
oropharyngeal cavity of C. plagiosum during prey capture; therefore a
reversal of flow is not likely to be driving the onset of subambient pressure
in the pharyngeal cavity unless it is masked by prevailing flow from the
buccal cavity or parabranchial cavities.
Several factors related to gape area appear to be driving peak subambient pressure in the pharyngeal cavity. Peak velocity and the time of peak velocity probably contribute the most to variation in peak pharyngeal pressure (Fig. 8). Again, the greater the velocity of expansion, the more water is moved at a greater velocity to drive peak subambient pressure in the pharynx. It is interesting that pharyngeal expansion is not the primary cause of peak pressure in this cavity. Pharyngeal area does not begin to increase until 3.5 ms prior to the time of peak pressure and expansion peaks 76 ms after peak pressure. Although the time of peak rate of change in pharyngeal area occurs earlier than peak pharyngeal pressure, the time of peak percentage rate of change in pharyngeal area occurs at peak pharyngeal pressure in C. plagiosum. Thus, the point at which the area of expansion in the pharynx reaches the greatest percentage is when pressure peaks, which occurs prior to peak gape. After this, flow from the buccal cavity must overwhelm the negative pressure generated by pharyngeal expansion and pressure slowly increases to ambient.
Evolutionary diversification of the suction mechanism in fishes
Peak pressure should and does occur early in the strike giving prey little
chance to escape; however, peak pressure may also occur late in successful
strikes, indicating that modulation of several kinematic events may be a
factor. The relatively long chamber with different regions moving
independently (compression with expansion) over a relatively long period of
time, compared with teleosts, results in a complicated system from which a
precise relationship between kinematics and pressure is difficult to extract.
There is a wide range (8–60 ms) in the time to peak subambient pressure
among teleost fishes as well as in Chiloscyllium plagiosum
(23–77 ms), although the range is shifted 15–17 ms later in C.
plagiosum compared with teleosts
(Lauder, 1980b;
Norton and Brainerd, 1993;
Nemeth, 1997;
Sanford and Wainwright, 2002).
This later shift in peak pressure in C. plagiosum compared with
teleosts is likely due to the delay caused by lateral compression of the
hyoid. However, the coupled in-series linkage being more efficient in
depressing the jaws and hyoid in teleosts or scaling effects cannot be ruled
out.
The mechanism of suction feeding in Chiloscyllium plagiosum
differs from that in actinopterygians primarily in movements of the hyoid arch
due to morphological constraints (Wilga,
2008). In actinopterygians, volumetric expansion during suction
feeding is due to dorsal elevation of the head, lateral expansion of the hyoid
and suspensorium, upper jaw protrusion and ventral depression of the lower jaw
and hyoid (Lauder and Shaffer,
1993; Sanford and Wainwright,
2002). In contrast, volumetric expansion by ventral depression of
the lower jaw and ventral depression of the hyoid are the only elements that
C. plagiosum have in common with actinopterygians. There is a
stronger relationship between time to peak gape and pressure to buccal volume
in L. macrochirus (r2=0.95) and M.
salmoides (r2=0.29)
(Higham et al., 2006) than in
C. plagiosum. Perhaps the longer duration of suction generation in
C. plagiosum compared with that in teleosts and lateral compression
of the hyoid in C. plagiosum during the expansive phase, lacking in
teleosts, allow more time and complexity of kinematic movements that may
increase variation in the mechanism.
One of the most interesting and novel findings of this study is that
Chiloscyllium plagiosum is able to generate large suction pressures
while paradoxically compressing the hyoid cavity laterally simultaneous with
expansion of the hyoid ventrally. Approximately a quarter of the way to peak
hyoid depression, the distal ends of the hyomandibulae begin to adduct, which
results in lateral compression of the hyoid cavity
(Wilga, 2008). Suction inflow
is momentarily stalled (see HP in Figs
3 and
6); when this happens a
characteristic inflexion point occurs in the pressure profile and again when
the hyomandibulae reach peak adduction (lateral compression) and begin to
abduct back to the more lateral resting position. This stalling of pressure
during suction feeding may be responsible for the delayed time to peak
subambient pressure in C. plagiosum relative to actinopterygian
fishes. More importantly, the two inflection points may hinder the ability to
reveal clear kinematic correlates to the generation of pressure due to the
complexity of lateral and ventral hyoid movement and the resulting pressure
generated.
The hyostylic jaw suspension of elasmobranchs in conjunction with fewer
degrees of freedom and the position of the hyomandibulae are responsible for
lateral compression rather than expansion of the hyoid apparatus
(Wilga, 2008). Sharks have a
hyomandibula–ceratohyal–basihyal linkage, with laterally directed
hyomandibulae, which constrains the distal ends to adduct when the basihyal is
depressed. The methyostylic jaw suspension of actinopterygians contains an
extra bone (interhyal) between the vertically directed hyomandibulae and
ceratohyal that increases freedom of movement
(Schaeffer and Rosen, 1961;
Wilga, 2002) and allows the
hyomandibulae to abduct laterally even when the basihyal is depressed. Lateral
compression simultaneous with ventral expansion of the hyoid in a strong
suction-feeding shark species represents a significant departure from the
suction mechanism in actinopterygian fishes, in which the hyoid cavity expands
laterally and ventrally.
Cranial elevation and upper jaw protrusion are absent or slight in
suction-feeding elasmobranchs, in direct contrast to actinopterygians and
bite-feeding species (Wilga et al.,
2007). Upper jaw protrusion is linked to lower jaw depression,
therefore occurring simultaneously to increase volumetric expansion in
actinopterygians (Lauder and Shaffer,
1993). Previous studies based on external kinematics have found
that the onset of upper jaw protrusion occurs at or just after peak gape in
suction-feeding shark species (Motta and
Wilga, 2001; Motta,
2004). However, internal kinematics here reveals that the upper
jaw begins to protrude shortly after the onset of lower jaw depression.
Interestingly, considerable upper jaw protrusion contributes to buccal
expansion in suction- and bite-feeding batoids similar to actinopterygians
(Wilga and Motta, 1998b;
Dean and Motta, 2004; Duquette
and Wilga, 2007).
Rather than directly contributing to suction used to capture prey, pharyngeal expansion appears to act as a sink to receive the water influx during suction feeding. Several factors may limit pharyngeal expansion from effectively contributing suction for prey capture: the pharynx may be too distant from the buccal cavity, expansion and volume change occur too late, subambient pressure is too low, outflow through the opened fifth gill slit may preclude significant subambient pressure from developing. Studies on suction-feeding elasmobranch and actinopterygian fishes have focused on branchial and opercular expansion, respectively, rather than pharyngeal expansion due to the difficulties inherent in measuring the pharynx. Thus, the role of pharyngeal expansion during suction feeding has not yet been determined in actinopterygians.
Interestingly, the time of peak subambient pressure in the buccal, hyoid
and pharyngeal cavities occurs in a posterior to anterior sequence. Pressure
peaks in the pharyngeal cavity 44 ms, in the hyoid 52 ms, and in the buccal
cavity 2 ms prior to peak area expansion in the corresponding region.
Continued hyoid and pharyngeal expansion after peak gape probably functions
simply to direct the influx of water and prey from the mouth into the pharynx,
similar to the function of opercular expansion in teleost fishes
(Lauder, 1985;
Day et al., 2007). Expansion of
the hyoid and pharyngeal cavities peaks simultaneously, supporting this
premise. The slow return of pressure to ambient in the hyoid and pharynx is
probably due to the flow of water keeping pace with expansion of the cavities
and outflow through the fifth gill slits.
Aquatic turtles and salamanders expand the hyoid and pharyngeal cavities
during aquatic ram and suction feeding in a similar process called
compensatory suction (Lauder and
Prendergast, 1992; Lemell and
Weisgram, 1997; Summers et
al., 1998). As the head is extended toward the prey, the hyoid and
pharynx are expanded to collect the water flowing into the open mouth to
prevent the forward movement of the head from pushing the prey away due to a
bow wave (Lauder and Prendergast,
1992; Lemell and Weisgram,
1997; Summers et al.,
1998; Ferry-Graham et al.,
2003). Chiloscyllium plagiosum appears to use hyoid and
pharyngeal expansion similarly to collect the water influx from the mouth,
rather than contribute to the suction used to capture the prey. It appears
that compensatory suction may be an integral part of suction feeding in some
fishes and is not limited to unidirectional aquatic feeders lacking gill
slits.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Carroll, A. M. and Wainwright, P. C. (2006). Muscle function and power output during suction feeding in largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 143,389 -399.[CrossRef][Medline]
Day, S. W., Higham, T. E. and Wainwright, P. C. (2007). Time resolved measurements of the flow generated by suction feeding fish. Exp. Fluids 43,713 -724.[CrossRef]
Dean, M. N. and Motta, P. J. (2004). Feeding behavior and kinematics of the lesser electric ray, Narcine brasiliensis.Zoology 107,171 -189.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dolce, J. and Wilga, C. D. (2005). Gill slit kinematics in suction and ram ventilating sharks. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45,988 .
Duquette, D. C. and Wilga, C. D. (2006). Mechanics of suction generation during feeding in little skates. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46,e190 .
Ferry-Graham, L. A. (1997). Feeding kinematics of juvenile swellsharks, Cephaloscyllium ventriosum. J. Exp. Biol. 200,1255 -1269.[Abstract]
Ferry-Graham, L. A. (1999). Mechanics of respiration in swellsharks, Cephaloscyllium ventriosum. J. Exp. Biol. 202,1501 -1510.[Abstract]
Ferry-Graham, L. A. and Lauder, G. V. (2001). Aquatic prey capture in ray finned fishes: a century of progress and new directions. J. Morphol. 248,99 -119.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ferry-Graham, L. A., Wainwright, P. C. and Lauder, G. V. (2003). Quantification of flow during suction feeding in bluegill sunfish. Zoology 106,159 -168.[CrossRef][Medline]
Higham, T. E., Day, S. W. and Wainwright, P. C.
(2006). The pressures of suction feeding: the relation between
buccal pressure and induced speed in centrarchid fishes. J. Exp.
Biol. 209,3281
-3287.
Karch, A. P., Dolce, J. L. and Wilga, C. D. (2006). Gill slit kinematics during ventilation and feeding in bamboo sharks. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46, e214.
Lauder, G. V. (1980a). Evolution of the feeding mechanism in primitive actinopterygian fishes: a functional anatomical analysis of Polypterus, Lepisosteus, and Amia. J. Morphol. 163,283 -317.[CrossRef]
Lauder, G. V. (1980b). The suction feeding
mechanism in sunfishes (Lepomis): an experimental analysis.
J. Exp. Biol. 88,49
-72.
Lauder, G. V. (1983). Prey capture
hydrodynamics in fishes: experimental tests of two models. J. Exp.
Biol. 104,1
-13.
Lauder, G. V. (1984). Pressure and water flow
patterns in the respiratory tract of the bass (Micropterus
salmoides). J. Exp. Biol.
113,151
-164.
Lauder, G. V. (1985). Aquatic feeding in lower vertebrates. In Functional Vertebrate Morphology (ed. D. M. B. M. Hildebrand, K. F. Liem and D. B. Wake), pp.210 -229. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lauder, G. V. and Prendergast, T. (1992).
Kinematics of aquatic prey capture in the snapping turtle Chelydra
serpentina. J. Exp. Biol.
164, 55-78.
Lauder, G. V. and Reilly, S. M. (1994). Amphibian feeding behavior: comparative biomechanics and evolution. Adv. Comp. Environ. Physiol. 18,163 -195.
Lauder, G. V. and Shaffer, H. B. (1993). Design of feeding systems in aquatic vertebrates: major patterns and their evolutionary implications. In The Skull: Functional and Evolutionary Mechanisms, vol. 3 (ed. J. H. Hanken and B. K. Hall), pp. 113-149. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lauder, G. V., Wainwright, P. C. and Findeis, E. (1986). Physiological mechanisms of aquatic prey capture in sunfishes: functional determinants of buccal pressure changes. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 84A,729 -734.
Lemell, P. and Weisgram, J. (1997). Feeding patterns of Pelusios castaneus (Chelonia: Pleurodira). Neth. J. Zool. 47,429 -441.[CrossRef]
Liem, K. (1978). Modulatory multiplicity in the functional repertoire of the feeding mechanism in cichlid fishes. J. Morphol. 58,323 -360.
Liem, K. F. (1980). Acquisition of energy by teleosts: adaptive mechanisms and evolutionary patterns. In Enviornmental Physiology of Fishes (ed. M. A. Ali), pp. 299-334. New York: Plenum Publishing.
Motta, P. J. (2004). Prey capture behavior and feeding mechanics of elasmobranchs. In Biology of Sharks and the Relatives (ed. J. C. Carrier, J. A. Musick and M. R. Heithaus), pp. 139-164. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Motta, P. J. and Wilga, C. D. (2001). Advances in the study of feeding mechanisms, mechanics, and behaviors of sharks. In biology and sensory biology of sharks: past, present and future studies.Environ. Biol. Fishes 60,131 -156.[CrossRef]
Muller, M. and Osse, J. W. M. (1984). Hydrodynamics of suction feeding in fish. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 37,51 -135.
Nauwelaerts, S., Wilga, C. D., Sanford, C. P. and Lauder, G.
V. (2007). Hydrodynamics of prey capture in sharks: effects
of substrate. J. R. Soc. Interface
4, 341-345.
Nemeth, D. H. (1997). Modulation of buccal pressure during prey capture in Hexagrammos decagrammus (Teleostei: Hexagrammidae). J. Exp. Biol. 200,2145 -2154.[Abstract]
Norton, S. F. and Brainerd, E. L. (1993). Convergence in the feeding mechanics of ecomorphologically similar species in the centrarchidae and cichlidae. J. Exp. Biol. 176, 11-29.[Abstract]
Ramsay, J. B. and Wilga, C. D. (2006). Hyoid mechanics and muscle function during feeding in white-spotted bamboo sharks, Chiloscyllium plagiosum. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46, e140.
Sanford, C. J. and Wainwright, P. C. (2002).
Use of sonomicrometry demonstrates the link between prey capture kinematics
and suction pressure in largemouth bass. J. Exp. Biol.
205,3445
-3457.
Schaeffer, B. and Rosen. D. E. (1961). Major adaptive levels in the evolution of the actinopterygian feeding mechanism. Am. Zool. 1,187 -204.
Summers, A. P. and Ferry-Graham, L. A. (2001). Respiratory modes and mechanics of the hedgehog skate, Leucoraja erinacea: testing the continuous flow model. J. Exp. Biol. 204,1577 -1587.[Abstract]
Summers, A. P., Darouian, K. F., Richmond, A. M. and Brainerd, E. L. (1998). Kinematics of aquatic and terrestrial prey capture in Terrapene carolina, with implications for the evolution of feeding in cryptodire turtles. J. Exp. Zool. 281,280 -287.[CrossRef][Medline]
Svanbäck, R., Wainwright, P. C. and Ferry-Graham, L. A. (2002). Linking cranial kinematics, buccal pressure and suction feeding performance in largemouth bass. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 75,532 -543.[CrossRef][Medline]
Van Leeuwen, J. L. (1984). A quantitative study of flow in prey capture by rainbow trout, with general consideration of the actinopterygian feeding mechanism. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 37,171 -227.
Van Leeuwen, J. L. and Muller, M. (1983). The recording and interpretation of pressures in prey-sucking fish. Neth. J. Zool. 33,425 -475.[CrossRef]
Van Wassenbergh, S., Herrel, A., Adriaens, D. and Aerts, P.
(2005). A test of mouth-opening and hyoid-depression mechanisms
during prey capture in a catfish using high-speed cineradiography.
J. Exp. Biol. 208,4627
-4639.
Westneat, M. W. (2006). Skull biomechanics and suction feeding in fishes. In Fish Biomechanics (ed. R. E. Shadwick and G. V. Lauder), pp. 29-75. New York: Academic Press.
Wilga, C. D. (2002). A functional analysis of jaw suspension in elasmobranchs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 75,483 -502.[CrossRef]
Wilga, C. D. (2008). Evolutionary divergence in the feeding mechanism of fishes. Acta Geol. Pol. 58,113 -120.
Wilga, C. D. and Motta, P. J. (1998a). Conservation and variation in the feeding mechanism of the spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias. J. Exp. Biol. 201,1345 -1358.[Abstract]
Wilga, C. D. and Motta, P. J. (1998b). Feeding mechanism of the Atlantic guitarfish Rhinobatos lentiginosus: modulation of kinematic and motor activity. J. Exp. Biol. 201,3167 -3184.[Abstract]
Wilga, C. D. and Motta, P. J. (2000). Durophagy in sharks: feeding mechanics of the hammerhead shark Sphyrna tiburo.J. Exp. Biol. 203,2781 -2796.[Abstract]
Wilga, C. D., Motta, P. J. and Sanford, C. P.
(2007). Evolution and ecology of feeding in elasmobranchs.
Integr. Comp. Biol. 47,55
-69.
Wilga, C. D., Wainwright, P. C. and Motta, P. J. (2000). Evolution of jaw depression mechanics in aquatic vertebrates: insights from Chondrichthyes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 71,165 -185.[CrossRef]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Konow and C. P. J. Sanford Biomechanics of a convergently derived prey-processing mechanism in fishes: evidence from comparative tongue bite apparatus morphology and raking kinematics J. Exp. Biol., November 1, 2008; 211(21): 3378 - 3391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
