Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Representative smoothed gape profile illustrating the effects of food type on prey transport kinematics in P. vitticeps. Significant differences in maximal gape distances between transport of ants (solid circles), crickets (open circles), isopods (solid triangles) and endive (open triangles) are apparent. Also note significant differences in the total duration of a transport cycle between ants and the other food items.
- Fig. 2.
Individual, and individual by food type interaction effects. (A) Smoothed gape profiles of the four different individuals transporting a cricket. Note how individuals 6 (solid circles) and 7 (open circles) have higher gape distances during transport than individuals 9 (solid triangles) and 10 (open triangles) and how the total transport cycle duration of individual 7 is significant longer than that of the other individuals. (B) Smoothed gape profiles of the same individuals transporting an ant. Note how individual 9 (solid triangles) has a smaller gape distance during transport than the other individuals.
- Fig. 3.
Results of a factor analysis performed on the kinematic data set before (solid circles) and after (open circles) transection. The first factor, along which the transection effect is most prominent, is mostly affected by duration of slow closing phase (dSC) and total transport cycle duration.
- Fig. 4.
Representative smoothed gape profiles illustrating the effects of elimination of lingual trigeminal feedback on prey transport kinematics in P. vitticeps. Note the differences in gape distance and cycle duration during the transport of ants before (solid circles) and after (open circles) transection.
Tables
- Table 1.
Quantitative characterization of food types used in this study
Food type (N) Mass (g) Hardness* (N) Length (mm) Width (mm) Mobility Cricket (35) 0.18±0.14 1.66±0.91 14.23±4.04 3.90±0.47 Fast Ant (10) 0.016±0.004 2.52±1.45 5.26±1.37 0.99±0.39 Intermediate Isopod (39) 0.05±0.02 0.97±0.37 7.66±1.20 3.68±0.55 Slow Endive (20) 0.11±0.03 4.02±0.78 17.60±1.50 18.05±2.33 Stationary -
↵* For a description of the measurement of food hardness (see Herrel et al., 1999; Herrel et al., 2001)
-
- Table 2.
Results of a factor analysis (varimax rotation) performed on the kinematic data before transection to explore modulation of prey transport kinematics in function of food type
Component 1 (31.25%) 2 (27.29%) 3 (17.34%) 4 (15.55%) Prey transport duration (s) 0.930 –0.068 –0.084 0.311 Duration of the slow open phase (s) 0.649 –0.146 –0.638 0.211 Duration of the fast open phase (s) 0.032 0.041 0.972 0.078 Duration of the fast close phase (s) 0.091 0.104 0.016 0.977 Duration of the slow close phase (s) 0.938 0.101 0.022 –0.158 Gape distance (mm) 0.560 0.705 0.158 0.326 Jaw opening velocity (mm s–1) 0.022 0.907 0.030 0.090 Jaw closing velocity (mm s–1) –0.111 0.902 0.039 –0.044 Eigenvalues 2.50 2.18 1.16 0.99 -
Four factors were retained in the analysis that jointly explained 91.43% of the variation in prey transport kinematics
Factor loadings greater than 0.7 are indicated in bold. The proportion of variation explained is given in parentheses and eigenvalues are listed below the respective factor scores
-
- Table 3.
Summary table showing on which factors significant food type effects could be demonstrated for the different individuals and the results of Bonferroni post-hoc tests to determine which food types differed from one another
Lizard Factor F P Bonferroni post-hoc tests P Individual 6 Factor 1 56.18 <0.001 Ant Cricket <0.001 Ant Isopod <0.001 Factor 2 30.32 <0.001 Ant Cricket <0.001 Ant Isopod 0.001 Cricket Isopod 0.001 Factor 4 5.20 0.010 Cricket Isopod 0.008 Individual 7 Factor 1 23.95 <0.001 Ant Cricket <0.001 Ant Isopod <0.001 Ant Endive <0.001 Cricket Endive 0.030 Factor 2 6.23 0.001 Cricket Isopod 0.026 Cricket Endive 0.001 Factor 4 5.30 0.003 Ant Cricket 0.039 Ant Isopod 0.002 Individual 9 Factor 1 39.66 <0.001 Ant Cricket <0.001 Ant Isopod <0.001 Ant Endive <0.001 Factor 2 3.17 0.032 Factor 3 2.85 0.046 Cricket Isopod 0.049 Individual 10 Factor 1 35.14 <0.001 Ant Cricket <0.001 Ant Isopod <0.001 Ant Endive <0.001 Factor 2 9.50 <0.001 Ant Cricket 0.005 Cricket Endive <0.001 Isopod Endive 0.002 Factor 3 3.53 0.020 Isopod Endive 0.015 -
Only results for those factors that remained significant after sequential Bonferroni correction are shown
-
- Table 6.
Summary table showing means ± standard deviations of raw data before and after transection for the different individuals and different food types
Tot. transp. cycle (ms) dSO (ms) dFO (ms) dFC (ms) dSC (ms) gd (mm) Ind. Food Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After 6 Ant 100.27±19.62 182.13±45.90 21.07±21.41 40.53±27.21 33.33±9.99 40.00±12.92 29.33±6.70 35.73±10.42 16.53±11.20 65.87±33.70 6.90±0.64 8.28±1.72 Cricket 167.20±40.57 242.40±27.66 52.27±27.98 93.60±11.52 33.33±12.62 32.00±2.83 38.93±16.10 48.80±10.73 42.67±20.49 68.00±10.95 12.05±0.74 11.80±0.68 Isopod 159.73±18.30 182.40±48.63 42.40±27.62 41.87±29.23 38.13±16.20 34.40±14.80 27.20±4.33 36.53±12.55 52.00±8.14 69.60±30.34 10.35±1.16 10.51±1.49 Endive 315.71±96.15 131.71±69.22 36.00±15.92 54.86±22.92 93.14±30.28 11.66±1.46 7 Ant 110.93±17.60 25.07±15.45 31.73±8.21 27.47±3.34 26.67±9.76 7.94±0.59 Cricket 179.73±34.69 62.67±32.59 34.93±8.07 37.33±10.55 44.80±15.36 12.40±0.84 Isopod 218.13±76.95 83.20±56.69 35.47±7.07 41.60±13.16 57.87±26.27 11.60±0.88 Endive 227.20±27.31 87.20±22.22 34.40±6.02 35.60±11.69 70.00±9.66 10.86±1.05 9 Ant 104.53±19.12 151.20±40.94 26.40±18.69 40.00±32.04 31.47±8.80 36.00±9.56 26.40±5.41 30.93±9.85 20.27±10.74 44.27±12.14 6.40±0.44 7.44±1.18 Cricket 180.53±38.95 237.60±41.24 58.93±19.56 101.60±25.39 29.87±7.54 34.40±6.07 30.13±5.63 40.00±5.66 61.60±18.50 61.60±16.15 9.52±1.01 11.86±1.41 Isopod 177.60±40.73 180.31±48.98 44.80±33.81 63.38±47.01 43.20±20.35 32.62±8.30 30.13±7.98 39.08±15.42 59.47±19.82 45.23±26.95 9.41±1.39 11.16±2.10 Endive 204.40±27.68 237.20±26.13 70.00±30.48 90.00±24.09 31.20±9.58 34.80±4.64 27.60±5.15 34.00±6.60 75.60±28.06 78.40±21.43 9.49±2.58 9.59±1.15 10 Ant 101.33±18.18 30.67±13.32 26.40±5.41 28.27±4.65 16.00±10.25 7.48±0.52 Cricket 150.93±28.34 202.40±47.47 52.80±23.38 52.53±36.19 28.53±6.74 39.20±8.84 28.27±4.13 40.53±8.40 41.33±8.23 70.13±31.27 9.54±0.90 12.55±1.33 Isopod 165.60±34.34 136.00±30.31 50.40±27.41 34.40±19.99 31.73±11.56 31.47±9.18 30.67±9.76 31.479±9.78 52.80±20.52 38.67±15.83 10.12±1.21 10.59±1.00 Endive 200.80±33.54 254.57±61.80 97.33±27.28 98.29±69.95 24.53±2.56 34.00±9.38 27.73±5.55 37.71±14.01 51.20±19.78 84.57±21.10 8.24±1.41 9.17±2.07 -
Tot. transp. cycle, total duration of a transport cycle; dSO, duration slow open phase; dFO, duration of fast open phase; dFC, duration of fast close phase; dSC, duration of slow close phase; gd, gape distance
-
- Table 4.
Results of a factor analysis performed on the kinematic data before and after transection
Component 1 (34.13%) 2 (28%) 3 (17.03%) Prey transport duration (s) 0.972 –0.082 –0.067 Duration of the slow open phase (s) 0.677 –0.125 –0.625 Duration of the fast open phase (s) 0.117 –0.021 0.943 Duration of the fast close phase (s) 0.629 0.053 0.237 Duration of the slow close phase (s) 0.751 0.078 –0.057 Gape distance (mm) 0.555 0.763 0.133 Jaw opening velocity (mm s–1) 0.041 0.911 0.009 Jaw closing velocity (mm s–1) –0.205 0.893 –0.035 Eigenvalues 2.730 2.240 1.362 -
Three factors that together explained 79.16% of the variation in prey transport kinematics were retained
Factor loadings greater than 0.7 are indicated in bold. The proportion of variation explained is noted in parentheses, and eigenvalues are listed below each respective factor
-
- Table 5.
Summary table showing on which factors significant transection effects could be demonstrated for the different individuals and different food types
Lizard Food Factor F P Individual 6 Ant Factor 1 71.61 <0.001 Cricket Factor 1 13.00 0.002 Factor 2 6.01 0.025 Individual 9 Ant Factor 1 18.41 <0.001 Cricket Factor 1 9.19 0.007 Isopod Factor 2 9.46 0.005 Endive Factor 1 10.14 0.038 Individual 10 Cricket Factor 1 29.52 <0.001 Factor 3 25.23 <0.001 Endive Factor 1 17.60 <0.001 Factor 3 18.44 <0.001 -
Only results for those factors that remained significant after sequential Bonferroni correction are shown
-
Article navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
Meet the team at SICB – 3-7 January 2020
Meet the Journal of Experimental Biology team at the SICB 2020 meeting in Austin, Texas! News & Views Editor Kathryn Knight and Reviews Editor Stefan Galander will be at booth 507, along with a selection of JEB goodies including the 2020 Calendar, 2019 Highlights booklet and new JEB T-shirts.
Springy bamboo poles help villagers carry more than their own body weight
People in Southeast Asia often carry extremely heavy loads suspended from a bouncy bamboo pole slung over one shoulder. It turns out that they adjust their stride to bounce in time with the pole, allowing them to save 20% of their energy. Read more.
Two-year pilot transitional open access agreement
We are excited to announce a two-year pilot transitional open access agreement with Jisc from January 2020. Researchers at participating institutions will have unlimited access to The Company of Biologists’ three subscription journals and will be able to publish their research papers open access. Find out more.
Commentary — The utility and determination of Pcrit in fishes
Gordon Ultsch and Matthew Regan outline why Pcrit is a useful and informative comparator of hypoxia tolerance in fishes, provided it is determined using standardized respirometry methods and sound statistical approaches.
Where will your research take you?
Early-career researchers can apply for up to £2,500 to offset the cost of travel and expenses to make collaborative visits to other labs around the world. Read about Pierre’s experience in Greenland, where he continued research into the Greenland Shark’s remarkable longevity.