Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
Research Article
Modulation, individual variation and the role of lingual sensory afferents in the control of prey transport in the lizard Pogona vitticeps
Vicky Schaerlaeken, Anthony Herrel, J. J. Meyers
Journal of Experimental Biology 2008 211: 2071-2078; doi: 10.1242/jeb.018390
Vicky Schaerlaeken
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony Herrel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. J. Meyers
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    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.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    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.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    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.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    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

  • Figures
  • 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±0.141.66±0.9114.23±4.043.90±0.47Fast
    Ant (10)0.016±0.0042.52±1.455.26±1.370.99±0.39Intermediate
    Isopod (39)0.05±0.020.97±0.377.66±1.203.68±0.55Slow
    Endive (20)0.11±0.034.02±0.7817.60±1.5018.05±2.33Stationary
    • ↵* 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 –0.068–0.0840.311
    Duration of the slow open phase (s)0.649–0.146–0.6380.211
    Duration of the fast open phase (s)0.0320.041 0.972 0.078
    Duration of the fast close phase (s)0.0910.1040.016 0.977
    Duration of the slow close phase (s) 0.938 0.1010.022–0.158
    Gape distance (mm)0.560 0.705 0.1580.326
    Jaw opening velocity (mm s–1)0.022 0.907 0.0300.090
    Jaw closing velocity (mm s–1)–0.111 0.902 0.039–0.044
    Eigenvalues2.502.181.160.99
    • 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

    LizardFactorFPBonferroni post-hoc testsP
    Individual 6Factor 156.18<0.001AntCricket<0.001
    AntIsopod<0.001
    Factor 230.32<0.001AntCricket<0.001
    AntIsopod0.001
    CricketIsopod0.001
    Factor 45.200.010CricketIsopod0.008
    Individual 7Factor 123.95<0.001AntCricket<0.001
    AntIsopod<0.001
    AntEndive<0.001
    CricketEndive0.030
    Factor 26.230.001CricketIsopod0.026
    CricketEndive0.001
    Factor 45.300.003AntCricket0.039
    AntIsopod0.002
    Individual 9Factor 139.66<0.001AntCricket<0.001
    AntIsopod<0.001
    AntEndive<0.001
    Factor 23.170.032
    Factor 32.850.046CricketIsopod0.049
    Individual 10Factor 135.14<0.001AntCricket<0.001
    AntIsopod<0.001
    AntEndive<0.001
    Factor 29.50<0.001AntCricket0.005
    CricketEndive<0.001
    IsopodEndive0.002
    Factor 33.530.020IsopodEndive0.015
    • 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.FoodBeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter
    6Ant100.27±19.62182.13±45.9021.07±21.4140.53±27.2133.33±9.9940.00±12.9229.33±6.7035.73±10.4216.53±11.2065.87±33.706.90±0.648.28±1.72
    Cricket167.20±40.57242.40±27.6652.27±27.9893.60±11.5233.33±12.6232.00±2.8338.93±16.1048.80±10.7342.67±20.4968.00±10.9512.05±0.7411.80±0.68
    Isopod159.73±18.30182.40±48.6342.40±27.6241.87±29.2338.13±16.2034.40±14.8027.20±4.3336.53±12.5552.00±8.1469.60±30.3410.35±1.1610.51±1.49
    Endive315.71±96.15131.71±69.2236.00±15.9254.86±22.9293.14±30.2811.66±1.46
    7Ant110.93±17.6025.07±15.4531.73±8.2127.47±3.3426.67±9.767.94±0.59
    Cricket179.73±34.6962.67±32.5934.93±8.0737.33±10.5544.80±15.3612.40±0.84
    Isopod218.13±76.9583.20±56.6935.47±7.0741.60±13.1657.87±26.2711.60±0.88
    Endive227.20±27.3187.20±22.2234.40±6.0235.60±11.6970.00±9.6610.86±1.05
    9Ant104.53±19.12151.20±40.9426.40±18.6940.00±32.0431.47±8.8036.00±9.5626.40±5.4130.93±9.8520.27±10.7444.27±12.146.40±0.447.44±1.18
    Cricket180.53±38.95237.60±41.2458.93±19.56101.60±25.3929.87±7.5434.40±6.0730.13±5.6340.00±5.6661.60±18.5061.60±16.159.52±1.0111.86±1.41
    Isopod177.60±40.73180.31±48.9844.80±33.8163.38±47.0143.20±20.3532.62±8.3030.13±7.9839.08±15.4259.47±19.8245.23±26.959.41±1.3911.16±2.10
    Endive204.40±27.68237.20±26.1370.00±30.4890.00±24.0931.20±9.5834.80±4.6427.60±5.1534.00±6.6075.60±28.0678.40±21.439.49±2.589.59±1.15
    10Ant101.33±18.1830.67±13.3226.40±5.4128.27±4.6516.00±10.257.48±0.52
    Cricket150.93±28.34202.40±47.4752.80±23.3852.53±36.1928.53±6.7439.20±8.8428.27±4.1340.53±8.4041.33±8.2370.13±31.279.54±0.9012.55±1.33
    Isopod165.60±34.34136.00±30.3150.40±27.4134.40±19.9931.73±11.5631.47±9.1830.67±9.7631.479±9.7852.80±20.5238.67±15.8310.12±1.2110.59±1.00
    Endive200.80±33.54254.57±61.8097.33±27.2898.29±69.9524.53±2.5634.00±9.3827.73±5.5537.71±14.0151.20±19.7884.57±21.108.24±1.419.17±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)0.6290.0530.237
    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
    Eigenvalues2.7302.2401.362
    • 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

    LizardFoodFactorFP
    Individual 6AntFactor 171.61<0.001
    CricketFactor 113.000.002
    Factor 26.010.025
    Individual 9AntFactor 118.41<0.001
    CricketFactor 19.190.007
    IsopodFactor 29.460.005
    EndiveFactor 110.140.038
    Individual 10CricketFactor 129.52<0.001
    Factor 325.23<0.001
    EndiveFactor 117.60<0.001
    Factor 318.44<0.001
    • Only results for those factors that remained significant after sequential Bonferroni correction are shown

Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Modulation, individual variation and the role of lingual sensory afferents in the control of prey transport in the lizard Pogona vitticeps
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
Share
Research Article
Modulation, individual variation and the role of lingual sensory afferents in the control of prey transport in the lizard Pogona vitticeps
Vicky Schaerlaeken, Anthony Herrel, J. J. Meyers
Journal of Experimental Biology 2008 211: 2071-2078; doi: 10.1242/jeb.018390
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Article
Modulation, individual variation and the role of lingual sensory afferents in the control of prey transport in the lizard Pogona vitticeps
Vicky Schaerlaeken, Anthony Herrel, J. J. Meyers
Journal of Experimental Biology 2008 211: 2071-2078; doi: 10.1242/jeb.018390

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • SUMMARY
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Energy compensation and received echo level dynamics in CF bats during active target approaches
  • Oxygenation properties of hemoglobin and the evolutionary origins of isoform multiplicity in an amphibious air-breathing fish, the blue-spotted mudskipper (Boleophthalmus pectinirostris)
  • Metabolic partitioning of sucrose and seasonal changes in fat turnover rate in ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris)
Show more RESEARCH ARTICLE

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

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

One of the villagers walking with a flexible bamboo pole

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.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2019   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992