- NSF-PAR ID:
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Integrative Organismal Biology
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
null (Ed.)Synopsis Most predatory ray-finned fishes swallow their food whole, which can pose a significant challenge, given that prey items can be half as large as the predators themselves. How do fish transport captured food from the mouth to the stomach? Prior work indicates that, in general, fish use the pharyngeal jaws to manipulate food into the esophagus, where peristalsis is thought to take over. We used X-Ray Reconstruction of Moving Morphology to track prey transport in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). By reconstructing the 3D motions of both the food and the catfish, we were able to track how the catfish move food through the head and into the stomach. Food enters the oral cavity at high velocities as a continuation of suction and stops in the approximate location of the branchial basket before moving in a much slower, more complex path toward the esophagus. This slow phase coincides with little motion in the head and no substantial mouth opening or hyoid depression. Once the prey is in the esophagus, however, its transport is surprisingly tightly correlated with gulping motions (hyoid depression, girdle retraction, hypaxial shortening, and mouth opening) of the head. Although the transport mechanism itself remains unknown, to our knowledge, this is the first description of synchrony between cranial expansion and esophageal transport in a fish. Our results provide direct evidence of prey transport within the esophagus and suggest that peristalsis may not be the sole mechanism of esophageal transport in catfish.more » « less
ABSTRACT Some fishes rely on large regions of the dorsal (epaxial) and ventral (hypaxial) body muscles to power suction feeding. Epaxial and hypaxial muscles are known to act as motors, powering rapid mouth expansion by shortening to elevate the neurocranium and retract the pectoral girdle, respectively. However, some species, like catfishes, use little cranial elevation. Are these fishes instead using the epaxial muscles to forcefully anchor the head, and if so, are they limited to lower-power strikes? We used X-ray imaging to measure epaxial and hypaxial length dynamics (fluoromicrometry) and associated skeletal motions (XROMM) during 24 suction feeding strikes from three channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ). We also estimated the power required for suction feeding from oral pressure and dynamic endocast volume measurements. Cranial elevation relative to the body was small (<5 deg) and the epaxial muscles did not shorten during peak expansion power. In contrast, the hypaxial muscles consistently shortened by 4–8% to rotate the pectoral girdle 6–11 deg relative to the body. Despite only the hypaxial muscles generating power, catfish strikes were similar in power to those of other species, such as largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ), that use epaxial and hypaxial muscles to power mouth expansion. These results show that the epaxial muscles are not used as motors in catfish, but suggest they position and stabilize the cranium while the hypaxial muscles power mouth expansion ventrally. Thus, axial muscles can serve fundamentally different mechanical roles in generating and controlling cranial motion during suction feeding in fishes.more » « less
The extinct nonavian dinosaur
Tyrannosaurus rex, considered one of the hardest biting animals ever, is often hypothesized to have exhibited cranial kinesis, or, mobility of cranial joints relative to the braincase. Cranial kinesis in T. rexis a biomechanical paradox in that forcefully biting tetrapods usually possess rigid skulls instead of skulls with movable joints. We tested the biomechanical performance of a tyrannosaur skull using a series of static positions mimicking possible excursions of the palate to evaluate Postural Kinetic Competency in Tyrannosaurus. A functional extant phylogenetic bracket was employed using taxa, which exhibit measurable palatal excursions: Psittacus erithacus(fore–aft movement) and Gekko gecko(mediolateral movement). Static finite element models of Psittacus, Gekko, and Tyrannosauruswere constructed and tested with different palatal postures using anatomically informed material properties, loaded with muscle forces derived from dissection, phylogenetic bracketing, and a sensitivity analysis of muscle architecture and tested in orthal biting simulations using element strain as a proxy for model performance. Extant species models showed lower strains in naturally occurring postures compared to alternatives. We found that fore–aft and neutral models of Tyrannosaurusexperienced lower overall strains than mediolaterally shifted models. Protractor muscles dampened palatal strains, while occipital constraints increased strains about palatocranial joints compared to jaw joint constraints. These loading behaviors suggest that even small excursions can strain elements beyond structural failure. Thus, these postural tests of kinesis, along with the robusticity of other cranial features, suggest that the skull of Tyrannosauruswas functionally akinetic. Anat Rec, 303:999–1017, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Quantifying and characterizing the pattern of trait covariances is crucial for understanding how population-level patterns of integration might constrain or facilitate craniofacial evolution related to the feeding system. This study addresses an important gap in our knowledge by investigating magnitudes and patterns of morphological integration of biomechanically informative traits in the skulls of Homo sapiens, Pan troglodytes, and Gorilla gorilla. We predicted a lower magnitude of integration among human biomechanical traits since humans eat a softer, less biomechanically challenging diet than apes. Indeed, compared to African apes, the magnitudes of integration were lower in H. sapiens skulls for form data (raw dimensions) but were similar or higher for shape data (raw dimensions scaled by geometric mean). Patterns of morphological integration were generally similar, but not identical, across the three species, particularly for the form data compared to the shape data. Traits that load heavily on the primary axis of variation in morphospace are generally associated with size and/or shape of the temporalis and masseter muscles and with dimensions related to the constrained lever model of jaw biomechanics. Given the conserved nature of morphological integration, skull adaptations for food processing in African apes and humans may have been constrained to occur along certain paths of high evolvability. The conserved pattern of functional integration also indicates that extant hominine species can operate as reasonable analogues for extinct hominins in studies that require population-level patterns of trait variance/covariance.more » « less
Understanding insect and fish interactions from a spatial and temporal perspective can have implications on large‐scale phenology in freshwater systems, yet current information is limited. We employed a novel approach of combining information from acoustic telemetry for six freshwater fish species and weather radar to assess the phenology of mayfly emergence and foraging patterns of freshwater fish. We hypothesized that freshwater fish conduct synchronous movements with annual mayfly hatches as a pulse resource opportunity. Generalized additive models were developed to assess movement distance as a function of species and time; before, during, and after annual mayfly hatch events. A cross‐section abundance index was also employed to quantify dynamics of aerial mayflies. Hatch dynamics revealed nocturnal emergence behaviour with annual variations in intensity, spatial extent, and origin. We found that the hatch was likely a pulse resource feeding opportunity for channel catfish, common carp, freshwater drum, and walleye instead of a synchronized feeding event. Bigmouth buffalo and lake sturgeon utilized riverine habitat away from the hatch and did not likely forage on the emerging mayflies. Remote sensing of fishes and emergent insects using our approach is the first attempt at bridging the capabilities of fisheries ecology and aeroecology to advance movement ecology.