Linking cranial kinematics, buccal pressure, and suction feeding performance in largemouth bass

Richard Svanbäck, Peter C. Wainwright, Lara Ferry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

73 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The rate and magnitude of buccal expansion are thought to determine the pattern of water flow and the change in buccal pressure during suction feeding. Feeding events that generate higher flow rates should induce stronger suction pressure and allow predators to draw prey from further away. We tested these expectations by measuring the effects of prey capture kinematics on suction pressure and the effects of the latter on the distance from which prey were drawn - termed suction distance. We simultaneously, but not synchronously, recorded 500-Hz video and buccal pressure from 199 sequences of four largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, feeding on goldfish. From the video, we quantified several kinematic variables associated with the head and jaws of the feeding bass that were hypothesized to affect pressure. In a multiple regression, kinematic data accounted for 79.7% of the variation among strikes in minimum pressure. Faster mouth opening and hyoid depression were correlated with lower pressures, a larger area under the pressure curve, and a faster rate of pressure reduction. In contrast, buccal pressure variables explained only 16.5% of the variation in suction distance, and no single pressure variable had a significant relationship with suction distance. Thus, although expected relationships between head kinematics and buccal pressure were confirmed, suction distance was only weakly related to buccal pressure. Three explanations are considered. First, bass may not attempt to maximize the distance from which prey are drawn. Second, the response of prey items to suction-induced flow depends on prey behavior and orientation and is, therefore, subject to considerable variation. Third, previous theoretical work indicates that water velocity decays exponentially with distance from the predator's mouth, indicating that variation among strikes in flow at the mouth opening is compressed away from the mouth. These findings are consistent with other recent data and suggest that suction distance is a poor metric of suction feeding performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)532-543
Number of pages12
JournalPhysiological and Biochemical Zoology
Volume75
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bass
Micropterus salmoides
Cheek
Suction
kinematics
Biomechanical Phenomena
Kinematics
Pressure
Mouth
mouth
bass
Head
water utilities
predators
Goldfish
Flow of water
Water
goldfish
Jaw
jaws

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Physiology
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Linking cranial kinematics, buccal pressure, and suction feeding performance in largemouth bass. / Svanbäck, Richard; Wainwright, Peter C.; Ferry, Lara.

In: Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, Vol. 75, No. 6, 11.2002, p. 532-543.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8606fab7bbf348cc94fa949d975418ad,
title = "Linking cranial kinematics, buccal pressure, and suction feeding performance in largemouth bass",
abstract = "The rate and magnitude of buccal expansion are thought to determine the pattern of water flow and the change in buccal pressure during suction feeding. Feeding events that generate higher flow rates should induce stronger suction pressure and allow predators to draw prey from further away. We tested these expectations by measuring the effects of prey capture kinematics on suction pressure and the effects of the latter on the distance from which prey were drawn - termed suction distance. We simultaneously, but not synchronously, recorded 500-Hz video and buccal pressure from 199 sequences of four largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, feeding on goldfish. From the video, we quantified several kinematic variables associated with the head and jaws of the feeding bass that were hypothesized to affect pressure. In a multiple regression, kinematic data accounted for 79.7{\%} of the variation among strikes in minimum pressure. Faster mouth opening and hyoid depression were correlated with lower pressures, a larger area under the pressure curve, and a faster rate of pressure reduction. In contrast, buccal pressure variables explained only 16.5{\%} of the variation in suction distance, and no single pressure variable had a significant relationship with suction distance. Thus, although expected relationships between head kinematics and buccal pressure were confirmed, suction distance was only weakly related to buccal pressure. Three explanations are considered. First, bass may not attempt to maximize the distance from which prey are drawn. Second, the response of prey items to suction-induced flow depends on prey behavior and orientation and is, therefore, subject to considerable variation. Third, previous theoretical work indicates that water velocity decays exponentially with distance from the predator's mouth, indicating that variation among strikes in flow at the mouth opening is compressed away from the mouth. These findings are consistent with other recent data and suggest that suction distance is a poor metric of suction feeding performance.",
author = "Richard Svanb{\"a}ck and Wainwright, {Peter C.} and Lara Ferry",
year = "2002",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1086/344495",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "75",
pages = "532--543",
journal = "Physiological and Biochemical Zoology",
issn = "1522-2152",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Linking cranial kinematics, buccal pressure, and suction feeding performance in largemouth bass

AU - Svanbäck, Richard

AU - Wainwright, Peter C.

AU - Ferry, Lara

PY - 2002/11

Y1 - 2002/11

N2 - The rate and magnitude of buccal expansion are thought to determine the pattern of water flow and the change in buccal pressure during suction feeding. Feeding events that generate higher flow rates should induce stronger suction pressure and allow predators to draw prey from further away. We tested these expectations by measuring the effects of prey capture kinematics on suction pressure and the effects of the latter on the distance from which prey were drawn - termed suction distance. We simultaneously, but not synchronously, recorded 500-Hz video and buccal pressure from 199 sequences of four largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, feeding on goldfish. From the video, we quantified several kinematic variables associated with the head and jaws of the feeding bass that were hypothesized to affect pressure. In a multiple regression, kinematic data accounted for 79.7% of the variation among strikes in minimum pressure. Faster mouth opening and hyoid depression were correlated with lower pressures, a larger area under the pressure curve, and a faster rate of pressure reduction. In contrast, buccal pressure variables explained only 16.5% of the variation in suction distance, and no single pressure variable had a significant relationship with suction distance. Thus, although expected relationships between head kinematics and buccal pressure were confirmed, suction distance was only weakly related to buccal pressure. Three explanations are considered. First, bass may not attempt to maximize the distance from which prey are drawn. Second, the response of prey items to suction-induced flow depends on prey behavior and orientation and is, therefore, subject to considerable variation. Third, previous theoretical work indicates that water velocity decays exponentially with distance from the predator's mouth, indicating that variation among strikes in flow at the mouth opening is compressed away from the mouth. These findings are consistent with other recent data and suggest that suction distance is a poor metric of suction feeding performance.

AB - The rate and magnitude of buccal expansion are thought to determine the pattern of water flow and the change in buccal pressure during suction feeding. Feeding events that generate higher flow rates should induce stronger suction pressure and allow predators to draw prey from further away. We tested these expectations by measuring the effects of prey capture kinematics on suction pressure and the effects of the latter on the distance from which prey were drawn - termed suction distance. We simultaneously, but not synchronously, recorded 500-Hz video and buccal pressure from 199 sequences of four largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, feeding on goldfish. From the video, we quantified several kinematic variables associated with the head and jaws of the feeding bass that were hypothesized to affect pressure. In a multiple regression, kinematic data accounted for 79.7% of the variation among strikes in minimum pressure. Faster mouth opening and hyoid depression were correlated with lower pressures, a larger area under the pressure curve, and a faster rate of pressure reduction. In contrast, buccal pressure variables explained only 16.5% of the variation in suction distance, and no single pressure variable had a significant relationship with suction distance. Thus, although expected relationships between head kinematics and buccal pressure were confirmed, suction distance was only weakly related to buccal pressure. Three explanations are considered. First, bass may not attempt to maximize the distance from which prey are drawn. Second, the response of prey items to suction-induced flow depends on prey behavior and orientation and is, therefore, subject to considerable variation. Third, previous theoretical work indicates that water velocity decays exponentially with distance from the predator's mouth, indicating that variation among strikes in flow at the mouth opening is compressed away from the mouth. These findings are consistent with other recent data and suggest that suction distance is a poor metric of suction feeding performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036873445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036873445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/344495

DO - 10.1086/344495

M3 - Article

VL - 75

SP - 532

EP - 543

JO - Physiological and Biochemical Zoology

JF - Physiological and Biochemical Zoology

SN - 1522-2152

IS - 6

ER -