Aquatic feeding mechanisms

Last updated
Grouper capture their prey by sucking them into their mouths Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg
Grouper capture their prey by sucking them into their mouths

Aquatic feeding mechanisms face a special difficulty as compared to feeding on land, because the density of water is about the same as that of the prey, so the prey tends to be pushed away when the mouth is closed. This problem was first identified by Robert McNeill Alexander. [1] As a result, underwater predators, especially bony fish, have evolved a number of specialized feeding mechanisms, such as filter feeding, ram feeding, suction feeding, protrusion, and pivot feeding.

Contents

Most underwater predators combine more than one of these basic principles. For example, a typical generalized predator, such as the cod, combines suction with some amount of protrusion and pivot feeding.

Suction feeding

External videos
Nuvola apps kaboodle.svg Video of a red bay snook catching prey by suction feeding

Suction feeding is a method of ingesting a prey item in fluids by sucking the prey into the predator's mouth. It is a highly coordinated behavior achieved by the dorsal rotation of the dermatocranium, lateral expansion of the suspensorium, and the depression of the lower jaw and hyoid. [2] Suction feeding leads to successful prey capture through rapid movements creating a drop in pressure in the buccal cavity causing the water in front of the mouth to rush into the oral cavity, [3] entrapping the prey in this flow. This mode of feeding has two main phases: expansion and compression. [2] The expansion phase involves the initial opening of the jaws to capture prey. These movements during the expansion phase are similar across all suction feeders with the kinesis of the skull leading to slight variations. During the compression phase the jaws close and water is compressed out of the gills.

Though suction feeding can be seen across fish species, those with more cranial kinesis show an increase in suction potential as a result of more complex skull linkages that allow greater expansion of the buccal cavity and thereby create a greater negative pressure. Most commonly, this is achieved by increasing the lateral expansion of the skull. In addition, the derived trait of anterior protrusion via the premaxillary bone in the upper jaw is acknowledged to increase the force exerted on the prey to be engulfed. [4] Protrusible jaws via a mobile premaxilla can only be seen in fishes within the teleostei clade. [2] However, a common misconception of these fishes is that suction feeding is the only or primary method employed. [5] In Micropterus salmoides , ram feeding is the primary method for prey capture; however, they can modulate between the two methods or use both as with many teleosts. [5] [6] Also, it is commonly thought that fishes with more primitive characteristics also exhibit suction feeding. Although suction may be created upon the mouth opening in such fishes, the criteria for pure suction feeding includes little or no bodily movement towards their prey. [2]

Tradeoffs

The morphologies and behaviors during suction feeding have led to three main proposed tradeoffs that determine the success of prey capture: [7] the rate of jaw opening and closing, the mobility of the bony elements in the skull, and the ratio of ram to suction feeding behavior. The first two qualifications center around the situation that results from a highly kinetic skull. [8] Having a highly mobile skull introduces a tradeoff between the ability to have high speed jaw opening (high kinesis) or higher bite transmission (lower kinesis). While there is a more complex relationship between mechanical advantage and the speed of lower jaw depression, [9] [10] [11] there is consensus that species using high-speed attacks have more cranial kinesis compared to species that exhibit low speed attacks. [12] [13] [10] Species that have a durophagous diet have also evolved skull morphologies to crush the hard-shelled prey that is a part of their diet. [14] [15] Durophagous species skulls consistently have more fused skulls and shorter jaw lengths. This morphology leads to the skulls being less kinetic than their piscivorous counterparts. [13] [8] [16] Having shorter jaw lengths, with a more akinetic skull allows for an individual to have a higher bite force, compromising the ability to have a faster jaw opening when the jaw lengths are longer.

The third main tradeoff within suction feeding occurs with the incorporation of ram feeding with suction feeding behaviors. Ram feeding involves movement of the predator with its mouth open to engulf the prey. [6] Most species use ram feeding combined with suction feeding to increase the chances of capturing elusive prey [6] by swimming towards their prey while using suction to draw prey into the mouth. This diversity in relative use is quantified using the Ram Suction Index (RSI) that calculates the ratio of use for ram and suction during prey capture. [6] The RSI ratio can be influenced by the morphology of the predator and by the elusiveness of the prey. Ram feeding and suction feeding are on opposite sides of the feeding spectrum, where extreme ram feeding is when a predator swims over an immobile prey item with open jaws to engulf the prey. Extreme suction feeding is demonstrated by sit-and-wait predators that rely on rapid depression of the jaws to capture prey (e.g. frogfish, Antennariidae). There is wide diversity on how much of each feeding strategy an individual uses, especially when body ram movements are considered. [17] The relative use of ram and suction feeding is species dependent, but it can help determine the accuracy of prey capture. [18]

The mouth aperture represents another tradeoff between the ability to capture large elusive prey with more chances of failure—large gape—or to capture smaller elusive prey with greater success—smaller gape. A predator with a small mouth aperture can generate strong suction force compared to an individual with a wider gape. [19] [18] This was demonstrated by Wainwright et al. (2007) by comparing the feeding success of the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, and the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. L. macrochirus has a smaller gape and was found to have higher accuracy with higher flow velocity and acceleration while M. salmoides has a larger gape with lower accuracy and lower flow velocity and acceleration. [18] However, with the larger gape the largemouth bass were able to capture larger elusive prey. Using ram feeding in combination with suction feeding can also influence the direction of water into the mouth of the predator. With use of ram, predators are able to change the flow of water around the mouth and focus the flow of water into the mouth. [20] But with too much ram, a bow wave is created in front of the predator which can push the prey away from the predator's body. [20] The mouth aperture and RSI represent the overall tradeoff between having a large gape with lower accuracy but being able to capture larger prey vs. having a smaller gape with increased accuracy but the size of prey is limited. The three main tradeoffs within the fish skull have occurred because of the high kinesis in the skull and the elusiveness of some prey types. However, having kinesis in the skull can enable a predator to evolve new techniques on increasing the performance of prey capture.

Ram feeding

Ram feeding is a method of feeding underwater in which the predator moves forward with its mouth open, engulfing the prey along with the water surrounding it. During ram feeding, the prey remains fixed in space, and the predator moves its jaws past the prey to capture it. The motion of the head may induce a bow wave in the fluid which pushes the prey away from the jaws, but this can be avoided by allowing water to flow through the jaw. This can be accomplished by means of a swept-back mouth, as in balaenid whales, [21] or by allowing water to flow out through the gills, as in sharks and herring. A number of species have evolved narrow snouts, as in gar fish and water snakes. [22]

Herrings often hunt copepods. If they encounter copepods schooling in high concentrations, the herrings switch to ram feeding. They swim with their mouth wide open and their opercula fully expanded. Every several feet, they close and clean their gill rakers for a few milliseconds (filter feeding). The fish all open their mouths and opercula wide at the same time (the red gills are visible in the photo belowclick to enlarge). The fish swim in a grid where the distance between them is the same as the jump length of the copepods.

Lunge feeding

A humpback whale straining water through its baleen after lunging. Humpback whale Robert Pitman NOAA PS9.jpg
A humpback whale straining water through its baleen after lunging.

Rorquals feed on plankton by a technique called lunge feeding. [24] Lunge feeding could be regarded as a kind of inverted suction feeding, during which a whale takes a huge gulp of water, which is then filtered through the baleen. [24] Biomechanically this is a unique and extreme feeding method, for which the animal at first must accelerate to gain enough momentum to fold its elastic throat (buccal cavity) around the volume of water to be swallowed. [25] Subsequently, the water flows back through the baleen, keeping back the food particles. The highly elastic and muscular buccal rills are a specialized adaptation to this feeding mode.

Pivot feeding

Pivot feeding is a method to transport the mouth towards the prey by an upward turning of the head, which is pivoting on the neck joint. Pipefish such as sea horses and sea dragons are specialized on this feeding mechanism. [26] With prey capture times of down to 5 ms (shrimpfish Centriscus scutatus) this method is used by the fastest feeders in the animal kingdom.

The secret of the speed of pivot feeding is in a locking mechanism, in which the hyoid arch is folded under the head and is aligned with the urohyal which connects to the shoulder girdle. A four-bar linkage at first locks the head in a ventrally bent position by the alignment of two bars. The release of the locking mechanism jets the head up and moves the mouth toward the prey within 5–10 ms. The trigger mechanism of unlocking is debated, but is probably in lateral adduction.

Protrusion

External videos
Nuvola apps kaboodle.svg Video of a slingjaw wrasse catching prey by protruding its jaw

Protrusion is the extension of the mouth or premaxilla towards the prey, via mechanical linkages. Protrusion is known only in modern bony fishes, which possess many forms of coupled linkages in their head. [29] Remarkable examples are the slingjaw wrasse and the sand eel, which can protrude their mouth by several centimeters. Another example of protrusion is seen in dragonfly larvae (nymphs), which have hydraulic lower mandibles, protruding forward to catch prey and bring it to the top jaw. [30]

Filter versus suspension feeding

Krill feeding under high phytoplankton concentration (slowed down by a factor of 12) Filterkrillkils2.gif
Krill feeding under high phytoplankton concentration (slowed down by a factor of 12)

These are contrasting methods for the removal of food particles from a water flow: for example, by the gill rakers of fish, the baleen of whales, or the ostia of sponges.

Filter feeding

In filter feeding, the water flow is primarily generated by the organism itself, for example by creating a pressure gradient, by active swimming, or by ciliary movements.

Suspension feeding

In suspension feeding, the water flow is primarily external and the particles themselves move with respect to the ambient water flow, such as in sea lilies.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jaw</span> Opposable articulated structure at the entrance of the mouth

The jaws are a pair of opposable articulated structure at the entrance of the mouth, typically used for grasping and manipulating food. The term jaws is also broadly applied to the whole of the structures constituting the vault of the mouth and serving to open and close it and is part of the body plan of humans and most animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moray eel</span> Family of fishes

Moray eels, or Muraenidae, are a family of eels whose members are found worldwide. There are approximately 200 species in 15 genera which are almost exclusively marine, but several species are regularly seen in brackish water, and a few are found in fresh water.

<i>Dunkleosteus</i> Genus of extinct fishes

Dunkleosteus is an extinct genus of large arthrodire ("jointed-neck") fish that existed during the Late Devonian period, about 382–358 million years ago. It was a pelagic fish inhabiting open waters, and one of the first apex predators of any ecosystem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stomiidae</span> Family of fishes

Stomiidae is a family of deep-sea ray-finned fish, including the barbeled dragonfishes. They are quite small, usually around 15 cm, up to 26 cm. These fish are apex predators and have enormous jaws filled with fang-like teeth. They are also able to hinge the neurocranium and upper-jaw system, which leads to the opening of the jaw to more than 100 degrees. This ability allows them to consume extremely large prey, often 50% greater than their standard length.

<i>Malacosteus niger</i> Species of fish

Malacosteus niger, commonly known as the black dragon fish, is a species of deep-sea fish. Some additional common names for this species include: northern stoplight loosejaw, lightless loosejaw, black loosejaw, and black hinged-head. It belongs to the family Stomiidae, or dragonfishes. It is among the top predators of the open mesopelagic zone. M. niger is a circumglobal species, which means that it inhabits waters ranging from the tropics to the subarctics. Not many studies have been conducted on its feeding habits, but recent research suggests that M. niger primarily feed on calanoid copepods which is a form of zooplankton. Indeed, it appears that M. niger primarily prey on zooplankton despite its apparent morphological adaptations for the consumption of relatively large prey. Another unique adaptation for this species is its ability to produce both red and blue bioluminescence. Most mesopelagic species aren't capable of producing red bioluminescence. This is advantageous because most other species cannot perceive red light, therefore allowing M. niger to camouflage part of itself to its prey and predators.

<i>Gerrothorax</i> Extinct genus of amphibians

Gerrothorax is an extinct genus of temnospondyl amphibian from the Triassic period of Greenland, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and possibly Thailand. It is known from a single species, G. pulcherrimus, although several other species such as G. pustuloglomeratus have been named in the past.

<i>Janjucetus</i> Extinct genus of mammals

Janjucetus is an extinct genus of cetacean, and a basal baleen whale (Mysticeti), from the Late Oligocene around 25 million years ago (mya) off south-east Australia, containing one species J. hunderi. Unlike modern mysticetes, it possessed large teeth for gripping and shredding prey, and lacked baleen, and so was likely to have been a predator that captured large single prey animals rather than filter feeding. However, its teeth may have interlocked, much like those of the modern-day filter-feeding crabeater seal, which would have allowed some filter-feeding behaviour. Its hunting behaviour was probably similar to the modern-day leopard seal, probably eating large fish. Like baleen whales, Janjucetus could not echolocate; however, it did have unusually large eyes, and so probably had an acute sense of vision. The only specimen was found on the Jan Juc beach, where the remains of the extinct whales Mammalodon, Prosqualodon and Waipatia have also been discovered.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Viper dogfish</span> Species of shark

The viper dogfish or viper shark is a rare species of dogfish shark in the family Etmopteridae, and the only extant member of its genus. It has been found in the Pacific Ocean off southern Japan, the Bonin Islands, Pacific Ocean off northern Taitung County and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This species inhabits upper continental slopes and seamounts. It may migrate vertically, shifting between bottom waters 270–360 m (890–1,180 ft) deep during the day and upper waters less than 150 m (490 ft) deep at night. A slender, black shark reaching 54 cm (21 in) in length, the viper dogfish can be recognized by its narrow, triangular jaws and well-spaced, fang-like teeth. It also has two spined dorsal fins, dermal denticles with faceted crowns, and numerous light-emitting photophores concentrated on its ventral surface.

<i>Caquetaia</i> Genus of fishes

Caquetaia is a small genus of cichlid fishes from tropical South America. The genus currently contains three species. Caquetaia spp. are ambush predators that predominantly feed on invertebrates. Seasonal fluctuations in water level have been shown to contribute to Caquetaia spp. consuming a larger variety of invertebrates, especially when the water level is low during dry seasons. Caquetaia are known for their highly protrusible jaws, an adaptation hypothesized to improve their ability to capture prey by enhancing overall ram velocity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California moray</span> Species of fish

The California moray is a moray eel of the family Muraenidae, found in the eastern Pacific from just north of Santa Barbara to Santa Maria Bay in Baja California. They are the only species of moray eel found off California, and one of the few examples of a subtropical moray. They typically occupy boulder or cobble habitats up to 40 m in depth. They can attain lengths of about 5 ft (1.52 m) and are believed to live for upwards of 22–26 years. Like other morays, they have no pelvic or pectoral fins or gill covers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ambush predator</span> Predator that sits and waits for prey to come to it

Ambush predators or sit-and-wait predators are carnivorous animals that capture or trap prey via stealth, luring or by strategies utilizing an element of surprise. Unlike pursuit predators, who chase to capture prey using sheer speed or endurance, ambush predators avoid fatigue by staying in concealment, waiting patiently for the prey to get near, before launching a sudden overwhelming attack that quickly incapacitates and captures the prey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mouth</span> First portion of the alimentary canal that receives food

The mouth is the body orifice through which many animals ingest food and vocalize. The body cavity immediately behind the mouth opening, known as the oral cavity, is also the first part of the alimentary canal which leads to the pharynx and the gullet. In tetrapod vertebrates, the mouth is bounded on the outside by the lips and cheeks — thus the oral cavity is also known as the buccal cavity — and contains the tongue on the inside. Except for some groups like birds and lissamphibians, vertebrates usually have teeth in their mouths, although some fish species have pharyngeal teeth instead of oral teeth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pharyngeal jaw</span> Mophological feature in some fish

Pharyngeal jaws are a "second set" of jaws contained within an animal's throat, or pharynx, distinct from the primary or oral jaws. They are believed to have originated as modified gill arches, in much the same way as oral jaws. Originally hypothesized to have evolved only once, current morphological and genetic analyses suggest at least two separate points of origin. Based on connections between musculoskeletal morphology and dentition, diet has been proposed as a main driver of the evolution of the pharyngeal jaw. A study conducted on cichlids showed that the pharyngeal jaws can undergo morphological changes in less than two years in response to their diet. Fish that ate hard-shelled prey had a robust jaw with molar-like teeth fit for crushing their durable prey. Fish that ate softer prey, on the other hand, exhibited a more slender jaw with thin, curved teeth used for tearing apart fleshy prey. These rapid changes are an example of phenotypic plasticity, wherein environmental factors affect genetic expression responsible for pharyngeal jaw development. Studies of the genetic pathways suggest that receptors in the jaw bone respond to the mechanical strain of biting hard-shelled prey, which prompts the formation of a more robust set of pharyngeal jaws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Durophagy</span> Eating of hard-shelled or exoskeleton bearing organisms, such as corals, shelled mollusks, or crabs

Durophagy is the eating behavior of animals that consume hard-shelled or exoskeleton bearing organisms, such as corals, shelled mollusks, or crabs. It is mostly used to describe fish, but is also used when describing reptiles, including fossil turtles, placodonts and invertebrates, as well as "bone-crushing" mammalian carnivores such as hyenas. Durophagy requires special adaptions, such as blunt, strong teeth and a heavy jaw. Bite force is necessary to overcome the physical constraints of consuming more durable prey and gain a competitive advantage over other organisms by gaining access to more diverse or exclusive food resources earlier in life. Those with greater bite forces require less time to consume certain prey items as a greater bite force can increase the net rate of energy intake when foraging and enhance fitness in durophagous species.

Cranial kinesis is the term for significant movement of skull bones relative to each other in addition to movement at the joint between the upper and lower jaws. It is usually taken to mean relative movement between the upper jaw and the braincase.

<i>Sanajeh</i> Genus of snakes

Sanajeh is a genus of late Cretaceous madtsoiid snake from western India. A fossil described in 2010 from the Lameta Formation was found coiled around an egg and an adjacent skeleton of a 50 cm long sauropod dinosaur hatchling. This suggests that the snake preyed on hatchling sauropods at nesting sites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Atlantic mudskipper</span> Species of fish

The Atlantic mudskipper is a species of mudskipper native to fresh, marine, and brackish waters of the tropical Atlantic coasts of Africa, including most offshore islands, through the Indian Ocean and into the western Pacific Ocean to Guam. The Greek scientific name Periophthalmus barbarus is named after the eyes that provide the Atlantic mudskipper with a wide field of vision. The Atlantic mudskipper is a member of the genus Periophthalmus, which includes oxudercine gobies that have one row of canine-like teeth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fish jaw</span>

Most bony fishes have two sets of jaws made mainly of bone. The primary oral jaws open and close the mouth, and a second set of pharyngeal jaws are positioned at the back of the throat. The oral jaws are used to capture and manipulate prey by biting and crushing. The pharyngeal jaws, so-called because they are positioned within the pharynx, are used to further process the food and move it from the mouth to the stomach.

<i>Ocepechelon</i> Extinct genus of turtles

Ocepechelon is an extinct genus of giant protostegid sea turtle known from Late Cretaceous phosphatic deposits of the Oulad Abdoun Basin, Khouribga Province of Morocco. It is known from the holotype OCP DEK/GE 516, a complete but isolated 70-cm-long skull, making it one of the largest marine turtles ever described. It was first named by Nathalie Bardet, Nour-Eddine Jalil, France de Lapparent de Broin, Damien Germain, Olivier Lambert and Mbarek Amaghzaz in 2013, and the type species is Ocepechelon bouyai. The feeding apparatus of Ocepechelon, a bony pipette-like snout, is unique among tetrapods and shares unique convergences with both syngnathid fishes and beaked whales.


Innovations conventionally associated with terrestrially first appeared in aquatic elpistostegalians such as Panderichthys rhombolepis, Elpistostege watsoni, and Tiktaalik roseae. Phylogenetic analyses distribute the features that developed along the tetrapod stem and display a stepwise process of character acquisition, rather than abrupt. The complete transition occurred over a period of 30 million years beginning with the tetrapodomorph diversification in the Middle Devonian.

References

  1. Alexander, R. McNeill (1967). Functional design in fishes. London: Hutchinson. ISBN   0-09-084770-9. OCLC   456355.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Lauder, George V. (May 1982). "Patterns of Evolution in the Feeding Mechanism of Actinopterygian Fishes". American Zoologist. 22 (2): 275–285. doi: 10.1093/icb/22.2.275 . ISSN   0003-1569.
  3. Lauder, George V. (March 1980). "Evolution of the feeding mechanism in primitive actionopterygian fishes: A functional anatomical analysis of Polypterus, Lepisosteus, and Amia". Journal of Morphology. 163 (3): 283–317. doi:10.1002/jmor.1051630305. ISSN   0362-2525. PMID   30170473. S2CID   26805223.
  4. Holzman, Roi; Day, Steven W.; Mehta, Rita S.; Wainwright, Peter C. (10 June 2008). "Jaw protrusion enhances forces exerted on prey by suction feeding fishes". Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 5 (29): 1445–1457. doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0159. PMC   2607355 . PMID   18544504.
  5. 1 2 Gardiner, Jayne M.; Motta, Philip J. (28 January 2012). "Largemouth bass (micropterus salmoides) switch feeding modalities in response to sensory deprivation". Zoology (Jena, Germany). 115 (2): 78–83. doi:10.1016/j.zool.2011.09.004. PMID   22285791.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Norton, S. F.; Brainerd, E. L. (1993-03-01). "Convergence in the Feeding Mechanics of Ecomorphologically Similar Species in the Centrarchidae and Cichlidae". Journal of Experimental Biology. 176 (1): 11–29. doi:10.1242/jeb.176.1.11. ISSN   0022-0949.
  7. Gidmark, Nicholas J.; Pos, Kelsie; Matheson, Bonne; Ponce, Esai; Westneat, Mark W. (2019), "Functional Morphology and Biomechanics of Feeding in Fishes", Feeding in Vertebrates, Springer International Publishing, pp. 297–332, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13739-7_9, ISBN   9783030137380, S2CID   150135750
  8. 1 2 Westneat, M. W. (2004-11-01). "Evolution of Levers and Linkages in the Feeding Mechanisms of Fishes". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 44 (5): 378–389. doi: 10.1093/icb/44.5.378 . ISSN   1540-7063. PMID   21676723.
  9. Bellwood, D.R; Wainwright, P.C; Fulton, C.J; Hoey, A.S (2005-10-12). "Functional versatility supports coral reef biodiversity". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1582): 101–107. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3276. ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   1560014 . PMID   16519241.
  10. 1 2 Oufiero, C. E.; Holzman, R. A.; Young, F. A.; Wainwright, P. C. (2012-08-01). "New insights from serranid fishes on the role of trade-offs in suction-feeding diversification". Journal of Experimental Biology. 215 (21): 3845–3855. doi: 10.1242/jeb.074849 . ISSN   0022-0949. PMID   22855615.
  11. WAINWRIGHT, PETER C.; BELLWOOD, DAVID R.; WESTNEAT, MARK W.; GRUBICH, JUSTIN R.; HOEY, ANDREW S. (2004-04-22). "A functional morphospace for the skull of labrid fishes: patterns of diversity in a complex biomechanical system". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 82 (1): 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00313.x . ISSN   0024-4066.
  12. Lauder, George V.; Liem, Karel F. (November 1981). "Prey capture by Luciocephalus pulcher: implications for models of jaw protrusion in teleost fishes". Environmental Biology of Fishes. 6 (3–4): 257–268. Bibcode:1981EnvBF...6..257L. doi:10.1007/bf00005755. ISSN   0378-1909. S2CID   24315046.
  13. 1 2 Martinez, Christopher M.; McGee, Matthew D.; Borstein, Samuel R.; Wainwright, Peter C. (2018-07-10). "Feeding ecology underlies the evolution of cichlid jaw mobility". Evolution. 72 (8): 1645–1655. doi:10.1111/evo.13518. ISSN   0014-3820. PMID   29920668. S2CID   49311313. Archived from the original on 2020-07-21. Retrieved 2020-09-06.
  14. Collar, David C.; Reece, Joshua S.; Alfaro, Michael E.; Wainwright, Peter C.; Mehta, Rita S. (June 2014). "Imperfect Morphological Convergence: Variable Changes in Cranial Structures Underlie Transitions to Durophagy in Moray Eels". The American Naturalist. 183 (6): E168–E184. doi:10.1086/675810. ISSN   0003-0147. PMID   24823828. S2CID   17433961.
  15. Durie, C.J.; Turingan, R. (2001). "Relationship between durophagy and feeding biomechanics in gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus: intraspecific variation in ecological morphology". Florida Scientist. 64: 20–28.
  16. Westneat, Mark W. (2005), "Skull Biomechanics and Suction Feeding in Fishes", Fish Biomechanics, Fish Physiology, vol. 23, Elsevier, pp. 29–75, doi:10.1016/s1546-5098(05)23002-9, ISBN   9780123504470
  17. Longo, Sarah J.; McGee, Matthew D.; Oufiero, Christopher E.; Waltzek, Thomas B.; Wainwright, Peter C. (2015-11-23). "Body ram, not suction, is the primary axis of suction-feeding diversity in spiny-rayed fishes". The Journal of Experimental Biology. 219 (1): 119–128. doi: 10.1242/jeb.129015 . ISSN   0022-0949. PMID   26596534.
  18. 1 2 3 Wainwright, P.C.; Carroll, A.M.; Collar, D.C.; Day, S.W.; Higham, T.E.; Holzman, R.A. (2007). "Suction feeding mechanics, performance, and diversity in fishes". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 47 (1): 96–106. doi: 10.1093/icb/icm032 . PMID   21672823.
  19. Ferry-Graham, Lara A.; Lauder, George V. (2001). "Aquatic prey capture in ray-finned fishes: A century of progress and new directions". Journal of Morphology. 248 (2): 99–119. doi:10.1002/jmor.1023. ISSN   0362-2525. PMID   11304743. S2CID   4996900.
  20. 1 2 Higham, T. E. (2005-07-15). "Sucking while swimming: evaluating the effects of ram speed on suction generation in bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus using digital particle image velocimetry". Journal of Experimental Biology. 208 (14): 2653–2660. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01682 . ISSN   0022-0949. PMID   16000535.
  21. Lambertsen, R. H.; Rasmussen, K. J.; Lancaster, W. C.; Hintz, R. J. (2005). "Functional Morphology of the Mouth of the Bowhead Whale and Its Implications For Conservation". Journal of Mammalogy. 86 (2): 342–352. doi: 10.1644/BER-123.1 .
  22. Van Wassenbergh, Sam; Brecko, Jonathan; Aerts, Peter; Stouten, Ilona; Vanheusden, Gwen; Camps, Andy; Van Damme, Raoul; Herrel, Anthony (2010). "Hydrodynamic constraints on prey-capture performance in forward-striking snakes". Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 7 (46): 773–785. doi:10.1098/rsif.2009.0385. PMC   2874232 . PMID   19828500.
  23. Jaine, FRA; Couturier, LIE; Weeks, SJ; Townsend, KA; Bennett, MB; Fiora, K; Richardson, AJ (2012). "When Giants Turn Up: Sighting Trends, Environmental Influences and Habitat Use of the Manta Ray Manta alfredi at a Coral Reef". PLOS ONE. 7 (10): e46170. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...746170J. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046170 . PMC   3463571 . PMID   23056255.
  24. 1 2 Goldbogen, J. A.; Calambokidis, J.; Shadwick, R. E.; Oleson, E. M.; McDonald, M. A.; Hildebrand, J. A. (2006). "Kinematics of foraging dives and lunge-feeding in fin whales". Journal of Experimental Biology. 209 (7): 1231–1244. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02135 . PMID   16547295. S2CID   17923052.
  25. Potvin, J; Goldbogen, JA (2009). "Passive versus active engulfment: verdict from trajectory simulations of lunge-feeding fin whales Balaenoptera physalus". J. R. Soc. Interface. 6 (40): 1005–1025. doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0492. PMC   2827442 . PMID   19158011.
  26. de Lussanet, M. H. E.; Muller, M. (2007). "The smaller your mouth, the longer your snout: predicting the snout length of Syngnathus acus, Centriscus scutatus and other pipette feeders". J. R. Soc. Interface. 4 (14): 561–573. doi:10.1098/rsif.2006.0201. PMC   2373409 . PMID   17251161.
  27. Langley, Liz (26 November 2013). "Why Does the Seahorse Have Its Odd Head? Mystery Solved". National Geographic Society. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  28. Gemmell, B. J.; Sheng, J.; Buskey, E. J. (2013). "Morphology of seahorse head hydrodynamically aids in capture of evasive prey". Nature Communications. 4: 2840. Bibcode:2013NatCo...4.2840G. doi:10.1038/ncomms3840. PMID   24281430. S2CID   205321320.
  29. Muller, M (1996). "A novel classification of planar four-bar linkages and its application to the mechanical analysis of animal systems". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 351 (1340): 689–720. Bibcode:1996RSPTB.351..689M. doi:10.1098/rstb.1996.0065. PMID   8927640.
  30. Gonzalez, Robbie (13 November 2014). "What Do This Dragonfly's Prehensile Mouthparts Have To Do With Its Anus?". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2021-07-09. Retrieved 2021-07-03.