Modulation of shark prey capture kinematics in response to sensory deprivation

Morphological Variability and Function of Labial Cartilages in Sharks (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii)

(1) Background: Labial cartilages (LCs), as their name suggests, lie in the folds of the connective tissue, the lips, framing the gape of elasmobranch chondrichthyans. As such, these cartilages lie laterally to the jaws and marginal teeth. They are considered to influence the ability of creating suction during the feeding process. As past studies have shown, LCs in sharks are as diverse as their varied feeding techniques and differ between species in number, size, shape, and position. This allows establishing parameters for inferring the feeding and hunting behaviors in these ecologically important fishes. (2) Methods: We present a study of LCs based on the CT scans of more than 100 extant shark species and, therefore, represent at least one member of every living family within the Euselachii, excluding batoids. (3) Results: Accordingly, sharks without labial cartilages or that have only small remnants are ram feeders or use pure biting and mainly occupy higher trophic levels (tertiary and quaternary consumers), whereas suction-feeding sharks have higher numbers (up to five pairs) of well-developed LCs and occupy slightly lower trophic levels (mainly secondary consumers). Species with unique feeding strategies, like the cookie-cutter shark (Isistius brasiliensis, an ectoparasite), display distinct shapes of LCs, while generalist species, conversely, exhibit a simpler arrangement of LCs. (4) Conclusions: We propose a dichotomous identification key to classify single LCs into different morphotypes and propose combinations of morphotypes that result in suction feeding differing in strength and, therefore, different hunting and feeding strategies. The conclusions of this study allow to infer information about feeding strategies not only in extant less-known sharks but also extinct sharks.

Channel catfish use higher coordination to capture prey than to swallow

When animals move they must coordinate motion among multiple parts of the musculoskeletal system. Different behaviours exhibit different patterns of coordination, however, it remains unclear what general principles determine the coordination pattern for a particular behaviour. One hypothesis is that speed determines coordination patterns as a result of differences in voluntary versus involuntary control. An alternative hypothesis is that the nature of the behavioural task determines patterns of coordination. Suction-feeding fishes have highly kinetic skulls and must coordinate the motions of over a dozen skeletal elements to draw fluid and prey into the mouth. We used a dataset of intracranial motions at five cranial joints in channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus), collected using X-ray reconstruction of moving morphology, to test whether speed or task best explained patterns of coordination. We found that motions were significantly more coordinated (by 20-29%) during prey capture than during prey transport, supporting the hypothesis that the nature of the task determines coordination patterns. We found no significant difference in coordination between low- and high-speed motions. We speculate that capture is more coordinated to create a single fluid flow into the mouth while transport is less coordinated so that the cranial elements can independently generate multiple flows to reposition prey. Our results demonstrate the benefits of both higher and lower coordination in animal behaviours and the potential of motion analysis to elucidate motor tasks.