Literature DB >> 24475170

Feeding kinematics, suction, and hydraulic jetting performance of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina).

Christopher D Marshall1, Sven Wieskotten2, Wolf Hanke2, Frederike D Hanke2, Alyssa Marsh3, Brian Kot3, Guido Dehnhardt2.   

Abstract

The feeding kinematics, suction and hydraulic jetting capabilities of captive harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) were characterized during controlled feeding trials. Feeding trials were conducted using a feeding apparatus that allowed a choice between biting and suction, but also presented food that could be ingested only by suction. Subambient pressure exerted during suction feeding behaviors was directly measured using pressure transducers. The mean feeding cycle duration for suction-feeding events was significantly shorter (0.15±0.09 s; P<0.01) than biting feeding events (0.18±0.08 s). Subjects feeding in-water used both a suction and a biting feeding mode. Suction was the favored feeding mode (84% of all feeding events) compared to biting, but biting comprised 16% of feeding events. In addition, seals occasionally alternated suction with hydraulic jetting, or used hydraulic jetting independently, to remove fish from the apparatus. Suction and biting feeding modes were kinematically distinct regardless of feeding location (in-water vs. on-land). Suction was characterized by a significantly smaller gape (1.3±0.23 cm; P<0.001) and gape angle (12.9±2.02°), pursing of the rostral lips to form a circular aperture, and pursing of the lateral lips to occlude lateral gape. Biting was characterized by a large gape (3.63±0.21 cm) and gape angle (28.8±1.80°; P<0.001) and lip curling to expose teeth. The maximum subambient pressure recorded was 48.8 kPa. In addition, harbor seals were able to jet water at food items using suprambient pressure, also known as hydraulic jetting. The maximum hydraulic jetting force recorded was 53.9 kPa. Suction and hydraulic jetting where employed 90.5% and 9.5%, respectively, during underwater feeding events. Harbor seals displayed a wide repertoire of behaviorally flexible feeding strategies to ingest fish from the feeding apparatus. Such flexibility of feeding strategies and biomechanics likely forms the basis of their opportunistic, generalized feeding ecology and concomitant breadth of diet.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24475170      PMCID: PMC3901688          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086710

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  20 in total

1.  Cranial movements during suction feeding in teleost fishes: Are they modified to enhance suction production?

Authors:  Alice C Gibb; Lara Ferry-Graham
Journal:  Zoology (Jena)       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Odontocete suction feeding: Experimental analysis of water flow and head shape.

Authors:  Alexander J Werth
Journal:  J Morphol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.804

3.  The forces exerted by aquatic suction feeders on their prey.

Authors:  Peter C Wainwright; Steven W Day
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2007-06-22       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Adaptations of the cetacean hyolingual apparatus for aquatic feeding and thermoregulation.

Authors:  Alexander J Werth
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.064

5.  Suction feeding mechanics, performance, and diversity in fishes.

Authors:  Peter Wainwright; Andrew M Carroll; David C Collar; Steven W Day; Timothy E Higham; Roi A Holzman
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 3.326

6.  Functional architecture of the mystacial vibrissae.

Authors:  M Brecht; B Preilowski; M M Merzenich
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Comparative feeding kinematics and performance of odontocetes: belugas, Pacific white-sided dolphins and long-finned pilot whales.

Authors:  E A Kane; C D Marshall
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.312

8.  A functional comparison of the hyolingual complex in pygmy and dwarf sperm whales (Kogia breviceps and K. sima), and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).

Authors:  Brian E Bloodworth; Christopher D Marshall
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 2.610

9.  Sensitivity of the mystacial vibrissae of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) for size differences of actively touched objects.

Authors:  G Dehnhardt; A Kaminski
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  The role of orienting in vibrissal touch sensing.

Authors:  Robyn A Grant; Anna L Sperber; Tony J Prescott
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-09       Impact factor: 3.558

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  A behavioural framework for the evolution of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals.

Authors:  David P Hocking; Felix G Marx; Travis Park; Erich M G Fitzgerald; Alistair R Evans
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Revisiting the behavioural framework of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals.

Authors:  Sarah S Kienle; Chris J Law; Daniel P Costa; Annalisa Berta; Rita S Mehta
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  The better to eat you with: the comparative feeding morphology of phocid seals (Pinnipedia, Phocidae).

Authors:  Sarah S Kienle; Annalisa Berta
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 4.  Vertebrate Evolution Conserves Hindbrain Circuits despite Diverse Feeding and Breathing Modes.

Authors:  Shun Li; Fan Wang
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-04-28

5.  Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) use raptorial biting and suction feeding when targeting prey in different foraging scenarios.

Authors:  David P Hocking; Marcia Salverson; Erich M G Fitzgerald; Alistair R Evans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Innervation patterns of sea otter (Enhydra lutris) mystacial follicle-sinus complexes.

Authors:  Christopher D Marshall; Kelly Rozas; Brian Kot; Verena A Gill
Journal:  Front Neuroanat       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.856

7.  Comparative examination of pinniped craniofacial musculature and its role in aquatic feeding.

Authors:  Sarah S Kienle; Roxanne D Cuthbertson; Joy S Reidenberg
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 2.610

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.