Timing is everything: coordination of strike kinematics affects the force exerted by suction feeding fish on attached prey

SUMMARY During aquatic suction feeding, the predator opens its mouth and rapidly expands its buccal cavity, generating a flow field external to the mouth. The rapid expansion of the buccal cavity produces high fluid velocities and accelerations that extend only a short distance from the mouth (about half of one mouth diameter), and only persist for several milliseconds. Therefore, the predator must precisely time its strike to locate the prey within the narrow region of high flow, during the brief period when flow is at its peak. With flow being the agent for transferring force to the prey, the predator may enhance these forces by producing higher water velocities and faster acceleration at the mouth, but also through increasing the strike's accuracy, i.e. locating the prey closer to the mouth at the instant of peak flow speed. The objectives of this study were to directly measure forces exerted by bluegill Lepomis macrochirus on their prey and to determine how bluegill modify force output. Bluegill were offered ghost shrimp tethered to a load cell that recorded force at 5000 Hz, and feeding sequences were synchronously recorded using 500 Hz video. Peak forces exerted on attached 20 mm shrimp ranged from 0.005 N to 0.506 N. In accordance with the short duration of the strikes (average time to peak gape of ∼13 ms), the forces recorded were brief (∼12 ms from initiation to peak force), and force magnitude declined rapidly after peak force. Statistical analysis indicated that rate of buccal expansion, and prey size, but not strike initiation distance, significantly affected peak force. These observed variables were used with results from flow visualization studies to estimate the flow at the prey's location, which allowed the calculation of drag, pressure gradient force and acceleration reaction force. The relationship between these calculated forces and the measured forces was strong, indicating that the model can be used to estimate forces from strike kinematics. This model was then used to study the effects of strike initiation distance on peak force and on the rate of increasing force. Comparisons of model output to empirical results indicated that bluegill time their strike so as to exert an average of∼ 70% of the peak possible force on the prey, and that the observed strike initiation distance corresponded to the distance that maximized modeled force on an attached prey. Our results highlight the ability of bluegill to produce high forces on their prey, and indicate that precision and visual acuity play important roles in prey acquisition, beyond their recognized role in prey detection.

[1]  L. Ferry‐Graham,et al.  Cranial movements during suction feeding in teleost fishes: Are they modified to enhance suction production? , 2005, Zoology.

[2]  D. Flemer,et al.  Food habits and distribution of the fishes of Tuckahoe Creek, Virginia, with special emphasis on the bluegill,Lepomis m. macrochirus rafinesque , 1966 .

[3]  P. Rao Statistical Research Methods in the Life Sciences , 1997 .

[4]  S. Easter,et al.  Fish vision and the detection of planktonic prey. , 1982, Science.

[5]  T. Higham,et al.  The pressures of suction feeding: the relation between buccal pressure and induced fluid speed in centrarchid fishes , 2006, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[6]  P C Wainwright,et al.  Evaluating the use of ram and suction during prey capture by cichlid fishes. , 2001, The Journal of experimental biology.

[7]  S. Day,et al.  The forces exerted by aquatic suction feeders on their prey , 2007, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[8]  G. Lauder,et al.  Hydrodynamics of prey capture in sharks: effects of substrate , 2007, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[9]  Neil,et al.  Escape trajectories of the brown shrimp crangon crangon, and a theoretical consideration of initial escape angles from predators , 1999, The Journal of experimental biology.

[10]  D. Fields,et al.  The escape behavior of marine copepods in response to a quantifiable fluid mechanical disturbance , 1997 .

[11]  M. M. Martínez,et al.  Running in the surf: hydrodynamics of the shore crab Grapsus tenuicrustatus. , 2001, The Journal of experimental biology.

[12]  T. Daniel Unsteady Aspects of Aquatic Locomotion , 1984 .

[13]  Mark W. Denny,et al.  Nearshore Biomechanics. (Book Reviews: Biology and the Mechanics of the Wave-Swept Environment) , 1988 .

[14]  C. Rakocinski,et al.  Trophic relationships of three sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) in an estuarine bayou , 2000 .

[15]  D. Coughlin,et al.  Zooplankton capture by a coral reef fish: an adaptive response to evasive prey , 1990, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[16]  Lauder,et al.  Kinematics of feeding in bluegill sunfish: is there a general distinction between aquatic capture and transport behaviors? , 1995, The Journal of experimental biology.

[17]  P. Wainwright,et al.  Use of sonomicrometry demonstrates the link between prey capture kinematics and suction pressure in largemouth bass. , 2002, The Journal of experimental biology.

[18]  P. Aerts,et al.  Hydrodynamic modelling of aquatic suction performance and intra-oral pressures: limitations for comparative studies , 2006, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[19]  Thomas L. Daniel,et al.  SIZE LIMITS IN ESCAPE LOCOMOTION OF CARRIDEAN SHRIMP , 1989 .

[20]  John O Dabiri,et al.  Non-invasive measurement of instantaneous forces during aquatic locomotion: a case study of the bluegill sunfish pectoral fin , 2007, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[21]  Timothy E Higham,et al.  Multidimensional analysis of suction feeding performance in fishes: fluid speed, acceleration, strike accuracy and the ingested volume of water , 2006, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[22]  T. Higham,et al.  Spatial and temporal patterns of water flow generated by suction-feeding bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus resolved by Particle Image Velocimetry , 2005, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[23]  H. Howland Optimal strategies for predator avoidance: the relative importance of speed and manoeuvrability. , 1974, Journal of theoretical biology.

[24]  M. R. Sadzikowski,et al.  A Comparison of the Food Habits of Size Classes of Three Sunfishes (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, L. gibbosus (Linnaeus) and L. cyanellus Rafinesque) , 1976 .

[25]  T. Higham,et al.  Sucking while swimming: evaluating the effects of ram speed on suction generation in bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus using digital particle image velocimetry , 2005, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[26]  S. Vogel,et al.  Life in Moving Fluids , 2020 .

[27]  G. Lauder,et al.  Quantification of flow during suction feeding in bluegill sunfish. , 2003, Zoology.

[28]  E. Loew,et al.  Aspects of color vision in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): ecological and evolutionary relevance , 2004, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[29]  D. Weihs,et al.  Optimal avoidance and evasion tactics in predator-prey interactions , 1984 .

[30]  S. Norton Capture Success and Diet of Cottid Fishes: The Role of Predator Morphology and Attack Kinematics , 1991 .

[31]  A. D. Young,et al.  An Introduction to Fluid Mechanics , 1968 .

[32]  M Denny,et al.  Are there mechanical limits to size in wave-swept organisms? , 1985, The Journal of experimental biology.

[33]  A. M. Carroll,et al.  Morphology predicts suction feeding performance in centrarchid fishes , 2004, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[34]  M. Muller,et al.  A quantitative hydrodynamical model of suction feeding in fish , 1982 .

[35]  Németh Modulation of buccal pressure during prey capture in Hexagrammos decagrammus (Teleostei: Hexagrammidae) , 1997, The Journal of experimental biology.