Bite performance and feeding behaviour of the sand tiger sharkCarcharias taurus

Abstract

This study examines the feeding behaviour and kinematics of three sub-adult sand tiger sharks Carcharias taurus on display at Mystic Aquarium (Mystic, Connecticut, USA). Using high-speed video data from 52 bites, we identify kinematic variables associated with the expansive and compressive phases of the bite. The mean bite duration from the onset of the expansive phase to the conclusion of the compressive phase is mean (± SE) 0.14 ± 0.01 s and across the 10 fastest bites of each individual, the maximum performance average is 0.13 ± 0.01 s. Values of maximum performance do not vary significantly among individuals. When compared with kinematic bite data from species studied previously, these results indicate that body size is not the only determinant factor of bite duration. This study also provides detailed descriptions of feeding behaviours in C. taurus and presents documentation of tooth loss both prior to and during feeding, suggesting that there are multiple mechanisms of tooth loss and use in C. taurus. Finally, we discuss the behavioural and ecological components of prey capture in C. taurus and suggest points of consideration to facilitate interspecific comparisons of prey capture performance in ram-feeding, macrophagous elasmobranchs. K E Y W O R D S

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

“…There are several postulations concerning the feeding process that can be derived from the number, position, orientation, and size of the LCs in relation to feeding strategies in sharks. Species without LCs or with only one small LC1 in a position along the posterior half of the jaws (LC1 Types D and H and Subtypes iii and iv) use pure ram feeding or simple biting as the main feeding strategies (compare with [50][51][52]), whereas the opposite assembly of LCs (high number, strong shape, and anterior position) is related to the use of pure suction (compare with [8,16,28]).…”

Biomechanical insights into the dentition of megatooth sharks (Lamniformes: Otodontidae)

“…However, this trend is not consistent with the mechanical properties presumed a priori for the dental types found in taxa possessing extreme dental morphologies. Extant sharks with puncturing-tearing dentitions, similar to that of O. obliquus, usually pierce and hold soft prey between their jaws before swallowing them with little manipulation 34 ; in contrast, species with cutting dentitions, similar to that of O. megalodon, slice off large pieces of flesh through a combination of vertical bites and lateral head shaking 35,36 . Fossil evidence supports that the latest otodontids (i.e., O chubutensis and O. megalodon) also possessed the ability to bite and crush the bones of pinnipeds, sirenians, and cetaceans during hunting or scavenging 8,13,[37][38][39][40] .…”

Shark mandible evolution reveals patterns of trophic and habitat-mediated diversification

“…The jaw apparatus of sharks display several important morphofunctional modifications 21 , 35 – 39 that enable specialised feeding behaviours, such as filter feeding, durophagy, and piscivory 40 – 44 . Prey capture and processing in sharks is reflected in their jaw suspension 36 , 37 , 45 , 46 and biting mechanisms 47 – 51 . However, palaeobiological studies rarely possess direct data on trophic ecology that can validate underlying assumptions 52 .…”