Performance of teeth of lingcod,Ophiodon elongatus, over ontogeny

Abstract

Fish teeth can play several roles during feeding; capture, retention, and processing. In many fish lineages teeth may be present on non-jaw cranial bones that lack opposing teeth, such as the vomer and palatine. We hypothesized that teeth on different bones have different functions, and that the function of a set of teeth may vary over ontogeny. In this study, puncture, and draw performance of in situ vomerine teeth are compared to premaxillary teeth of the piscivorous lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus. The force required to pierce prey and to draw prey out of the mouth once the teeth were embedded was measured in ten individuals ranging from 205 to 836 mm SL to test for ontogenetic effects. Vomerine teeth in juvenile lingcod required proportionally less force to puncture prey items than adult lingcod, while premaxillary teeth showed the opposite trend. Draw force required to remove prey from the grasp of both toothed bones show the same shift with ontogeny. These results suggest that there is a shift in tooth function from vomerine to premaxillary teeth over ontogeny of lingcods. In juvenile lingcod, vomerine teeth function more effectively during initial puncture. In contrast, the premaxillary teeth pierce more effectively in adults. Juvenile lingcod are expected to use the premaxillary teeth while adult lingcod are expected to use the vomerine teeth to retain prey due to the larger force required for the prey to escape. The curvature of vomerine teeth increases over ontogeny suggesting increasing functional performance in retaining prey.

Mechanical properties of the venomous spines of Pterois volitans and morphology among lionfish species

“…2A) was chosen for the following two reasons: (1) we were able to place the dissection pin in a single position within the lateral groove and (2) we could assess spine loading simulating a predator attacking from the side. Common displacement speeds for hard biomaterials range dramatically from 0.003 to 400 mm s −1 (Halstead et al, 1955;Galloway et al, 2016;Su et al, 2017;Summarell et al, 2015;Whitenack and Motta, 2010). We decided to load the mineralized collagenous lionfish spines at a slower speed within this range because there are no previous studies on their mechanical behavior, and testing at faster speeds may have resulted in fracture before we were able to test at other point load locations.…”

Do sharks exhibit heterodonty by tooth position and over ontogeny? A comparison using elliptic Fourier analysis

“…Additionally, teeth are used during stages of prey capture, retention, and processing in predatory organisms. To facilitate these different purposes, some organisms have distinct functional units of teeth whose morphology and location along the jaw margin or elsewhere within the cranium (i.e., pharyngeal jaws, vomerine/palatine teeth) are adept for certain functions (Galloway, Anderson, Wilga, & Summers, ; Janis & Fortelius, ; Mehta & Wainwright, ; Norton, ). The attribution of form to function has been particularly useful in the extrapolation of diet to fossil species, especially in those with heterodont dentition (Underwood, Mitchell, & Veltkamp, ; van Valkenburgh, ).…”

Teeth penetration force of the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier and sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus

“…Research examining the force required of teeth to penetrate and puncture prey raises the question of why high bite force is generated in sharks, when force to penetrate is generally low (Huber et al, , ; Whitenack & Motta, ; Galloway et al, ). The excessively high bite forces of shark species suggests an over‐development of the feeding mechanism in that they generate forces higher than necessary for puncture (Habegger et al, ), with some carcharhinid species generating kN bite forces greater than those required by the prey tissues (Huber et al, , ; Wroe et al, ; Mara et al, ).…”

“…Broad teeth, such as those of the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron & LeSueur 1822), often failed in puncture of hard and soft prey, simply crushing the prey when driven directly down into it. Their study revealed force to puncture bony fishes was remarkably low, ranging from <1 to 67 N. Force to puncture in bony fish teeth have been found in low ranges from <1 to 2 N (Galloway et al, ).…”