Predicting patterns of prey use from morphology of fishes

Wainwright, Peter C.; Richard, Barton A.

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1356-6_7

Cited by 184 publications

(247 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

236

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both of these studies make explicit, testable predictions of the relationship between morphological variation and ecological variation . The biomechanical model of Wainwright & Richard (1995) assesses the importance of variation in jaw morphology for the kinematics of mouth opening versus mouth closing ; this model has clear ecological implications that are consistent with field diet data from a broad spectrum of fishes . In Norton (1995), predictions regarding the relationship between mouth size and feeding ecology in cottid fishes were supported by the results of performance studies in which elusive and non-elusive prey were presented to various species of cottids and their capture success was recorded .…”

Section: Contributions From the Ecomorphology Of Fishes Volumementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Werner & Hall 1979, Mittelbach et al . 1992, Wainwright & Lauder 1992, Norton & Brainerd 1993, Wainwright & Richard 1995 .…”

Section: Ecomorphology Of Fishes and Comparative Biologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both Wainwright & Richard (1995) and Norton (1995) use insights derived from functional morphological studies of fish feeding to highlight a restricted set of characteristics of the oral jaws of the predators that appears to influence the prey composition in fish diets . Both of these studies make explicit, testable predictions of the relationship between morphological variation and ecological variation .…”

Section: Contributions From the Ecomorphology Of Fishes Volumementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of ecomorphological studies in the comparative biology of fishes

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisThe goal of an ecomorphological study is to understand the interactions between the morphology of organisms and their ecology. Both the morphology and the ecology presented by an organism are directly or indirectly under the influence of the environmental conditions that the organism experiences and its heritable composition. The development and interpretation of the central element of ecomorphological studies, the comparison between patterns of variation of morphological and ecological characters, depends heavily on the mechanistic framework provided by functional morphological and biomechanical studies. The cause-andeffect hypotheses derived from this comparison can be tested with performance trials . Ecomorphology forms an integral part of comparative biology, along with ecophysiology, behavioral ecology, and evolutionary ecology. Current issues in ecomorphological research that are addressed in this volume include application of a more functional approach to the choice of characters, integration of morphological, behavioral, and physiological information to address adaptation, and the expansion of spatial and temporal (ontogenetic and evolutionary) scales of ecomorphological questions . Future directions for ecomorphology include broadening the knowledge base, further integration of information from other disciplines, examination of the role of environmental and genetic factors in producing and maintaining ecological and morphological diversity, and application of ecomorphological insights to questions of community structure.

show abstract

Section: Contributions From the Ecomorphology Of Fishes Volumementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Werner & Hall 1979, Mittelbach et al . 1992, Wainwright & Lauder 1992, Norton & Brainerd 1993, Wainwright & Richard 1995 .…”

Section: Ecomorphology Of Fishes and Comparative Biologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contributions From the Ecomorphology Of Fishes Volumementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of ecomorphological studies in the comparative biology of fishes

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…., physiolo ical demands, anatomical structures, behavior) (for mathematical models predictin these shifts in fishes, see Werner & Gilliam 1984) . Of the internal factors, mouth size and oral anatomy appear to determine the fundamental trophic niche (Werner 1974, Wainwri ht & Richard 1995 and onto enetic chan es in these are often associated with dietary shifts (Stoner & Livin ston 1984, Gottfried 1986, MacNeill & Brandt 1990, Meyer 1990, Wainwri ht 1991 . In contrast, onto enetic chan es in feedin behavior or feedin mode used to capture prey appear to be closely related to the onto enetic chan e in diet in some species (Schmitt & Holbrook 1984a, Grossman 1986, E old & Motta 1992 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While ape may be a morpholo ical constraint on diet for fishes that capture prey whole usin suction or ram-feedin , it is not a factor limitin prey size for fishes that capture prey by bitin , in which lar e prey are cut or broken into pieces that fit the mouth of the predator (Liem & Osse 1975, Liem 1980, Liem 1984, Stoner & Livin ston 1984, Wainwri ht 1988 . Bitin may be limited by other aspects of morpholo y that chan e durin onto eny, such as presence or absence of cuttin teeth or a feedin apparatus developed to enerate force (i .e., stron adductor muscles actin on short robust jawbones that allow bitin and crushin of prey ; see Wainwri ht & Richard 1995) . The oal of this paper is to compare onto enetic chan es in the diet of two subtropical estuarine fish species, pinfish, La odon rhomboides, and snook, Centropomus undecimalis, with respect to onto enetic chan es in oral anatomy .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of oral anatomy on prey selection during the ontogeny of two percoid fishes, Lagodon rhomboides and Centropomus undecimalis

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisOnto enetic: increases in mouth size and chan es in dentition of percoid fishes may affect the size and species of prey selected, thus influencin the fundamental trophic niche . To examine the influence of oral anatomy on prey selectivity by pinfish, La odon rhomboides, and snook, Centropomus undecimalis, two co-occurrin percoid fishes with contrastin mouth morpholo ies, the mouth size, dentition, stomach contents, and available prey durin onto eny were quantified . Based on the presence of prey fra ments in stomach contents and direct behavioral observation, prey were cate orized by the feedin mode used durin capture (suction/ramfeedin or bitin ) . Centropomus has a lar er size-specific ape than La odon durin all onto enetic sta es .Althou h both feedin modes were used by La odon durin onto eny, the amount of prey captured usin suction/ram-feedin declined and the amount of prey captured by bitin increased with standard len th . This chan e in feedin mode was associated with a chan e in incisor shape and width : La odon < 39 mm SL possessed narrow, pointed incisors and stron ly selected amphipods, which are captured usin suction/ram-feedin ; La odon > 40 mm SL possessed wide, flat-topped incisors and si nificantly increased their selectivity for polychaetes, which are captured by bitin . Centropomus used ram-feedin to capture prey at all onto enetic sta es . Size-selective feedin by Centropomus was apparent but could not be due to ape-limitation alone, because avera e prey body depth was only 45% of ape and was not proportional to absolute mouth size increase durin onto eny. Dietary diversity was reatest durin the transition from suction/ram-feedin to bitin in La odon . La odon had a hi her dietary diversity at all onto enetic sta es than Centropomus, due in part to La odon's use of multiple feedin modes .

show abstract