Prey Capture in the Largemouth Bass

Nyberg, Dennis

doi:10.2307/2423693

Cited by 157 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is well known that proper timing of the strike is essential to a successful outcome. A fish will not capture prey if the strike occurs too early, when the prey is not in range, and strikes will be unsuccessful when the mouth of the predator is too close to the prey item prior to mouth opening (Nyberg, 1971;Webb and Skadsen, 1980;Coughlin, 1991). Our observations indicate that bluegill have a superior ability to position the suction flow field on the prey item.…”

Section: Accuracy During Feedingmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Bass are piscivorous ram-suction feeders that eat primarily evasive prey including fish, crayfish and penaeid shrimp (Nyberg, 1971;Huskey and Turingan, 2001). Thus, the larger ingested volume may be an adaptation to feeding on evasive prey.…”

Section: Ingested Volumementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accuracy of a predator is typically quantified as the number of successful attempts relative to the number of failed attempts (e.g. Nyberg, 1971;Drost, 1987;McLaughlin et al, 2000). This approach is designed to compare the ability of different species to feed on a particular prey type.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multidimensional analysis of suction feeding performance in fishes: fluid speed, acceleration, strike accuracy and the ingested volume of water

Higham

Day

Wainwright

2006

Journal of Experimental Biology

140

264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Suction feeding fish draw prey into the mouth using a flow field that they generate external to the head. In this paper we present a multidimensional perspective on suction feeding performance that we illustrate in a comparative analysis of suction feeding ability in two members of Centrarchidae, the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill sunfish(Lepomis macrochirus). We present the first direct measurements of maximum fluid speed capacity, and we use this to calculate local fluid acceleration and volumetric flow rate. We also calculated the ingested volume and a novel metric of strike accuracy. In addition, we quantified for each species the effects of gape magnitude, time to peak gape, and swimming speed on features of the ingested volume of water. Digital particle image velocimetry (DPIV) and high-speed video were used to measure the flow in front of the mouths of three fish from each species in conjunction with a vertical laser sheet positioned on the mid-sagittal plane of the fish. From this we quantified the maximum fluid speed (in the earthbound and fish's frame of reference), acceleration and ingested volume. Our method for determining strike accuracy involved quantifying the location of the prey relative to the center of the parcel of ingested water. Bluegill sunfish generated higher fluid speeds in the earthbound frame of reference, accelerated the fluid faster, and were more accurate than largemouth bass. However, largemouth bass ingested a larger volume of water and generated a higher volumetric flow rate than bluegill sunfish. In addition, because largemouth bass swam faster during prey capture, they generated higher fluid speeds in the fish's frame of reference. Thus, while bluegill can exert higher drag forces on stationary prey items, largemouth bass more quickly close the distance between themselves and prey. The ingested volume and volumetric flow rate significantly increased as gape increased for both species, while time to peak gape had little effect on the volume. However, peak gape distance did not affect the maximum fluid speed entering the mouth for either species. We suggest that species that generate high fluid speeds in the earthbound frame of reference will commonly exhibit small mouths and a high capacity to deliver force to buccal expansion,while species that ingest a large volume of water and generate high volumetric flow rates will have larger buccal cavities and cranial expansion linkage systems that favor displacement over force delivery.

show abstract

Section: Accuracy During Feedingmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Ingested Volumementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multidimensional analysis of suction feeding performance in fishes: fluid speed, acceleration, strike accuracy and the ingested volume of water

Higham

Day

Wainwright

2006

Journal of Experimental Biology

140

264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Predators differ in their foraging behaviors; largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, distinguish among prey types and adjust their attack behaviors accordingly (Nyberg 1971), whereas northern pike, Esox lucius, usually stalk and attack only nearby prey (Hobson 1979). Both species commonly live in or near vegetation in the littoral zone (Diana et al 1977, Fish & Savitz 1983, Chapman & Mackay 1984.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisBehavior of largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, and northern pike, Esox lucius, foraging on fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, or bluegills, Lepomis macrochirus, was quantified in pools with 50% cover (half the pool had artificial stems at a density of 1000 stems n -2 ). Both predators spent most of their time in the vegetation. Largemouth bass searched for bluegills and ambushed minnows, whereas the relatively immobile northern pike ambushed all prey. Minnows were closer to predators and were captured more frequently than bluegills. Even when minnows dispersed, they moved continually and eventually wandered within striking distance of a predator. Bluegills dispersed in the cover with predators. Bass captured the few bluegills that strayed into the open and pike captured those that approached too closely in the cover. The ability of predators to capture prey while residing in habitats containing patches of dense cover may explain their residence in areas often considered to be poor ones for foraging.

show abstract

“…The largemouth bass swam into the observational arena through the sliding door, detected the goby, which stayed at the center of the arena at the bottom, and then repeated stop and go with orientation and positioning behavior, as if the fish were judging the accurate location of the goby (see Nyberg, 1971). After some reduction in the distance between predator and prey, the bass made a slow and circular approach to the goby (Fig.2A).…”

Section: Behavioral Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateralized behavior in the attacks of largemouth bass on Rhinogobius gobies corresponding to their morphological antisymmetry

Yasugi

Hori

2012

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYVertebrates show left-right biases in turning direction, limb usage, predator-escape response and use of sensory organs. In particular, some fishes are known to have lateral biases in predatory behaviors corresponding to their morphological antisymmetry. To reveal the effects of these laterally biased behaviors on predator-prey interaction, we conducted behavioral tests of predatory events between largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, and freshwater gobies, Rhinogobius sp., both of which have individuals with a well-developed left side and individuals with a well-developed right side. The left-developed bass tended to approach the goby clockwise from behind, whereas right-developed individuals tended to approach counterclockwise. Congruently, left-developed gobies began their escape maneuvers at a longer distance from bass when they were approached clockwise than when they were approached counterclockwise, whereas right-developed gobies showed the reverse tendency. The longer the distance between bass and gobies at the start of goby escape, the more the subsequent bass strike or dash was delayed. Under these conditions, predation should be more successful when a left (right)-developed bass meets a right (left)-developed goby, and less successful when a left (right)-developed bass meets a left (right)-developed goby. This prediction was consistent with the difference in predation success in our test and in field data from Lake Biwa, Japan. We conclude that lateral biases in the behavioral direction of each morphological type will generate bias in predation success between different combinations of predator and prey types, leading to the maintenance of antisymmetric dimorphism through negative frequencydependent natural selection. Supplementary material available online at

show abstract

Prey Capture in the Largemouth Bass

Cited by 157 publications

References 13 publications

Multidimensional analysis of suction feeding performance in fishes: fluid speed, acceleration, strike accuracy and the ingested volume of water

Multidimensional analysis of suction feeding performance in fishes: fluid speed, acceleration, strike accuracy and the ingested volume of water

Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation

Lateralized behavior in the attacks of largemouth bass on Rhinogobius gobies corresponding to their morphological antisymmetry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About