Quantitative analysis of the effect of prey properties on feeding kinematics in two species of lizards

Metzger, Keith A.

doi:10.1242/jeb.034462

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SC duration has been shown to vary with food hardness in both lizards and mammals (Herrel et al, 1996;Hiiemae et al, 1995;Hiiemae et al, 1996;Metzger, 2009;Schaerlaeken et al, 2008;Thexton and Hiiemae, 1997;Yamada and Haraguchi, 1995;Yamada and Yamamura, 1996) but it is not known to what extent this variation in SC duration impacts variation in overall gape cycle duration. Our hypothesis, that the lower cycle duration variance in mammals is attributable to feed-forward, rate-modulation of bite force during SC, predicts that variance in SC duration significantly impacts variance in overall cycle duration in both mammals and lizards and that SC duration is less variable in mammals than in lizards.…”

Section: Slow-closementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, our data analysis revealed that lepidosaurs and primates do not differ in SC variance. SO is the most variable phase in mammals (Schwartz et al, 1989;Thexton et al, 1980;Yamada and Yamamura, 1996) and lizards (Delheusy and Bels, 1992;Herrel et al, 1996;Metzger, 2009) suggesting that SO duration variance might contribute significantly to total cycle duration variance in both groups. We compared variation in SO in lepidosaurs and mammals and estimated the relative importance of SO variance in driving cycle duration variance.…”

Section: Slow Openmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chewing variation in lepidosaurs and primates

Ross

Baden

Georgi

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Mammals chew more rhythmically than lepidosaurs. The research presented here evaluated possible reasons for this difference in relation to differences between lepidosaurs and mammals in sensorimotor systems. Variance in the absolute and relative durations of the phases of the gape cycle was calculated from kinematic data from four species of primates and eight species of lepidosaurs. The primates exhibit less variance in the duration of the gape cycle than in the durations of the four phases making up the gape cycle. This suggests that increases in the durations of some gape cycle phases are accompanied by decreases in others. Similar effects are much less pronounced in the lepidosaurs. In addition, the primates show isometric changes in gape cycle phase durations, i.e. the relative durations of the phases of the gape cycle change little with increasing cycle time. In contrast, in the lepidosaurs variance in total gape cycle duration is associated with increases in the proportion of the cycle made up by the slow open phase. We hypothesize that in mammals the central nervous system includes a representation of the optimal chew cycle duration maintained using afferent feedback about the ongoing state of the chew cycle. The differences between lepidosaurs and primates do not lie in the nature of the sensory information collected and its feedback to the feeding system, but rather the processing of that information by the CNS and its use feed-forward for modulating jaw movements and gape cycle phase durations during chewing.

show abstract

Section: Slow-closementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Slow Openmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chewing variation in lepidosaurs and primates

Ross

Baden

Georgi

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such variability in feeding movements has been documented extensively in squamate lizards during both the capture and intra-oral transport and processing of food (e.g. Bels and Baltus, 1988;Herrel et al, 1996;Herrel et al, 1999;Smith et al, 1999;Schaerlaeken et al, 2007;Schaerlaeken et al, 2008;Sherbrooke and Schwenk, 2008;Metzger, 2009;Montuelle et al, 2010;Schaerlaeken et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bels and Baltus, 1988;Herrel et al, 1996;Delheusy and Bels, 1999;Herrel et al, 1999;Schaerlaeken et al, 2007;Schaerlaeken et al, 2008;Metzger, 2009;Montuelle et al, 2009b;Montuelle et al, 2010;Schaerlaeken et al, 2011). Regarding prey size (here represented by prey length), we expected that the larger the prey, the higher the cranio-cervical system would have to rise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexibility in locomotor-feeding integration during prey capture in varanid lizards: effects of prey size and velocity

Montuelle

Herrel

Libourel

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYFeeding movements are adjusted in response to food properties, and this flexibility is essential for omnivorous predators as food properties vary routinely. In most lizards, prey capture is no longer considered to solely rely on the movements of the feeding structures (jaws, hyolingual apparatus) but instead is understood to require the integration of the feeding system with the locomotor system (i.e. coordination of movements). Here, we investigated flexibility in the coordination pattern between jaw, neck and forelimb movements in omnivorous varanid lizards feeding on four prey types varying in length and mobility: grasshoppers, live newborn mice, adult mice and dead adult mice. We tested for bivariate correlations between 3D locomotor and feeding kinematics, and compared the jaw-neck-forelimb coordination patterns across prey types. Our results reveal that locomotor-feeding integration is essential for the capture of evasive prey, and that different jaw-neck-forelimb coordination patterns are used to capture different prey types. Jaw-neck-forelimb coordination is indeed significantly altered by the length and speed of the prey, indicating that a similar coordination pattern can be finely tuned in response to prey stimuli. These results suggest feed-forward as well as feed-back modulation of the control of locomotor-feeding integration. As varanids are considered to be specialized in the capture of evasive prey (although they retain their ability to feed on a wide variety of prey items), flexibility in locomotor-feeding integration in response to prey mobility is proposed to be a key component in their dietary specialization.

show abstract

“…In lizards, true feeding specialists are rare. Indeed, most lizards feed on a wide variety of food items that often differ in their physical and behavioral characteristics (Greene, ; Schaerlaeken et al., , ; Metzger, ; Montuelle et al., ). If prey properties impose specific mechanical demands on the feeding system of the predator, then these will likely influence the efficiency of prey capture and transport (Meyers and Herrel, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Built to Bite: Feeding Kinematics, Bite Forces, and Head Shape of a SpecializedDurophagous Lizard,Dracaena Guianensis(Teiidae)

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most lizards feed on a variety of food items that may differ dramatically in their physical and behavioral characteristics. Several lizard families are known to feed upon hard-shelled prey (durophagy). Yet, specializations toward true molluscivory have been documented for only a few species. As snails are hard and brittle food items, it has been suggested that a specialized cranial morphology, high bite forces, and an adapted feeding strategy are important for such lizards. Here we compare head and skull morphology, bite forces, and feeding kinematics of a snail-crushing teiid lizard (Dracaena guianensis) with those in a closely related omnivorous species (Tupinambis merianae). Our data show that juvenile D. guianensis differ from T. merianae in having bigger heads and greater bite forces. Adults, however, do not differ in bite force. A comparison of feeding kinematics in adult Dracaena and Tupinambis revealed that Dracaena typically use more transport cycles, yet are more agile in manipulating snails. During transport, the tongue plays an important role in manipulating and expelling shell fragments before swallowing. Although Dracaena is slow, these animals are very effective in crushing and processing hard-shelled prey.

show abstract

Quantitative analysis of the effect of prey properties on feeding kinematics in two species of lizards

Cited by 10 publications

References 56 publications

Chewing variation in lepidosaurs and primates

Chewing variation in lepidosaurs and primates

Flexibility in locomotor-feeding integration during prey capture in varanid lizards: effects of prey size and velocity

Built to Bite: Feeding Kinematics, Bite Forces, and Head Shape of a SpecializedDurophagous Lizard,Dracaena Guianensis(Teiidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About