Teeth penetration force of the tiger shark <i>Galeocerdo cuvier</i> and sandbar shark <i>Carcharhinus plumbeus</i>

Bergman, Jordanna N.; Lajeunesse, Marc J.; Motta, Philip

doi:10.1111/jfb.13351

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prey handling efficiency may increase if a tooth's shape is suited to a particular function compared to one that is not (Anderson & LaBarbera, ; Emerson, Greene, & Charnov, ; Huber et al, ). This may be of particular importance for young conspecifics, whose prey selection can be constrained by gape, bite force, and the ability of their teeth to puncture and process prey items (Bergman, Lajeunesse, & Motta, ; Habegger, Motta, Huber, & Dean, ; Mara et al, ; Whitenack & Motta, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cullen

Marshall

2019

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tooth morphology is often used to inform the feeding ecology of an organism as these structures are important to procure and process dietary resources. In sharks, differences in morphology may facilitate the capture and handling of prey with different physical properties. However, few studies have investigated differences in tooth morphology over ontogeny, throughout the jaws of a single species, or among species at multiple tooth positions. Bull (Carcharhinus leucas), blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus), and bonnethead sharks (Sphyrna tiburo) are coastal predators that exhibit ontogenetic dietary shifts, but differ in their feeding ecologies. This study measured tooth morphology at six positions along the upper and lower jaws of each species using elliptic Fourier analysis to make comparisons within and among species over their ontogeny. Significant ontogenetic differences were detected at four of the six tooth positions in bull sharks, but only the posterior position on the lower jaw appeared to exhibit a functionally relevant shift in morphology.No ontogenetic changes in morphology were detected in blacktip or bonnethead sharks. Intraspecific comparisons found that most tooth positions significantly differed from one another across all species, but heterodonty was greatest in bull sharks. Additionally, interspecific comparisons found differences among all species at each tooth position except between bull and blacktip sharks at two positions. These morphological patterns within and among species may have implications for prey handling efficiency, as well as in providing insight for paleoichthyology studies and reevaluating heterodonty in sharks. K E Y W O R D S dentition, ecology, elasmobranchs, feeding, morphology

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cullen

Marshall

2019

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…grasping, cutting, or crushing the prey [ 2 , 3 , 9 , 10 ]. Recent works on biomechanics indicate that this link might exist, but evidence for it is cloudy at best to date [ 11 – 14 ]. Shark tooth morphology has been extensively investigated and is known to bear strong taxonomic and systematic signals, with descriptions of fossil shark species mostly based on isolated teeth [ 15 – 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tooth mineralization and histology patterns in extinct and extant snaggletooth sharks, Hemipristis (Carcharhiniformes, Hemigaleidae)—Evolutionary significance or ecological adaptation?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shark jaws exhibit teeth that are arranged into distinct series and files and display great diversities in shapes and structures, which not only is related to their function (grasping, cutting, crushing) during feeding, but also bear a strong phylogenetic signal. So far, most research on the relationship between shark teeth and feeding ecology and systematics focused on the external tooth morphology only. Although the tooth histology of sharks has been examined since the early 19th century, its functional and systematic implications are still ambiguous. Shark teeth normally consist of either a porous, cellular dentine, osteodentine (in lamniform sharks and some batoids) or a dense layer of orthodentine (known from different sharks). Sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes, comprising ca. 60% of all extant shark species, are known to have orthodont teeth, with a single exception—the snaggletooth shark, Hemipristis elongata. High resolution micro-CT images of jaws and teeth from selected carcharhiniform sharks (including extant and fossil snaggletooth sharks) and tooth sections of teeth of Hemipristis, other carcharhiniform and lamniform sharks, have revealed that (1) Hemipristis is indeed the only carcharhiniform shark filling its pulp cavity with osteodentine in addition to orthodentine, (2) the tooth histology of Hemipristis elongata differs from the osteodont histotype, which evolved in lamniform sharks and conversely represents a modified orthodonty, and (3) this modified orthodonty was already present in extinct Hemipristis species but the mineralization sequence has changed over time. Our results clearly show the presence of a third tooth histotype—the pseudoosteodont histotype, which is present in Hemipristis. The unique tooth histology of lamniform sharks might provide a phylogenetic signal for this group, but more research is necessary to understand the phylogenetic importance of tooth histology in sharks in general.

show abstract

“…The thickened scales of T. obesus are present mostly posterior to the gill opening around the pectoral fin, and make up the corselet (Figure ) while other parts of the body have smaller, thinner scales of lamellar bone (Table , Figure ; Collette & Nauen, ; Kishinouye, ). The thickened scales of bigeye tuna are 0.7–1.2 mm thick, which is thicker than both typical teleost scales (0.06–0.2 mm thick [Bergman et al ; Wainwright & Lauder, ]) and scales on the posterior part of the body of bigeye tuna (0.09–0.27 mm thick, Table ). Some parts on the head of bigeye tuna are scale‐less (such as the dorsal side of the head) but the body of the tuna (posterior to the opercle) is covered in scales.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Although specific functions have not been conclusively proven, scales likely provide protection against predators and parasites (Browning, Ortiz, & Boyce, ; Vernerey & Barthelat, ), and serve as calcium stores (Parenti, ). Experimental studies on fish scale function have mostly focused on possible armor‐like functions and the ability of scales to resist puncture while organized into a flexible protective surface (Bergman, Lajeunesse, & Motta, ; Browning et al, ; Duro‐Royo et al, ; Ghosh, Ebrahimi, & Vaziri, ; Song, Ortiz, & Boyce, ; Vernerey & Barthelat, ). However, it has also been hypothesized that scales influence the hydrodynamics of swimming fish surfaces (boundary layer flow in particular) by either directly interacting with the water, or by maintaining an epidermis and mucus layer that interacts with flow next to the fish (Burdak, ; Daniel, ; Wainwright & Lauder, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scale diversity in bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus): Fat‐filled trabecular scales made of cellular bone

Wainwright

Ingersoll

Lauder

2018

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tunas of the genus Thunnus possess many morphological and physiological adaptations for their high-performance epipelagic ecology. Although Thunnus anatomy has been studied, there are no quantitative studies on the structure of their scales. We investigated the scales of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) from ten regions of the body using micro computed tomography (µCT)-scanning and histology to quantitatively and qualitatively compare regional scale morphology. We found a diversity of scale sizes and shapes across the body of bigeye tuna and discriminant function analysis on variables derived from µCT-data showed that scales across the body differ quantitatively in shape and size. We also report the discovery of a novel scale type in corselet, tail, and cheek regions. These modified scales are ossified shells supported by internal trabeculae, filled with fat, and possessing an internal blood supply. Histological analysis showed that the outer lamellar layers of these thickened scales are composed of cellular bone, unexpected for a perciform fish in which bone is typically acellular. In the fairing region of the anterior body, these fat-filled scales are stacked in layers up to five scales deep, forming a thickened bony casing. Cheek scales also possess a fat-filled internal trabecular structure, while most posterior body scales are more plate-like and similar to typical teleost scales. While the function of these novel fat-filled scales is unknown, we explore several possible hypotheses for their function.

show abstract

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

Cited by 20 publications

References 40 publications

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

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

Tooth mineralization and histology patterns in extinct and extant snaggletooth sharks, Hemipristis (Carcharhiniformes, Hemigaleidae)—Evolutionary significance or ecological adaptation?

Scale diversity in bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus): Fat‐filled trabecular scales made of cellular bone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About