Bite Force in Two Top Predators, the Great Barracuda, <Em>
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 4-3-2009 Bite Force in Two Top Predators, the Great Barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda and Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas, During Ontogeny María Laura Habegger University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons Scholar Commons Citation Habegger, María Laura, "Bite Force in Two Top Predators, the Great Barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda and Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas, During Ontogeny" (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1996 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bite Force in Two Top Predators, the Great Barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda and Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas, During Ontogeny. by María Laura Habegger A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Biology College of Arts and Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Philip J. Motta, Ph.D. Steven Deban, Ph.D. Daniel Huber, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 3, 2009 Keywords: biomechanics, performance, functional morphology, scaling, ecomorphology © Copyright 2009, María Laura Habegger Dedication To my parents, for their unconditional support and love, for being by my side even from thousands miles away… Acknowledgments I’m sure I will be able to fill this entire space expressing my gratitude to all the people that helped me through these years, but there is one person that made this dream come true and I will never forget his generosity. I want to express my most sincere gratitude to this person, Dr. Philip Motta for giving me the opportunity of my life, for believing in my work. Thank you for having the ability to make each day an amazing learning experience, for having the unique quality of being an excellent professional and an amazing human being. I really don’t think I could have gone this far without Dr. Motta’s continuous support. I also would like to thank my committee, Dr. Deban and Dr. Huber who deserve a whole page of acknowledgments. I really don’t think that somebody can ask for more of a committee, I have been honored to have the opportunity of being surrounded by such knowledgeable people. Thank you for your support and continuous feedback. To all the people that contributed with specimens: Capt Dave Zalewsky, Jack Morris, Dr. Gelsleichter, Armando Ubeda. Special thanks to Dr. Heupel not only for the specimens provided but also for being one of the first people to believe in me. To the lab for their constant help and support. To Kyle for being a life saver many times. To Lisa for being always there willing to make my life easier and off course for showing me Staples and so many other places that did not improve my economy. To Sam for being my “American soul mate” in so many ways. To Angela for her daily hugs and sweet words. To Janne for sharing many talks, laughs and hugs. To my very good friend Pilar for giving me the Spanish breaks that sometimes I need so badly when my English was tired, for finding always a few minutes to share with me. To Cruz and Julia for being my best friends for almost ten years, for making distances shorter and showing me there are not boundaries for true friendship. To my sister Ianina for always being there. To Jose for sharing this whole experience since the beginning. To my best friend Tomy for 15 years of unconditional company and love where words where unnecessary. To Martin, I really can’t find enough words to express you my gratitude. Thank you for your infinite generosity, for living everything to share your live with me, and for becoming every day a little bit more a biologist. For putting my research and passion, so many times, on the first place. Your love is an amazing gift and every day I’m grateful to be sharing my life with you. Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract vi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Functional Morphology 1 Bite Force 2 Ontogeny 6 Feeding Performance in Top Predators 7 Chapter 2: Feeding Biomechanics in the Great Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) During Ontogeny 10 Introduction 10 Materials and Methods 13 Electromyography 14 Results 16 Anatomy 16 Prey Capture and Muscle Activity 17 Theoretical Calculations of Bite Force 18 Discussion 19 Conclusions 25 Chapter 3: Feeding Biomechanics of the Bull Sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) During Ontogeny 40 Introduction 40 Materials and Methods 43 Results 46 Discussion 47 Conclusions 52 Chapter 4: General Discussion 64 References 70 i Appendices 89 Appendix 1: Values of bite force of five tooth positions in S. barracuda 90 Appendix 2: Lever distances in S. Barracuda 91 Appendix 3: In-lever distances (cm) for each subdivision of the adductor mandibulae 95 Appendix 4: Values of bite force of five tooth positions in C. leucas 93 Appendix 5: Lever distances in C. leucas 94 Appendix 6: In-lever distances (cm) for each subdivision of the adductor mandibulae 95 ii List of Tables Table 1. Absolute values of bite force in 27 individuals of S. barracuda 30 Table 2. Scaling patterns of bite force in S. barracuda 36 Table 3. Values of anterior bite forces (ABF), mass removed bite force for 20 species of fishes obtained from the literature 37 Table 4. Absolute values of bite force in 16 individuals of C. leucas. 54 Table 5. Scaling patterns of bite force in C. leucas 61 Table 6. Values of anterior bite forces (ABF) for nine chondrichthyan species and one bony fish gathered from the literature 62 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Drawing of Sphyraena barracuda 26 Figure 2a. Left lateral view of the adductive muscles of S. barracuda. 27 Figure 2b. Left lateral view of the adductive muscles of S. barracuda 28 Figure 3. Composite diagram for the muscular activity of S. barracuda 29 Figure 4. Bite force (N) vs. total length (cm) in S. barracuda 31 Figure 5. Log transformed values of cross sectional area (cm2) of the adductor mandibulae muscle divisions of for S. barracuda linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm). 32 Figure 6. Log transformed values of mechanical advantage for S. barracuda linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm) 33 Figure 7. Log transformed values of weighted in lever (cm) for S. barracuda linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm) 34 Figure 8. Log transformed values of out-lever distances (cm) for S. barracuda linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm) 35 Figure 9. Residual values of anterior bite force plotted against body mass for 20 species of fishes. 38 Figure 10. Premaxillary rotation in S. barracuda 39 Figure 11. Illustration of Carcharhinus leucas 53 Figure 12. Bite force (N) vs. total length (cm) in C. leucas 55 Figure 13. Log transformed values of cross sectional area (cm2) of the adductor mandibulae muscle divisions of C. leucas linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm) 56 iv Figure 14. Log transformed values of cross sectional area (cm2) of the adductor mandibulae muscle divisions of for C. leucas linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm). 57 Figure 15. Log transformed values of mechanical advantage of for C. leucas linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm). 58 Figure 16. Log transformed values of weighted in-lever (cm) of for C. leucas linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm) 59 Figure 17. Log transformed values of out-lever distances (cm) for C. leucas linearly regressed against log transformed values of total length (cm). 60 Figure 18. Residual values of anterior bite force plotted against body mass for 10 fish species. 63 v Bite Force in Two Top Predators, the Great Barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda and Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas, During Ontogeny Maria Laura Habegger ABSTRACT Functional morphologists have extensively used measurements of performance to investigate the relationship among form, function and ecology through ontogeny. Among different measurements of performance bite force play a crucial role influencing fitness. Although, bite force has been thoroughly investigated among vertebrates, the majority of the studies on fishes have been concentrated only in small species. Consequently, this is the first study that compares the bite force performance in two large marine predators, the great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) and bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas). Values of posterior bite force in S. barracuda varied from 3 - 258 N for an ontogenetic series of 27 individuals (23 – 130 cm, TL). Bite force as well as the majority of the biomechanical variables that contribute to it scaled with isometry in S. barracuda. Values of posterior bite force in C. leucas varied from 170 - 5,914 N for and ontogenetic series of 16 individuals (73 - 285 cm, TL). Bite force at the most anterior bite point scaled with positive allometry as well as the majority of the subdivisions of the adductive musculature that greatly contribute to bite force. Bite force performance in this two species showed strong differences, where S. barracuda has one of the lowest relative values of bite force among fishes and C. leucas has one of the largest ones. Additionally, the scaling patterns for bite force and most of the biomechanical variables investigated in vi this study differed among these two species. These results suggest that predatory success may be acquired by different strategies, and that the same ecological role in a marine ecosystem may be reached by having different bite force performance.