Revisiting the behavioural framework of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals
2017; Royal Society; Volume: 284; Issue: 1863 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1098/rspb.2017.1035
ISSN1471-2954
AutoresSarah S. Kienle, Chris J. Law, Daniel P. Costa, Annalisa Berta, Rita S. Mehta,
Tópico(s)Ichthyology and Marine Biology
ResumoYou have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Kienle Sarah S., Law Chris J., Costa Daniel P., Berta Annalisa and Mehta Rita S. 2017Revisiting the behavioural framework of feeding in predatory aquatic mammalsProc. R. Soc. B.2842017103520171035http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1035SectionYou have accessCommentRevisiting the behavioural framework of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals Sarah S. Kienle Sarah S. Kienle http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8565-2870 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Chris J. Law Chris J. Law Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Daniel P. Costa Daniel P. Costa Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Annalisa Berta Annalisa Berta Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Rita S. Mehta Rita S. Mehta Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Sarah S. Kienle Sarah S. Kienle http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8565-2870 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Chris J. Law Chris J. Law Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Daniel P. Costa Daniel P. Costa Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Annalisa Berta Annalisa Berta Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed and Rita S. Mehta Rita S. Mehta Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:27 September 2017https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1035Hocking et al. [1] (hereafter HEA) present a framework for defining and evaluating feeding strategies in predatory aquatic mammals. While we appreciate the review, we address three difficulties with the framework: (i) the tetrapod feeding cycle needs minimal revision to accommodate aquatic mammals, (ii) the proposed feeding strategies need further clarification and (iii) evolution should not be described as a logical sequence. Our goal is to clarify and expand on HEA's feeding framework to ensure that predatory aquatic mammals can be examined in a comparative framework with other tetrapods.First, HEA argue that the four stages of the tetrapod feeding cycle—ingestion, intraoral transport, processing and swallowing [2]—do not adequately address the problems faced by air-breathing aquatic mammals. HEA, therefore, propose an alternative feeding cycle: (I) prey capture, (IIa) prey manipulation and transport and (IIb) prey processing, (III) water removal and (IV) swallowing. These changes constrain our ability to compare feeding behaviour across tetrapod lineages. The tetrapod feeding cycle is already sufficiently flexible to accommodate behaviourally diverse clades, so we propose using the existing tetrapod feeding cycle [2] with some revisions based on HEA (figure 1). Figure 1. Modified feeding cycle of aquatic tetrapods based on Schwenk [2] and Hocking et al. [1]. (Online version in colour.)Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointIn the tetrapod feeding cycle, ingestion encompasses all behaviours used to capture, subdue, kill and process prey before it enters the oral cavity [2]. Therefore, HEA's stages I, IIa and IIb are already included in ingestion and can distinguish between different behaviours prior to prey entering the mouth (figure 1). For example, sea otters (Enhydra lutris) dive to grab benthic prey (prey capture), move prey using their mouth/forepaws (prey manipulation) and use tools/teeth to open hard-shelled prey (external prey processing) [3]. Following the existing tetrapod feeding cycle, intraoral transport (movement of food inside the mouth towards the pharynx) occurs after ingestion and is followed by intraoral processing (mechanical breakdown of food inside the mouth) [2]. For most aquatic mammals, there is no intraoral processing [1,4,5]. However, there are exceptions, as a few species chew (some otariids) and others masticate (sea otters; electronic supplementary material, table S1) [1,6,7]. We agree with HEA's addition of a water removal stage, which is followed by swallowing (figure 1).Under our revised framework, five stages—ingestion, intraoral transport, processing, water removal and swallowing—constitute the aquatic tetrapod feeding cycle (figure 1). This revision retains all tetrapod feeding cycle stages [2], subsumes HEA's stages I–II under ingestion and incorporates HEA's water removal stage. These changes allow aquatic mammals to be examined in the same framework as other tetrapods, while providing the flexibility to accommodate these behaviourally diverse lineages. These stages are not static; animals may not go through every feeding stage or follow this order during each feeding event, and each stage can encompass a range of behaviours.Second, HEA describe five feeding strategies for predatory aquatic mammals: semi-aquatic, raptorial, suction, suction filter and ram filter feeding. The semi-aquatic strategy, defined as when some feeding behaviours are performed at the surface, does not follow the same convention as the other strategies because it is defined by an animal's position in the water column rather than the behaviour(s) used during the feeding cycle [1]. Under this definition, a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) lunge feeding would be classified as a filter feeder if underwater and as a semi-aquatic feeder if it surfaced during feeding. The classification of the same behaviour into two separate strategies leads us to conclude that semi-aquatic feeding is not valid and should not be used. The four other feeding strategies proposed by HEA are useful with some modifications. We have provided a revised glossary of terms (electronic supplementary material, table S1).Based on the tetrapod literature, we suggest three feeding strategies for predatory aquatic mammals—suction, biting and filter feeding—accompanied by subcategories (figure 2). Suction is a common feeding strategy in aquatic mammals, and we agree with HEA's review. Figure 2. Overview of feeding strategies and subcategories in marine mammals. (Online version in colour.)Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointWe suggest that biting replace HEA's raptorial strategy because, while the terms are often used interchangeably, 'raptorial' is inconsistently defined; for example, raptorial refers to predatory behaviour [8], biting [1,5] or rapidly moving appendages [9]. We propose the addition of three subcategories under biting (figure 2): (i) crushing—prey are fragmented by the teeth during ingestion or intraoral processing. This is exemplified by sea otters using molars to break down hard-shelled prey [4,5]; (ii) grip and tear feeding—animals hold prey with the jaws/forelimbs, shake prey and/or rip off smaller pieces during ingestion. This category encompasses multiple behaviours, including shake feeding and hold and tear feeding [4,7,10], and has been documented in some odontocetes [11], pinnipeds [7,12], polar bears (Ursus maritimus) [13] and sea otters [6]; (iii) pierce feeding—animals bite prey during ingestion, often swallowing prey whole with little manipulation or external prey processing [10]. In pierce feeding, suction can be used in combination with biting to pull prey inside the mouth [14]; this has been described in some pinnipeds and odontocetes [5,15,16].In filter feeding a specialized structure is used to trap prey in the mouth during water removal [5,17]. HEA define two separate strategies: suction filter feeding and ram filter feeding. We suggest nesting these terms under filter feeding and that the word 'ram' (engulfing prey via 'rapid acceleration of the whole body' [18]) be avoided when naming a feeding strategy because ram applies to most feeding strategies and is inconsistently used [1,16,17]. Under our framework, filter feeding is first subdivided into two types: continuous and intermittent (figure 2) [5,17,19]. Continuous filter feeders swim slowly and constantly through dense prey patches with their mouths open and the prey passively enters the oral cavity. Ingestion and water removal occur simultaneously [17]. This behaviour is also called skim feeding or continuous ram filter feeding and best exemplified by balaenid whales [1,5,17]. By contrast, intermittent filter feeders actively engulf a single mouthful of water during ingestion and remove water via filtering structures during a distinct water removal phase [17]. Intermittent filter feeding can be further subdivided into lunge and suction filter feeding based on the ingestion method (figure 2). Lunge feeding (also called intermittent ram filter feeding, gulping and ram gulping) is best exemplified by rorqual whales that swim rapidly at a prey patch while opening their mouths to draw in prey [5,17]. In suction filter feeding, animals such as gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) [20] and some phocids [21,22] use suction to pull prey from the water or benthos into the mouth. These changes highlight the repeated evolution of a few feeding strategies in predatory aquatic mammals, while also emphasizing the diversity of behaviours within each strategy (figure 2).Third, evolution is not a progression of linear events [23]. HEA use the phrases 'logical sequence' and 'evolutionary continuum' to describe the evolution of feeding strategies in predatory aquatic mammals, as depicted in their figure 3. This incorrectly suggests that species have a tendency to become increasingly specialized or complex over time [23]. HEA state that filter feeding is the 'most highly specialized' aquatic feeding strategy, which falsely suggests that all aquatic mammals are predetermined to become filter feeders. This is not supported by the repeated evolution of biting and suction across these disparate aquatic mammal lineages (figure 3). Descriptions of individual feeding strategies as more or less aquatic should be avoided. All strategies used by aquatic mammals are aquatic and allow species to exploit different niches and prey densities (figure 3). Figure 3. Example framework for understanding the evolution of feeding strategies in cetaceans under a tree-like process rather than a continuum. Biting, suction and filter feeding are contemporary feeding strategies in extant cetaceans. (Online version in colour.)Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointOur recommendations are to (i) adopt our revised tetrapod feeding cycle (figure 1), (ii) incorporate our revisions to the glossary (electronic supplementary material, table S1), (iii) use our feeding strategies and subdivisions (figure 2) and (iv) model the evolution of feeding as a tree-like process (figure 3). HEA's review and the comments that they have inspired provide a comprehensive framework that should be adopted to refine our understanding of predatory aquatic mammal feeding. Such a framework facilitates the investigation of ecological mechanisms and evolutionary processes in aquatic tetrapods.Data AccessibilityAdditional data are available as the electronic supplementary material.Authors' contributionsAll authors outlined the manuscript; S.S.K. drafted it; C.J.L. designed the figures; all authors edited the manuscript and gave final approval for publication.Competing interestsWe have no competing interests.FundingFunding for this work was provided by a NOAA Dr Nancy Foster Scholarship and a Steve and Rebecca Sooy Graduate Fellowship in Marine Mammals to S. S. K. and a NSF GRFP to C. J. L.FootnotesThe accompanying reply can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1836.Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3882961.© 2017 The Author(s)Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.References1Hocking DP, Marx FG, Park T, Fitzgerald EMG, Evans AR. 2017A behavioural framework for the evolution of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20162750. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2750) Link, ISI, Google Scholar2Schwenk K. 2000Feeding: form, function and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar3Riedman ML, Estes JA. 1990The sea otter: behavior, ecology, and natural history. Biol. Rep. 90, 1–117. Google Scholar4Taylor MA. 1987How tetrapods feed in water: a functional analysis by paradigm. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 91, 171–195. (doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1987.tb01727.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar5Werth AJ. 2000Feeding in marine mammals. In Feeding: form, function and evolution in tetrapods (ed. Schwenk K), pp. 487–526. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Crossref, Google Scholar6Fisher EM. 1939Habits of the southern sea otter. J. Mammal. 20, 21–36. (doi:10.2307/1374489) Crossref, Google Scholar7Hocking DP, Ladds M, Slip D, Fitzgerald EMG, Evans AR. 2017Chew, shake, and tear: prey processing in Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 33, 541–557. (doi:10.1111/mms.12384) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar8Caldwell GS. 1986Predation as a selective force on foraging herons: effects of plumage color and flocking. Auk 103, 494–505. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar9Caldwell RL, Dingle H. 1975Ecology and evolution of agonistic in stomatopods. Naturwissenschaften 62, 214–222. (doi:10.1007/BF00603166) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar10Adam PJ, Berta A. 2002Evolution of prey capture strategies and diet in Pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia, Carnivora). Oryctos 4, 83–107. Google Scholar11Sprogis KR, Raudino HC, Hocking D, Bejder L. 2017Complex prey handling of octopus by bottlenose dolphins. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 33, 934–945. (doi:10.1111/mms.12405) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar12King JE. 1983Seals of the world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar13Stirling I. 1990Polar bears. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Crossref, Google Scholar14Kienle SS, Berta A. 2016The better to eat you with: the comparative feeding morphology of phocid seals (Pinnipedia, Phocidae). J. Anat. 228, 396–413. (doi:10.1111/joa.12410) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar15Marshall CD, Wieskotten S, Hanke W, Hanke FD, Marsh A, Kot B, Dehnhardt G. 2014Feeding kinematics, suction, and hydraulic jetting performance of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). PLoS ONE 9, e86710. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086710) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar16Kane EA, Marshall CD. 2009Comparative feeding kinematics and performance of odontocetes: belugas, Pacific white-sided dolphins and long-finned pilot whales. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 3939–3950. (doi:10.1242/jeb.034686) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar17Goldbogen JA, Cade DE, Calambokidis J, Friedlaender AS, Potvin J, Segre PS, Werth AJ. 2017How baleen whales feed: the biomechanics of engulfment and filtration. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 367–386. (doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-122414-033905) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar18Norton SF, Brainerd EL. 1993Convergence in the feeding mechanics of ecomorphologically similar species in the Centrarchidae and Cichlidae. J. Exp. Biol. 176, 11–29. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar19Sanderson SL, Wassersug R. 1993Convergent and alternative designs for vertebrate suspension feeding. In The skull, vol. 3 (eds Hanken J, Hall BK), pp. 37–112. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar20Nerini M. 1984A review of gray whale feeding ecology. In The gray whale: Eschrichtius robustus (eds Jones ML, Swartz SL, Leatherwood S), pp. 451–463. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar21Hocking DP, Evans AR, Fitzgerald EMG. 2012Leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) use suction and filter feeding when hunting small prey underwater. Polar Biol. 36, 211–222. (doi:10.1007/s00300-012-1253-9) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar22Ross GJB, Ryan F, Saayman GS, Skinner J. 1976Observations on two captive crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophagus) at the Port Elizabeth Oceanarium. Int. Zoo Yearb. 16, 160–164. (doi:10.1111/j.1748-1090.1976.tb00165.x) Crossref, Google Scholar23Gould SJ. 2002The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar Previous ArticleNext Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited by Hocking D, Park T, Rule J and Marx F (2021) Prey Capture and Processing in Fur Seals, Sea Lions and the Walrus Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Otariids and the Odobenid, 10.1007/978-3-030-59184-7_5, (101-121), . Drago M, Signaroli M, Valdivia M, González E, Borrell A, Aguilar A and Cardona L (2021) The isotopic niche of Atlantic, biting marine mammals and its relationship to skull morphology and body size, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-021-94610-w, 11:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Boessenecker R and Churchill M (2021) The surprising evolutionary heritage of the Atlantic walrus as chronicled by the fossil record The Atlantic Walrus, 10.1016/B978-0-12-817430-2.00006-6, (9-37), . Davis R (2019) Feeding and Digestion Marine Mammals, 10.1007/978-3-319-98280-9_8, (219-266), . Muizon C, Bianucci G, Martínez-Cáceres M and Lambert O Mystacodon selenensis, the earliest known toothed mysticete (Cetacea, Mammalia) from the late Eocene of Peru: anatomy, phylogeny, and feeding adaptations, Geodiversitas, 10.5252/geodiversitas2019v41a11, 41:1, (401) Williams S (2019) Feeding in Mammals: Comparative, Experimental, and Evolutionary Insights on Form and Function Feeding in Vertebrates, 10.1007/978-3-030-13739-7_18, (695-742), . Churchill M, Miguel J, Beatty B, Goswami A and Geisler J (2018) Asymmetry drives modularity of the skull in the common dolphin ( Delphinus delphis ) , Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 10.1093/biolinnean/bly190, 126:2, (225-239), Online publication date: 18-Jan-2019. Law C and Mehta R (2018) Carnivory maintains cranial dimorphism between males and females: Evidence for niche divergence in extant Musteloidea, Evolution, 10.1111/evo.13514, 72:9, (1950-1961), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2018. Goldbogen J and Madsen P (2018) The evolution of foraging capacity and gigantism in cetaceans, Journal of Experimental Biology, 10.1242/jeb.166033, 221:11, Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018. Hocking D, Marx F, Park T, Fitzgerald E and Evans A (2017) Reply to comment by Kienle et al. 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284:1863, Online publication date: 27-Sep-2017. Laird M (2021) Ingestion in Mammals eLS, 10.1002/9780470015902.a0029285, (1-9) Kienle S, Hermann-Sorensen H, Costa D, Reichmuth C and Mehta R (2018) Comparative feeding strategies and kinematics in phocid seals: suction without specialized skull morphology, Journal of Experimental Biology, 10.1242/jeb.179424 Kienle S, Cacanindin A, Kendall T, Richter B, Ribeiro-French C, Castle L, Lentes G, Costa D and Mehta R (2019) Hawaiian monk seals exhibit behavioral flexibility when targeting prey of different size and shape, Journal of Experimental Biology, 10.1242/jeb.194985 Law C (2021) Ecological Drivers of Carnivoran Body Shape Evolution, The American Naturalist, 10.1086/715588, (000-000) This Issue27 September 2017Volume 284Issue 1863 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1035PubMed:28954906Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1471-2954History: Manuscript received19/05/2017Manuscript accepted27/07/2017Published online27/09/2017Published in print27/09/2017 License:© 2017 The Author(s)Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Citations and impact Subjectsbehaviourecologyevolution Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad
Referência(s)