Article

Feeding mechanisms in two treefrogs, Hyla nana and Scinax nasicus (Anura: Hylidae).

Instituto de Herpetología, Fundación Miguel Lillo, San Miguel de Tucumán, 4000, Argentina.
Journal of Morphology (Impact Factor: 1.55). 09/2004; 261(2):206-24. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10239
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT After the description of the chondrocranium, hyobranchial apparatus, associated musculature, buccal apparatus, buccopharyngeal cavity, digestive tract, and gut contents, it was possible to define the feeding modes of Scinax nasicus and Hyla nana tadpoles (Gosner Stages 31-36). Scinax nasicus larvae are "typical" microphagous tadpoles, with keratodonts and robust rostrodonts appropriate for rasping surfaces and mincing of food particles; the buccopharyngeal cavity is equipped with filtering structures and has a conspicuous glandular zone and a highly developed branchial basket. In contrast, H. nana tadpoles have a modified buccal apparatus; the reduction of the buccopharyngeal and branchial basket structures, together with the high lever-arm ratio and the great development of the depressor muscles of the buccal floor are indicative of macrophagous feeding.

1 Follower
 · 
91 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Detailed structure of the oral morphology of various developmental stages in relation to feeding behaviour of Euphlytis cyanophlyctis (Dicroglossidae) was studied for the first time with the help of light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Development of mouthparts began soon after hatching and at stage 25. There is no ontogenetic variation in labial teeth rows of Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis. The labial teeth row formula (LTRF) i.e. 1/2 is constant throughout the larval stages until the metamorphs stage. It is hypothesized that as an individual grows larger, the morphological changes in its feeding apparatus, including the number of teeth and gape size, allow a wider selection of prey items. The present observation revealed that the tadpole of Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis cyanophlyctis is more of a bottom dweller, scraping algae and also feeding on macrophytes with the help of its ventrally situated heavy and keratinized beaks. During the early stages of feeding, they feed mostly on detritus and plant materials and during the later stages of feeding they consumed both phytoplankton and zooplankton. Tadpoles soon stop feeding at stage 42 and after metamorphosis the froglet start feeding on a carnivorous diet. The detritus packed along the length of larval intestines was an indicative of its habitat as a benthic detritus feeder. It was also found that the tadpoles are facultative suspensionfeeders (Orton’s type 4) and wide spectrum of food choices indicated that they are highly adapted to inhabit various types of habitat, stream, ponds, lake, loticconnected shallow standing pools and ponds.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Leptodactylus labyrinthicus tadpoles are known predators of anuran eggs and hatchlings, but they are also able to filter-feed in the water column and scrape food off of firm substrates. We evaluated and compared these alternative feeding behaviors in relation to feeding kinematics and the shape of the mouth with high-speed digital imaging. We tested the hypotheses that (1) L. labyrinthicus tadpoles use functionally different feeding kinematics when feeding on alternative food sources and (2) that the jaw sheaths of L. labyrinthicus tadpoles deform less during filter-feeding and substrate grazing compared with more common tadpoles not so specialized for macrophagous carnivory. Our results show that filtering and scraping feeding behaviors differ significantly in both kinematics and shape of the mouth. During filter-feeding, tadpoles display longer gape cycles and attain a narrower maximum gape earlier in the cycle compared with substrate grazing. Jaw deformation during opening and closing phases of the gape cycle is more pronounced during grazing on firm substrates. This deformation contributes to the achievement of a wider maximum gape during feeding. These differences appear to reflect behavioral adjustments by the tadpoles to maximize food intake. Feeding in tadpoles of L. labyrinthicus is not restrained by their typical carnivorous morphology. On the contrary, L. labyrinthicus tadpoles seem to be opportunistic feeders able to obtain nutrients from a variety of food sources by using different feeding strategies.
    Journal of Zoology 04/2014; 293(3). DOI:10.1111/jzo.12135 · 1.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tadpoles of Occidozyga species have been reported to be carnivorous, feeding on insects and other tadpoles. We present photographic evidence for the previously undocumented larval feeding behavior in O. baluensis. Furthermore, we present a detailed anatomical description of the skull, cranial musculature, and gross gut morphology based on three-dimensional reconstructions from serial sections and mu CT imagery. The cranial anatomy of larval O. baluensis is highly derived in many characters, with respect to taxa outside the genus Occidozyga, most notably the palatoquadrate and hyobranchial apparatus, that play a major role in tadpole feeding. A large larval stomach was present in the specimens examined, indicative of a macrophagous carnivorous mode of feeding. Because of the relatively small oral orifice, relatively large-sized food items found in the larval stomach, and the tunnel-like arrangement of structures that form the buccal cavity, we hypothesize that suction feeding utilizing strong negative pressure is employed by this species. Furthermore, we propose that force, rather than speed, is the main characteristic of their feeding. The unique features of the study species substantially expand the known morphospace for tadpoles, particularly among the Acosmanura (Pelobatoidea, Pelodytoidea, and Neobatrachia). Except for Microhylidae, acosmanurans previously described possess limited innovative larval morphologies. Larval carnivory has evolved convergently several times in distant anuran clades and shows structural, behavioral, and functional differences in the known examples.
    Zoomorphology 03/2014; 133(3). DOI:10.1007/s00435-014-0226-7 · 1.28 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
41 Downloads
Available from
May 17, 2014