Rasheed Alistair L.

Canillo

Bio 85 Lec Assignment

1. What are the different feeding mechanisms and how is the skull design important
in these mechanisms?

- Suspension feeding
- is a prevalent method in aquatic organisms, involving the intake of
suspended particles like plankton. It's linked to benthic organisms and
herbivorous behaviors, with specialized jaw structures and feeding
appendages designed for efficient particle capture. The skull design is
crucial for the coordination of feeding and breathing, making
suspension feeding highly specialized for aquatic environments.

- Suction feeding
- commonly seen in aquatic amphibians and fish, utilizes a rapid vacuum
to intake water and capture prey. The buccal cavity's size and shape
are regulated by skeletal muscles, and excess water is eliminated
through gill slits. This technique efficiently aspirates food into the mouth
through pressure reduction, making it a notable method in aquatic
environments.

- Filter/Swallowing
- feeding involves ingesting prey for digestion. Suspension feeders use
synchronized ciliary action to propel food-laden mucus cords into the
esophagus. Suction feeders rapidly expand the buccal cavity, moving
captured prey backward. Terrestrial vertebrates, like snakes, manipulate
prey with their tongues, showcasing flexibility in jaw movement.
 - Lingual feeding
- observed in many lizards and amphibians during terrestrial feeding,
employs a rapid, protruding, and adhesive tongue for prey capture. This
method contrasts with prehension, where jaws swiftly seize prey. Jaw
involvement in prey capture varies, with birds using talons and
mammals using claws, showcasing the diverse strategies employed by
predators.

2. Discuss the pros and cons of the different feeding mechanisms in vertebrates as
discussed in chapter seven in Kardong.

Suspension Feeding:

Pros:
- Efficient Particle Capture: Suspension feeders can efficiently capture a
large quantity of small particles, such as plankton, from the surrounding
water.
- Adaptation to Aquatic Environments: Well-suited for aquatic
environments where suspended particles are abundant, allowing
organisms to exploit available resources effectively.
- Specialized Structures: Suspension feeders often have specialized jaw
and mouth structures tailored for filtering particles, enhancing their
feeding efficiency.

Cons:
- Dependence on Water Currents: The effectiveness of suspension
feeding is highly dependent on water currents, limiting its applicability
in environments with low water flow.
- Limited to Aquatic Organisms: Primarily observed in aquatic organisms,
restricting its use to species living in water.

Suction Feeding:
 Pros:
- Efficient Prey Capture: Suction feeding allows for rapid and efficient
capture of prey by creating a vacuum, making it a successful strategy
for many aquatic amphibians and fish.
- Versatility: Can be employed by various species, both aquatic and
terrestrial, making it a versatile feeding mechanism.

Cons:
- Limited to Certain Environments: Primarily observed in aquatic
environments, limiting its use in terrestrial ecosystems.
- Energy Intensive: Creating a suction force can be energetically costly,
potentially impacting the overall energy balance of the organism.

Filter/Swallowing Feeding:

Pros:
- Effective Prey Ingestion: Allows for effective ingestion of captured prey,
with different mechanisms suited to various environments.
- Diverse Strategies: Suspension feeders and suction feeders both benefit
from effective prey ingestion methods, showcasing adaptability in
feeding strategies.

Cons:
- Dependency on Specialized Structures: The effectiveness of
filter/swallowing feeding is often dependent on specialized structures,
which may limit the range of prey types that can be captured and
ingested.

Lingual Feeding:
 Pros:
- Rapid Prey Capture: Lingual feeding allows for rapid and precise prey
capture using a protruding and adhesive tongue.
- Adaptation to Terrestrial Environments: Suited for terrestrial
environments, providing an advantage for lizards and amphibians
during terrestrial feeding.

Cons:
- Limited to Certain Species: Primarily observed in lizards and
amphibians, limiting its use to specific groups of organisms.
- Dependence on Tongue Mobility: The effectiveness of lingual feeding
relies on the mobility and functionality of the tongue, which may be
limited in some species.

3. Which skull design is suitable for aquatic habitat and terrestrial habitat? Explain
your answer.

1. Suspension Feeding:

Suitability:

Aquatic Habitat: Well-suited for aquatic habitats where there is a continuous flow of
water carrying suspended particles. The specialized skull design, with features like
modified jaws and mouth structures, enhances the efficiency of capturing and
filtering particles from the water.

2. Suction Feeding:
Suitability:

Aquatic Habitat: Commonly observed in aquatic habitats, especially among fish and
aquatic amphibians. The rapid vacuum created by suction feeding is effective for
capturing prey in water.

3. Filter/Swallowing Feeding:

Suitability:

Aquatic Habitat: Effective in aquatic environments, especially for suspension feeders.

The synchronized ciliary action and other structures aid in the ingestion of food
particles from the water.

Terrestrial Habitat: Suitable for various habitats, including terrestrial, as the

mechanisms for ingesting prey can be adapted to different environments.

4. Lingual Feeding:

Suitability:

Terrestrial Habitat: Particularly suited for terrestrial environments. Many lizards and
amphibians employ lingual feeding on land, using their rapid, protruding tongues to
capture prey efficiently.

Aquatic Habitat: While less common, lingual feeding could also be adapted to
certain aquatic environments, especially those with specific prey-capture
challenges.