Prey capture kinematics of ant-eating lizards
1 Physiology and Functional Morphology Group, Department of Biological
Sciences Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5640, USA
2 Laboratory of Functional Morphology, Department of Biology, University of
Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium B-2610
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: jjm{at}dana.ucc.nau.edu)
Accepted 13 October 2004
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: lizard, iguania, prey capture, feeding, ant eating, myrmecophagy, Moloch, Phrynosoma, Pogona, Uma
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In many organisms, ecological specialization is reflected in morphological
and behavioral adaptations (e.g. Losos,
1990; Grant,
1999
). Although feeding specializations are obvious in many
vertebrate groups such as mammals (e.g. herbivores, anteaters, carnivores,
etc...), few dietary specialist groups appear to exist among lizards. While
reviewing lizard diets, Greene
(1982
) found it difficult to
describe a set of common features characterizing dietary specialists among
lizards, primarily because of the preponderance of morphological generalists
that appear to have specialized diets. Although Greene
(1982
) and later Schwenk
(2000
) suggested there were
likely few adaptive characters in the feeding system of lizards related to
ecological specialization, they agreed with Pianka and Parker
(1975
) that many of the unique
morphological features exhibited by the North American horned lizards
(Phrynosoma) and the Australian thorny devil Moloch horridus
Gray 1841 are likely adaptive traits, related to a specialized ant-eating
diet.
Because most lizards include a diversity of prey (in both size and type) in
their diet, relatively few items need to be eaten daily. However, due to the
relatively small size and low caloric value of ants
(Withers and Dickman, 1995),
large quantities have to be consumed daily (e.g. up to 2000 ants per day by
M. horridus). With the time constraints inherent in eating so many
prey, we might expect ant-eating lizards to show distinct specializations,
allowing them to minimize the duration of a feeding bout. Thus, myrmecophagous
lizards appear ideally suited for investigating functional specializations of
the feeding system in lizards.
Lizards of the genera Phrynosoma and Moloch have been
considered a classic example of convergent evolution, both genera sharing a
suite of morphological and behavioral characters considered to be
`adaptations' to their myrmecophagous diet
(Pianka and Parker, 1975;
Pianka, 1986
). Strikingly,
relatively few of these `adaptations' (e.g. spiny body, cryptic coloration,
reduced dentition, large stomach, dorso-ventrally flattened body) have been
examined quantitatively in an explicit comparative or experimental framework.
Only Montanucci's examination of Phrynosoma dentition
(Montanucci, 1989
) found any
relationship between morphology and diet. Besides Montanucci's study, and a
statement that Phrynosoma exhibit diet-based tongue modifications
(Schwenk, 2000
;
Schwenk and Sherbrooke, 2003
),
there have been few predictions of what morphological or behavioral
modifications of the feeding system might be exhibited by ant-eating
lizards.
In this study, we examine the kinematics of prey capture and some aspects
of ant-eating feeding behavior in four species of lizards. Two of the species,
Moloch horridus (Agamidae) and the desert horned lizard
Phrynosoma platyrhinos Girard 1852 (Phrynosomatidae) are considered
ant specialists. Whereas the diet of M. horridus is exclusively ants
(Withers and Dickman, 1995;
Pianka and Pianka, 1970
),
non-ant prey may at times dominate the diet of P. platyrhinos
(Pianka and Parker, 1975
; J.
J. Meyers and A. Herrel, personal observation). In addition, we include
kinematic data for two non-ant-specialized lizards to test specifically for
differences between each specialist and a closely related generalist species.
The Australian bearded dragon Pogona vitticeps Ahl T1926 (Agamidae)
and the fringe-toed lizard Uma notata Baird 1858 (Phrynosomatidae)
are typical dietary generalists, including ants only occasionally in their
diet (Greer, 1989
;
Cogger, 2000
;
Turner, 1998
). By comparing
the specialist species with these generalists, we will attempt to identify
functional novelties in the feeding system that have allowed these lizards to
successfully exploit ant prey as their dominant dietary resource.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Kinematic analyses
A total of 27 kinematic variables were computed from the x,y
coordinates obtained from seven anatomical landmarks digitized on each frame.
Landmarks were located at the eye, the tip of the upper jaw, the jaw vertex,
the tip of the lower jaw, the throat surface directly below the jaw vertex,
the tongue tip and a fixed point on the prey
(Fig. 1). Feeding sequences
were digitized using Didge Image Digitizing software (A. J. Cullum, 1999;
Parthenogenetic Products). Only sequences in which the lateral aspect of the
animal's head was approximately perpendicular to the camera were
digitized.
|
|
|
|
Maximal excursions and displacements were calculated directly from the
x,y coordinates of the digitized points: (1) maximum gape angle,
defined as the maximum angle between the upper jaw tip, vertex, and lower jaw
tip, (2) maximal gape distance, calculated as the maximal linear distance
between upper and lower jaw tips, (3) tongue reach, calculated as the maximal
distance from the lower jaw tip to the tongue tip, (4) prey distance,
calculated as the rectilinear distance from the upper jaw tip to the prey at
the onset of the lunge, and (5) number of processing movements, calculated as
the total number of gape cycles after prey capture. In addition, we calculated
maximum velocities and accelerations of the lower jaw during opening (1,2) and
closing (7,8) and of the tongue during protraction (3,4) and retraction (5,6).
Raw displacement profiles were smoothed using a low-pass filter employing a
zero phase shift, fourth-order Butterworth digital filter at 10 Hz
(Winter, 1990). Velocities and
accelerations were calculated from the filtered displacement data by taking
the first and second derivative.
Statistical analysis
To visualize species differences in feeding kinematics, we performed a
principal components analyses on the kinematic data set for all four species.
We excluded the timing variables (variables 1-8 in
Table 1) since they are mainly
used to derive relevant duration variables. The Broken Stick method
(Jackson, 1993) was used to
determine the number of factors explaining a significant amount of variation
in kinematic space. To determine how species differed in behavioral space, a
MANOVA and subsequent univariate F-tests coupled with simultaneous
Bonferonni post-hoc tests were performed on the factor scores using
all significant axes. All variables were logarithmically transformed
(log10) prior to analysis. Statistical analyses were performed
using SPSS-PC v10.0.5 (Maria J. Norusis/SPSS Inc.).
|
To address whether the feeding kinematics of ant-eating lizards has diverged from that of dietary generalists, we analyzed a subset of variables within an explicit phylogenetic framework. We assembled a data set for a select set of variables (Duration variables in Table 1), including the duration of mouth opening, duration of mouth closing, duration of prey capture and the duration of the entire feeding event. These variables were chosen because they loaded highly on the PC axes and most importantly, we could obtain similar values in the literature for other species. In addition to the species examined in this study, we were able to extract data for the following taxa using both literature data and personal, previously unpublished data: Anolis carolinensis, Anolis sagrei, Chamaeleo jacksonii, Crotaphytus collaris, Dipsosaurus dorsalis, M. horridus, Phrynosoma cornutum, P. platyrhinos, P. vitticeps, Pseudotrapelus sinaitus, Sceloporus undulatus, U. notata and Urosaurus ornatus (see Fig. 2). Since our goal is to compare ant-eaters to non-ant eaters, in the subsequent analyses we coded the ant-eaters (M. horridus, P. cornutum, P. platyrhinos) and non-anteaters (all others) differently. For many other species, we were able to find data for all variables except total feeding duration. While these species were not included in the phylogenetic analysis, we included them in Table 3 for comparative purposes.
|
|
Because species share a phylogenetic history, they cannot be considered
independent data points and thus species cannot be compared using standard
F-distributions. To address this concern we used the Phenotypic
Diversity Analysis Programs (PDAP; Garland
et al., 1992), which allows us to first construct a phylogenetic
tree with trait values at the tips, run simulations of character evolution
taking these phylogenetic relationships into account, perform ANOVAs on the
simulations to create an empirical null distribution of F-statistics
and, lastly, compute the 95th percentile of the null distribution
to compare with the results of traditional analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The method described first requires construction of a phylogenetic tree,
which was made in PDTREE and based on literature data depicting the
relationships of the species in our analysis
(Macey et al., 2000;
Schulte et al., 2003
; see
Fig. 2). Relationships among
iguanid clades were considered a hard polytomy (see
Schulte et al., 2003
). Because
divergence times between all groups/species in our analysis were not
available, we set all branch lengths to unity
(Diaz-Uriarte and Garland,
1998
). While errors in branch lengths usually do not have a
substantial effect on the analysis
(Martins and Garland, 1991
;
Diaz-Uriarte and Garland,
1998
), we confirmed that our branch lengths were adequately
standardized using the diagnostic tests in PDTREE
(Garland et al., 1992
).
Simulation analyses were performed using the PDSIMUL and PDANOVA programs
of Garland et al. (1993). The
tree, with trait values at the tips, was input into the PDSIMUL program where
we then selected the Brownian motion model of evolutionary change using the
default values (means and variances of the original data). Note that, when the
branch lengths are set to unity, this corresponds to a speciational model of
evolution, which assumes sudden `jumps' along the tree during speciation
events. We ran 1000 unbounded simulations of character evolution and then
performed ANOVAs on these simulations using PDANOVA. F-statistics
from the phylogenetic ANOVAs were used to create an empirical null
distribution from which we computed the 95th percentile and used
these phylogenetically corrected critical values (
=0.05) to determine
significance. A univariate ANOVA was then performed on the original data and
the Ftrad-values from this analysis were compared to the
critical Fphy-values obtained from the simulation
analyses. Values were considered statistically significant if the
non-phylogenetic Ftrad-value was greater than the critical
Fphyl-value of the empirical F-distribution.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
A typical feeding event in P. vitticeps is initiated when the animal sees, recognizes and orients itself toward a prey item. The mouth is then opened slowly and the tongue is protracted slowly (i.e. start of slow open phase, SO). The duration of the first part of this phase can be highly variable while the animal observes the prey and determines whether to capture it or not. During the SO phase, capture events are sometimes aborted. Once the animal decides to capture the prey, however, it lunges forward, rotating over the forelimbs and simultaneously protruding the tongue at increasing speeds. The tongue is protruded maximally at, or near the time of prey contact (end of SO). As tongue retraction is initiated, the mouth opens rapidly (fast open phase, FO). Maximum gape or mouth opening typically occurs as the prey enters the buccal cavity, after which the mouth closes rapidly around the prey (fast close phase, FC). During the FC phase, the animal moves back to its resting position. When the teeth come into contact with the prey, mouth closing slows (slow close phase, SC) and the prey is crushed (Fig. 3A).
Prey processing and transport occur in the buccal cavity, and these behaviors continue in a rhythmic fashion until the prey is finally transported to the back of the buccal cavity and swallowed. We combined prey processing and transport into one behavioral category because of the lack of these behaviors in ant specialists and because of the difficulties in adequately distinguishing between these behaviors without the use of cineradiography.
Of the other three species, U. notata is the most similar in feeding movements to P. vitticeps, exhibiting the same capture and processing movements. However, U. notata is substantially faster during prey capture as well as prey processing (Fig. 4A), making a single feeding event shorter in duration when compared to P. vitticeps. Like in U. notata, the prey capture movements of P. platyrhinos are faster than those of P. vitticeps, with the most pronounced difference in P. platyrhinos occurring near the end of prey capture and during prey processing. Unlike P. vitticeps and U. notata, which close their mandibles around the prey, P. platyrhinos transports the prey directly into the posterior buccal cavity after the capture event, and no crushing bites are performed (Fig. 5A). Because processing does not occur in P. platyrhinos the overall duration of the feeding sequence is highly reduced (see Table 1).
A feeding event in M. horridus is strikingly different from those observed for the other three species. First, M. horridus does not lunge during prey capture. Instead, the body generally remains stationary while the long neck swivels the head within range of the prey (Fig. 6A). Furthermore, the jaws open quickly and the tongue is protruded rapidly. During the initial stages of mouth opening, M. horridus frequently modulates its behavior. In most cases, the SO phase was not discernable (more than 80% of the sequences) and the gape cycle merely consisted of FO and FC phases. When present, the slow open phase was typically associated with stationary ant prey (e.g. ants that were slightly injured or attempting to move a food item), which appears atypical of most ant prey eaten by M. horridus (see Discussion). Interestingly, in the few capture events in which a distinct SO phase was present, we did not see simultaneous slow tongue protraction, as in the other species. In M. horridus, prey contact always occurred close to maximum gape and was not typically followed by the initiation of the FO phase. Once the prey is moved into the buccal cavity, one or two rapid `palatal crushing' movements typically occur before swallowing. As in P. platyrhinos, the lack of traditional prey processing reduces the overall duration of the feeding sequence in M. horridus compared to the two generalist species (see Table 1).
|
Variation in feeding kinematics
Prey capture occurs most quickly in M. horridus, with the total
prey capture cycle completed in less than 115 ms, but taking up to 2.5 times
longer in the other species (Table
1). The SO phase is highly variable in duration and is the
predominant reason for variation in prey capture duration. It may comprise
anywhere between 50% and 89% of the total prey capture sequence in P.
vitticeps, U. notata and P. platyrhinos. However, in M.
horridus prey capture duration is shortened by the lack, or shortening,
of the SO phase. In the few cases in which an SO phase is present in M.
horridus, it occurs at a lower gape and proceeds more rapidly than in the
other species, representing only 38% of the prey capture sequence
(Table 2).
|
The FO phase of prey capture typically commences after prey contact, but the timing of the FO phase varies considerably among species. In P. vitticeps, prey contact always occurs before the FO phase (Fig. 3B), whereas in U. notata and P. platyrhinos the timing of prey contact and the FO phase are more variable (Figs 4B, 5B). In M. horridus, prey contact always occurs near the end of the FO phase (Fig. 6B). The lack of an SO phase in M. horridus seems to have resulted in a somewhat longer FO phase, comprising 55% of the cycle, compared to only 12-32% in other species (Table 2). Mean duration of the FO phase in M. horridus is 63 ms, which is similar to U. notata but almost twice as long as that of the other two species. The end of FO and start of FC occur as tongue retraction ends and the animal reaches maximum gape. The FC phase exhibits the least variation within and among all species and appears to be more `stereotyped' than the opening phases (Tables 2, 3). A SC phase was not noticeable in most sequences and may not be characteristic of prey capture events associated with small prey.
For many of the timing variables, M. horridus exhibits shorter durations than the other three species. Yet, surprisingly the shorter timing events do not appear to be the result of more rapid feeding movements. While mouth opening duration was shorter in M. horridus, maximum mouth opening speeds were not different among species (Table 1). Tongue protraction occurs more quickly in M. horridus (16.20 cm s-1) than any of the other species, P. platyrhinos (10.00 cm s-1), U. notata (9.23 cm s-1) and P. vitticeps (9.39 cm s-1). However, tongue retraction and mouth closing velocities and accelerations either did not differ between species or were generally faster in P. platyrhinos (28.57 cm s-1) and P. vitticeps (29.28 cm s-1).
Although prey capture in U. notata is faster than that of all other species except M. horridus, the processing movements and duration of prey processing result in a feeding event that is three times longer than either of the ant specialists. Processing in P. vitticeps is even slower, requiring nearly eight times longer than M. horridus to process prey (Table 1). The duration of prey processing appears to separate the ant specialist from the generalist lizard species. On average, M. horridus takes only 257 ms to process prey after capture. P. platyrhinos is even faster, taking only 164 ms to process and transport prey. In contrast, both of the generalist species take more than 1000 ms. The lack of this rapid processing behavior significantly reduces the duration of the entire feeding sequence and makes the total duration of a feeding attempt in P. platyrhinos (416 ms) similar to M. horridus (350 ms). The primary differences in processing times are due to a complete lack of prey crushing and a decrease in the number of processing/transport cycles in both M. horridus and P. platyrhinos (only 0-3 cycles in the ant specialists). Unlike the ant specialist species, P. vitticeps and U. notata crush the ants extensively before transporting them into the posterior buccal cavity for swallowing (processing and transport can take 7-11 cycles).
While all species capture prey using the tongue, there are distinct differences in the part of the tongue that contacts the prey. Of the four species, only M. horridus appears to be lacking the robust, fleshy tongue characteristic of iguanian lizards. During normal tongue protrusion, the dorsal surface of the tongue rotates forward, such that the dorsal tongue pad and not the anatomical tongue tip contacts the prey. Rotation of the tongue pad is easy to see during tongue retraction, when the prey rotates posteriorly on the dorsal surface of the tongue and is transported into the mouth (see Figs 3A, 4A, 5A). M. horridus exhibits a strikingly different tongue prehension behavior. First, the shape of the tongue during protrusion is different in M. horridus, appearing more slender and pointed. In addition, the tongue pad does not appear to rotate, and instead, the prey is flicked back into the mouth using the tongue tip (Fig. 6A). Observations of M. horridus trying to capture ants held lightly by forceps suggest limited adhesive properties of the tongue.
Quantitative analysis
A principal components analysis on the kinematic data revealed three
significant factors which explained 71% of the variation in feeding kinematics
(Fig. 7). The first factor
explains 45% of the variation and separates the ant specialist from the
dietary generalists. This factor is mainly composed of duration events, but
also includes gape distance and mouth opening/closing speeds
(Table 4). The other two axes,
while also significant, are defined by lower factor loadings that consist of
mouth closing and tongue retraction events. Results of a MANOVA on the factor
scores revealed highly significant species effects (Wilks' Lambda
F=83.74, P<0.0001). Bonferroni post-hoc tests
revealed significant differences among ant specialists and between the
specialist and generalist species for factor 1 (P<0.0001), yet the
generalist species did not differ from one another (P=1.00). The
other two factors appear to separate the species phylogenetically with all
species comparisons being different (P<0.006) except for the
agamids P. vitticeps and M. horridus on factor 2
(P=0.078) and the phrynosomatids U. notata and P.
platyrhinos on factor 3 (P=0.496).
|
|
The results of our phylogenetic ANOVAs comparing the feeding duration variables of ant-eating and non ant-eating lizards are summarized in Table 5. F-statistics from the traditional analysis were compared to the empirical null distributions obtained from the 1000 simulations of character evolution along the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2). The analyses revealed significant differences between ant-eaters and other lizards for the duration of mouth opening and total feeding duration. In ant-eaters, the mean duration of mouth opening and total feeding duration (149 and 392 ms) are much shorter than for non ant-eating lizards (361 and 7354 ms). Although not quite significant (P=0.051), prey capture duration also appeared to differ, being more than twice as fast in ant-eaters (181 ms) versus non ant-eaters (408 ms). The phylogenetic analysis thus confirms the results of our multivariate analysis and suggests that ant-eating lizards exhibit divergent feeding behaviors associated with their diet.
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Variation from the feeding model
Studies of lizard feeding behavior have documented similarities in jaw and
tongue movements among groups, revealing a basic dichotomy in prey capture
behavior that appears to have a phylogenetic basis
(Schwenk and Throckmorton,
1989; Schwenk,
2000
). Whereas all iguanian lizards use the tongue to capture
prey, most scleroglossans do not (Schwenk,
2000
). In addition, all iguanians studied to date show gape
profiles during capture that are composed of all the phases defined in the
Bramble and Wake (1985
) model
(SO, FO, FC). Scleroglossans, on the other hand, appear to have lost the SO
phases of the gape profile during capture
(Bels and Goosse, 1990
;
Delheusy and Bels, 1992
,
1999
;
Goosse and Bels, 1992
;
Delheusy et al., 1995
;
Urbani and Bels, 1995
).
Interestingly, while the presence of the phases is rather static, the duration
of the SO phase appears to vary dramatically within and among species
(Table 3).
Our results suggest that among the species studied most of the variation in
the duration of prey capture is due to variation in the duration of the SO
phase. Although the SO phases of P. vitticeps, U. notata and P.
platyrhinos (Table 2) are
roughly comparable to those of other iguanian species
(Table 3), aphylogenetic ANOVA
showed significant differences in the duration of the entire opening phase (SO
and FO combined) when comparing ant-eaters with other iguanian lizards
(Table 5). There appears to be
significant modulation of the SO phase, however, with the generalist U.
notata exhibiting a much faster SO phase than the specialized P.
platyrhinos. When the SO phase is present in M. horridus, the
duration of a single prey capture event is similar to the fastest events
recorded for P. platyrhinos and U. notata. However, when
M. horridus eliminates the SO phase, the prey capture event as a
whole becomes more than 30% faster than that in P. platyrhinos and at
least twice as fast as any other iguanian
(Table 3). Because
scleroglossans lack an SO phase, the duration of prey capture (using the jaws)
tends to be faster than that of most iguanians and is generally comparable to
that of M. horridus. However, when using tongue prehension, prey
capture in scleroglossans is remarkably slower (75%) than when using jaw
prehension alone (Urbani and Bels,
1995).
The longer duration of tongue prehension cycles in scleroglossans makes the
prey capture event in M. horridus all the more interesting. In the
absence of a SO phase, the time in which to protract the tongue during mouth
opening is significantly reduced. Indeed, the longer durations exhibited by
scleroglossans attempting tongue prehension
(Urbani and Bels, 1995)
suggest that it may be difficult to coordinate fast tongue and jaw movements.
It is possible that the rapid tongue protraction exhibited by M.
horridus is necessary to accommodate rapid mouth opening
(Table 1). However, tongue
retraction and mouth closing velocities are both slower in M.
horridus than in the other species examined here. The observed reduction
in the speed of tongue retraction and mouth closing may be responses to the
timing of prey contact. If tongue retraction is only initiated near the onset
of mouth closing, as in M. horridus, then it may indeed be more
advantageous to close the mouth more slowly to reduce the risk of dislodging
the prey, especially considering the apparent limited adhesive capacity of the
tongue of M. horridus.
In most studies of prey capture in iguanians, the fast mouth opening phase
coincides with tongue retraction and transport of prey into the mouth
(Herrel et al., 1995;
Schwenk, 2000
). The timing of
FO and tongue retraction is important because rapid mouth opening will allow
larger prey items to clear the jaw margins as the tongue is retracted,
reducing the risk of dislodging the prey as it is transported into the mouth.
Indeed, P. vitticeps always initiates the FO phase just after prey
contact, but the timing varies considerably in P. platyrhinos and
U. notata. In M. horridus, tongue retraction is initiated
near the end of the FO phase. Based on our data, we suggest that the timing of
prey contact and FO are likely to reflect prey type and more generally diet.
The diet of the generalist P. vitticeps and U. notata
includes a diversity of prey (Greer,
1989
; Cogger, 2000
;
Turner, 1998
), whereas the
diet of M. horridus consists of only relatively small prey
(Pianka and Pianka, 1970
;
Withers and Dickman, 1995
),
requiring a minimal gape to be safely transported past the mandible tips.
While predominately an ant eater, P. platyrhinos also includes other
prey its diet (Pianka and Parker,
1975
), and modulation of prey contact and the timing of jaw
closure may be a strategy to accommodate larger prey (e.g. coleopterans,
lepidopteran larvae).
Tongue function during capture
The tongue serves an important function in prey capture among iguanians,
providing a protrusible, adhesive surface with which to apprehend prey. During
typical iguanian tongue protrusion, the sticky dorsal surface of the tongue is
rolled forward to contact the prey. Thus, the tongue is positioned so that the
`adhesive' area of high papillary density is in contact with the prey item
(Schwenk, 2000). Unlike in the
other species, which exhibit the typical iguanian pattern, the tongue of
M. horridus is extended straight with the anatomical tip, instead of
the dorsal surface, contacting the prey. Not only does this tongue shape
resemble a `tasting' tongue flick of iguanian lizards, but the kinematic
profile also shares similarities. Kinematically, prey capture in M.
horridus and the tongue flick in Uromastix acanthinurus and
Plocederma stellio (Herrel et
al., 1998
) are similar in that both behaviors exhibit only two
kinematic phases. However, it should be noted that while the duration of the
gape cycle during tongue flicking is considerably longer, the duration of the
actual tongue displacement is similar to that seen during prey capture. These
similarities in tongue shape and kinematic profile are suggestive of the use
of a different mechanism of tongue protrusion in M. horridus.
It is widely thought that tongue flicking is accomplished using
predominately a muscular hydrostatic mechanism rather than being mainly the
result of hyobranchial protraction (e.g.
Herrel et al., 1998;
Schwenk, 2000
;
De Groot et al., 2004
). Because
muscles maintain a constant volume as they change shape
(Kier and Smith, 1985
),
shortening of intrinsic muscle fibers must be directed into either lateral
expansion or forward elongation of the tongue, or both. The long, pointy shape
and the apparent lack of anterior attachment of the tongue in M.
horridus (Fig. 6A) are
suggestive of a muscular hydrostatic mechanism.
Why use a muscular hydrostatic mechanism for tongue protrusion? One
possibility is that this mechanism may require less total movement of the
hyobranchial system. The SO phase of iguanian prey capture is typified by
hyobranchial protraction associated with intrinsic movement of the tongue as
it is shaped and positioned for lingual prehension. However, the lack of an SO
phase in M. horridus precludes these preparatory movements, and its
fast tongue movements may require rapid protrusion with limited hyobranchial
movement. In addition, muscular hydrostats are defined by finely controlled
movements that may facilitate more coordinated movements and overall accuracy
(Ritter and Nishikawa, 1995;
Nishikawa et al., 1999
). While
this protrusion mechanism may allow more rapid and accurate tongue protrusion,
it may come as a tradeoff. Prey contact with the tongue tip instead of the
tongue's dorsal surface significantly reduces the area contacting the prey,
and hence tongue prehensibility. In fact, we observed that M.
horridus is incapable of prehending ant prey held lightly with forceps.
Thus, it appears that although a hydrostatic mechanism of protrusion may
facilitate the rapid feeding behavior of M. horridus, it may also
reduce the area of prey contact and in effect reduce dietary breadth to small,
lightweight prey.
Rapid tongue protrusion may be facilitated by another unique characteristic
of the feeding behavior of M. horridus. In general, lizards tend to
lunge while capturing prey, rotating forward over the forelimbs to bring the
tongue or jaws in contact with the prey item. However, in M. horridus
there is a distinct lack of the lunge behavior and the initial prey distance
is accounted for as the animal positions itself near a column of ants
(Withers and Dickman, 1995;
Pianka et al., 1998
). Once in
close proximity to the ants the animal remains relatively stationary and,
instead of lunging toward each ant, swivels its head within range using the
long, mobile neck. The neck of M. horridus is 3-10 times longer than
either P. vitticeps or P. platyrhinos, respectively (neck
length is approximately 35% of body length in M. horridus, 3% in
P. platyrhinos, 10% in U. notata 11% and P.
vitticeps, compare Figs
3A,
4A,
5A,
6A). The loss of the forward
lunge may beneficial for several reasons; the rapid tongue flick could be
accommodated by the significantly more mobile head, which could track rapidly
moving prey; it may decrease the amount of movement invested in each prey
capture event; and it would allow the animal to remain relatively cryptic
during a feeding bout.
Evolutionary considerations
Although more different than similar, the feeding behavior of the two
ant-specialized lizards exhibits several convergent aspects. First, prey
processing has diverged drastically from the primitive condition found in
Sphenodon and most iguanian lizards, where prey are reduced
extensively before swallowing
(Throckmorton, 1976;
Gorniak et al., 1982
;
Smith, 1984
; Bels and Baltus,
1988
,
1989
;
Schwenk and Throckmorton,
1989
; Kraklau,
1991
; Herrel et al.,
1996
; So et al.,
1992
). Whereas the generalist species studied here (P.
vitticeps and U. notata) exhibit the typical feeding pattern by
processing the prey before swallowing, neither M. horridus nor P.
platyrhinos appear to perform any puncture crushing bites using the
mandibles. Schwenk (2000
)
noted a lack of processing in another species of horned lizard (Phrynosoma
cornutum) and suggested that this may be a general aspect of lizards
feeding on small prey. It is possible that a behavioral repertoire including
prey processing is absent in some dietary specialists (as appears to be the
case for P. platyrhinos feeding on multiple prey types; J. J. Meyers,
personal observation), especially if the predominant diet consists of prey
that require minimal reduction.
While there is a distinct lack of puncture crushing bites in M.
horridus, there appears to be a fast `chewing' movement that occurs after
ingestion. McBrayer and Reilly
(2002a) described a processing
behavior they termed palatal crushing, during which the prey is thought to be
crushed between the tongue and the palate. While it is possible that M.
horridus may use a type of palatal crushing as a method of immobilizing
ant prey, we cannot confirm this behavior. To adequately describe these
intra-oral movements it will be necessary to record feeding behavior using
high-speed cineradiography. It is unclear if and how P. platyrhinos
immobilizes prey upon ingestion, since the prey is transported directly into
the posterior buccal cavity (Fig.
5A). Sherbrooke
(2003
) suggested that lizards
of the genus Phrynosoma immobilize prey by coating them with a thick
mucous secreted in the buccal cavity. While adequate for ants, mucosal
secretions may not immobilize larger potentially dangerous prey
(Sherbrooke, 2002
) and the
lack of processing may represent a costly tradeoff. Both palatal crushing and
mucous secretions are possible mechanisms of disabling potentially dangerous
prey items such as ants and both should be investigated more thoroughly.
As a result of a reduction in prey processing, ant specialists have achieved significantly shorter feeding events than generalists (Table 5). If we compare the duration of a feeding event in P. platyrhinos and M. horridus, we see that on average P. platyrhinos takes only 50 ms longer (Table 1). This result may seem unexpected given the more rapid capture phase of M. horridus. However, M. horridus and P. platyrhinos employ different strategies to reduce the feeding duration. While M. horridus is routinely faster at the capture stage, it performs `processing'-like behaviors that increase the duration of the feeding event. In contrast, the slower capture phase of P. platyrhinos is overcome by the complete lack of prey processing and the immediate swallowing of prey upon ingestion.
The capture of a prey item is generally the fastest stage of a feeding event, and the majority of the feeding event in generalized lizards is composed of processing and transport of the prey. While modulation of the capture phase can decrease the duration of a feeding event, as it does in M. horridus and many scleroglossans, reducing the processing and transport phases appears to have a more significant effect on feeding duration. This is exemplified by a comparison of feeding durations in various lizards (Table 3), which revealed that the fastest feeding event (M. horridus) occurred 52 times faster than the slowest. That is, a feeding event in a specialist can occur in less than half a second, while it can take up to 18 s in generalist lizards (see Table 3). Prey size clearly influences the duration of a feeding event and we might expect lizards to feed more rapidly when feeding on small prey. Our observations support this assertion; P. vitticeps is nearly three times faster when feeding on ants versus crickets (Table 3). Yet, P. vitticeps is still 4-6 times slower than both P. platyrhinos and M. horridus feeding on ants, suggesting significant modification of the overall feeding behavior in these ant specialists.
Our data clearly show that ant specialists have undergone significant phenotypic evolution associated with novel feeding behaviors and diverging function of the hyobranchial system. While M. horridus is decidedly divergent both behaviorally and kinematically from the other species, the ant-specialized species exhibit convergent behaviors that minimize feeding movements and reduce overall feeding time. It appears that, like herbivorous lizards (Herrel et al., 1999), myrmecophagous lizards do not exhibit a universal solution to dietary specialization, but instead have evolved a variety of strategies. Since most myrmecophagous lizards do not show the extreme morphological modifications exhibited by Moloch and Phrynosoma, it will be interesting to document their behavioral strategies when feeding on ants. In particular, will scleroglossan lizards use tongue or jaw prehension when feeding on ants? Based on our observations, we would predict that like M. horridus and P. platyrhinos, other myrmecophagous lizards will exhibit behaviors that reduce the amount of time invested in each feeding event.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Bels, V. L. (2003). Evaluating the complexity of the trophic system in reptilians. In Vertebrate Biomechanics and Evolution (ed. V. L. Bels, J.-P. Gasc and A. Casinos), pp.185 -202. Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers.
Bels, V. L. and Baltus, I. (1988). The influence of food items on the feeding cycle of Anolis equestris (Reptilia: Iguanidae). Copeia 1988,479 -488.
Bels, V. L. and Baltus, I. (1989). First analysis of feeding in anolis lizards. In Fortschritte der Zoologie (ed. H. Splechtna and H. Hilgers), pp.141 -145. New York: Gustav Fisher Verlag.
Bels, V. L. and Goosse, V. (1990). Comparative kinematic analysis of prey capture in Anolis carolinensis (Iguania) and Lacerta viridis (Scleroglossa). J. Exp. Zool. 255,120 -124.
Bramble, D. M. and Wake, D. B. (1985). Feeding mechanisms in lower tetrapods. In Functional Vertebrate Morphology (ed. M. Hildebrand, D. M. Bramble, K. F. Liem, and D. B. Wake), pp. 230-261. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Cogger, H. G. (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia, pp. 298-356. Sydney, Australia: New Holland Publishers.
De Groot, J. H., van der Sluijs, I., Snelderwaard, P. Ch. and
Van Leeuwen, J. L. (2004). A three-dimensional
kinematic analysis of tongue flicking in Python molurus.
J. Exp. Biol. 207,827
-839.
Delheusy, V. and Bels, V. L. (1992). Kinematics of feeding behavior in Oplurus cuvieri (Reptilia: Iguanidae). J. Exp. Biol. 170,155 -186.
Delheusy, V. and Bels, V. L. (1999). Feeding
kinematics of Phelsuma madagascariensis (Reptilia: Gekkonidae):
Testing differences between Iguania and Scleroglossa. J. Exp.
Biol. 202,3715
-3730.
Delheusy, V., Brillet, C. and Bels, V. L. (1995). Etude cinematique de la prise de nourriture chez Eublepharis macularius (Reptilia, Gekkonidae) et comparaison au sein des geckos. Amphibia Reptilia 16,185 -201.
Diaz-Uriarte, R. and Garland, T., Jr (1998). Effects of the branch lengths errors on the performance of phyllogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 47,654 -672.[CrossRef][Medline]
Garland, T., Jr, Harvey, P. H. and Ives, A. R. (1992). Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41, 18-32.
Garland, T., Jr, Dickerman, A. W., Janis, C. M. and Jones, J. A. (1993). Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42,265 -292.
Goosse, V. and Bels, V. L. (1992). Kinematic analysis of tongue movements during chemosensory behavior in the European green lizard, Lacerta viridis (Reptilia, Lacertidae). Can. J. Zool. 70,1886 -1896.
Gorniak, G. C., Rosenberg, H. I. and Gans, C. (1982). Mastication in the Tuatara, Sphenodon punctatus (Reptilia: Rhynchocephalis): structure and activity of the motor system. J. Morph. 171,321 -353.
Grant, P. R. (1999). Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Greene, H. W. (1982). Dietary and phenotypic diversity in lizards: why are some organisms specialized? In Environmental Adaptation and Evolution (ed. G. Mossakowski and G. Roth), pp. 107-128. Stuttgart: Gustav Fisher.
Greer, A. E. (1989). Biology and Evolution of Australian Lizards. Sydney, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons. p. 264.
Herrel, A. and De Vree, F. (1999). Kinematics
of intraoral transport and swallowing in the herbivorous lizard Uromastix
acanthinurus. J. Exp. Biol.
202,1127
-1137.
Herrel, H., Cleuren, J. and De Vree, F. (1995). Prey capture in the lizard Agama stellio. J. Morph. 224,313 -329.
Herrel, A., Cleuren, J. and De Vree, F. (1996).
Kinematics of feeding in the lizard Agama stellio. J. Exp.
Biol. 199,1727
-1742.
Herrel, A., Timmermans, J. P. and De Vree, F. (1998). Tongue flicking in agamid lizards: morphology, kinematics and muscle activity patterns. Anat. Rec. 252,102 -116.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jackson, D. A. (1993). Stopping rules in principal component analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74,2204 -2214.
Kier, W. M. and Smith, K. K. (1985). Tongues, tentacles and trunks: the biomechanics of movement in muscular hydrostats. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 83,307 -324.
Kraklau, D. M. (1991). Kinematics of prey capture and chewing in the lizard Agama agama (Squamata: Agamidae). J. Morph. 210,195 -212.
Losos, J. B. (1990). Ecomorphology, performance capability, and scaling of west Indian anolis lizards: an evolutionary analysis. Ecol. Monog. 60,369 -388.
Macey, J. R., Schulte, J. A., II, Larson, A., Ananjeva, N. B., Wang, Y., Pethiyagoda, R., Rastegar-Pouyani, N. and Papenfuss, T. J. (2000). Evaluating trans-tethys migration: an example using acrodont lizard phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 49,233 -256.[CrossRef][Medline]
Martins, E. P. and Garland, T., Jr (1991). Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: A simulations study. Evolution 45,534 -557.
McBrayer, L. D. and Reilly, S. M. (2002a). Prey processing in lizards: behavioral variation in sit-and-wait and widely foraging taxa. Can. J. Zool. 80,882 -892.[CrossRef]
McBrayer, L. D. and Reilly, S. M. (2002b). Testing the amniote models of prey transport kinematics: a quantitative analysis of mouth opening patterns in lizards. Zoology 105, 71-81.
Meyers, J. J. and Nishikawa, K. C. (2000).
Comparative study of tongue protrusion in three iguanian lizards:
Sceloporus undulatus, Pseudotrapelus sinaitus and Chamaeleo
jacksoni. J. Exp. Biol.
203,2833
-2849.
Meyers, J. J., Herrel, A. and Birch, J. (2002). Scaling of morphology, bite force and feeding kinematics in an Iguanian and Scleroglossan lizard. In Topics in Functional and Ecological Vertebrate Morphology (ed. P. Aerts, K. D'Aout, A. Herrel and R. Van Damme), pp. 47-62. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.
Montanucci, R. R. (1989). The relationship of morphology to diet in the horned lizard genus Phrynosoma. Herpetologica 45,208 -216.
Nishikawa, K. C., Kier, W. M. and Smith, K. K.
(1999). Morphology and mechanics of tongue movement in the
African pig-nosed frog Hemisus marmoratum: a muscular hydrostatic
model. J. Exp. Biol.
202,771
-780.
Pianka, E. R. (1986). The ecology and natural history of desert lizards: analyses of the ecological niche and community structure. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pianka, E. R. and Parker, W. S. (1975). Ecology of horned lizards: a review with special reference to Phrynosoma platyrhinos. Copeia 1975,141 -162.
Pianka, E. R. and Pianka, H. D. (1970). The ecology of M. horridus (Lacertilia: Agamidae) in Western Australia. Copeia 1970,90 -103.
Pianka, G. A., Pianka, E. R. and Thompson, G. G. (1998). Natural history of thorny devils Moloch horridus (Lacertilia: Agamidae) in the Great Victoria Desert. J. R. Soc. W. Aust. 181,183 -190.
Ritter, D. and Nishikawa, K. C. (1995). The kinematics and mechanism of prey capture in the African pig-nosed frog (Hemisus marmoratum): description of a radically divergent anuran tongue. J. Exp. Biol. 198,2025 -2040.[Medline]
Schulte, J. A., II, Vallardes, J. P. and Larson, A. L. (2003). Phylogenetic relationships within iguanidae inferred using molecular and morphological data and a phylogenetic taxonomy of iguanian lizards. Herpetologica 59,399 -419.
Schwenk, K. (2000). Feeding in Lepidosaurs. In Feeding (ed. K. Schwenk), pp.175 -291. New York: Academic Press.
Schwenk, K. and Sherbrooke, W. C. (2003). Mucus-binding of dangerous prey by horned lizards. Soc. Int. Comp. Biol. 43a,MS-2.11 .
Schwenk, K. and Throckmorton, G. S. (1989). Functional and evolutionary morphology of lingual feeding in squamate reptiles: phylogenetics and kinematics. J. Zool. Lond. 219,153 -175.
Sherbrooke, W. C. (2002). Phrynosoma modestum (Round-tailed horned lizard): Death due to beetle ingestion. Herp. Rev. 33,312 .
Sherbrooke, W. C. (2003). Introduction to Horned Lizards of North America. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Smith, K. K. (1984). The use of the tongue and hyoid apparatus during feeding in lizards (Ctenosaura similes and Tupinambis nigropunctatus). J. Zool. 202,115 -143.
Smith, T. L., Kardong, K. K. and Bels, V. L. (1999). Prey capture behavior in the blue-tongued skink, Tiliqua scincoides. J. Herp. 33,362 -369.
So, K. K. J., Wainwright, P. C. and Bennet, A. F. (1992). Kinematics of prey processing in Chamaeleo jacksonii: conservation of function with morphological specialization. J. Zool. 226,47 -64.
Throckmorton, G. S. (1976). Oral food processing in two herbivorous lizards, Iguana iguana (Iguanidae) and Uromastix aegypticus (Agamidae). J. Morphol. 148,363 -390.[Medline]
Turner, D. S. (1998). Ecology of the fringe-toed lizard, Uma notata, in Arizona's Mohawk Dunes. Ms thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Urbani, J. M. and Bels, V. L. (1995). Feeding behavior in two scleroglossan lizards: Lacerta viridis (Lacertidae) and Zonosaurus laticaudatus (Cordylidae). J. Zool. Lond. 236,265 -290.
Vitt, L. J., Pianka, E. R., Coopers, W. E. and Schwenk, K. (2003). History and the global ecology of squamate reptiles. Am. Nat. 162,44 -60.[CrossRef][Medline]
Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.
Withers, P. C. and Dickman, C. R. (1995). The role of diet in determining water, energy and salt intake in the thorny devil Moloch horridus (Lacertilia: Agamidae). J. R. Soc. W. Aust. 78,3 -11.
Related articles in JEB: