ArticleJournal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological and integrative physiology2025
Testing the Impact of Prey Presentation Method on the Feeding Kinematics of Terrestrial and Aquatic Ambystomatidae.
Article in Journal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological and integrative physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In animal behavior, standardizing experimental protocols ensures a rigorous interpretation of the results. However, when working with multisource data, homogeneous standardization is often difficult to attain. This is the case for many studies on feeding kinematics where experimental protocols are carried out using similar but not identical methods. In particular, the impact of the way in which prey is presented remains poorly tested and understood. The aim of this study is to assess whether prey position and the way prey is presented have an impact on the kinematics of prey capture. To do so, we compared the feeding kinematics during the capture of prey presented on the substrate versus prey suspended from tweezers using closely related species of aquatic and terrestrial salamanders. Our results show that changes in prey presentation method directly impact suction feeding kinematics but not terrestrial feeding. In the case of suction feeding, when the prey is suspended by tweezers, mouth opening movements are wider and take more time, the maximum speed and acceleration of mouth opening are higher, and head angle is larger. These changes in kinematics are interpreted as behavioral responses to hydrodynamic changes caused by the different prey presentation methods. This differential sensitivity to prey presentation method between aquatic and terrestrial feeding also highlights differences in the underlying control mechanism: while terrestrial feeding appears to rely on feedback mechanisms, aquatic feeding appears to rely mostly on feedforward mechanisms. As a result, the importance of accounting for prey presentation method is likely context-dependent, being more relevant when studying feeding systems that rely on feedforward control. Finally, when comparing aquatic and terrestrial feeding, the differences in feeding strategies due to the medium itself outweigh the effects of the prey presentation method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.