, Volume 130, Issue 1, pp 31–38 | Cite as

Comparative feeding kinematics of temperate pond-dwelling tadpoles (Anura, Amphibia)

  • Matthew D. VeneskyEmail author
  • Richard J. Wassersug
  • Michael E. Jorgensen
  • Mellie Riddle
  • Matthew J. Parris
Original Paper


Several studies have explored various components of feeding kinematics in anuran larvae; however, a direct comparison of feeding kinematics among morphologically similar and sympatric taxa has not been undertaken. We used high-speed videography (500 frames/s) to capture feeding kinematics of Anaxyrus fowleri (Hinckley, 1882) (Fowler’s Toad), Hyla chrysoscelis (Cope, 1880) (Grey Treefrog), Scaphiopus holbrookii (Harlan, 1835) (Eastern Spadefoot Toad), and Lithobates sphenocephalus (Cope, 1889) (Southern Leopard Frog) tadpoles as they foraged from an algal-covered substrate. In total, we filmed 120 feeding sequences from 25 feeding bouts and quantified eight kinematic variables that were common among all four species. Despite relatively similar keratinized feeding structures among taxa, our videography data revealed fundamental differences in how the tadpoles used these structures. One specific difference was in the speed of the gape cycle. Among taxa, S. holbrookii tadpoles had the longest gape cycle and longest time to reach maximum gape, whereas A. fowleri and L. sphenocephalus tadpoles had shorter durations for both variables and did not differ between species. We also found species differences in the magnitude that tadpoles narrow their lower jaw sheath. Irrespective of gape size, the lower jaw sheath of S. holbrookii tadpoles narrowed by approximately 26% of its maximum width—a twofold difference from A. fowleri tadpoles, which narrowed only 13%. Our study revealed that tadpoles with similar oral structures feeding on the same substrate can exhibit major differences in feeding kinematics.


Biomechanics Anaxyrus Hyla Lithobates Scaphiopus Keratin Labial teeth Jaw sheath 



We thank Ron Altig for providing comments during the planning stages of this experiment. Angela Horner and Don Miles provided statistical advice. Collection permits from Tennessee were obtained prior to collecting the animals used in these experiments, and all experimental procedures were approved by the University of Memphis IACUC. This publication was developed, in part, under a GRO Research Assistance Agreement No. MA-916980 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to MDV. It has not been formally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors, and the EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. RJW’s participation was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


  1. Altig RA (2006) Discussions of the origin and evolution of the oral apparatus of anuran tadpoles. Acta Herp 1:95–105Google Scholar
  2. Altig R, Johnston GR (1989) Guilds of anuran larvae: relationships among developmental modes, morphologies, and habitats. Herp Monogr 3:81–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altig RA, McDiarmid RW (1999) Body plan: development and morphology. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 24–51Google Scholar
  4. Altig R, Whiles MR, Taylor CL (2007) What do tadpoles really eat? Assessing the trophic status of an understudied and imperiled group of consumers in freshwater habitats. Freshwater Biol 52:386–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beiswenger RE (1977) Diel patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannatella D (1999) Architecture: cranial and axial musculoskeleton. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 52–91Google Scholar
  7. Carr KM, Altig RA (1991) Oral disc muscles of anuran tadpoles. J Morph 214:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  9. Larson PM, Reilly SM (2003) Functional morphology of feeding and gill irrigation in the anuran tadpole: electromyography and muscle function in larval Rana catesbeiana. J Morph 255:202–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Relyea RA, Auld JR (2005) Predator- and competitor-induced plasticity: how changes in foraging morphology affect phenotypic trade-offs. Ecology 86:1723–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Seale DB (1982) Obligate and facultative suspension feeding in anuran larvae: feeding regulation in Xenopus and Rana. Biol Bull 162:214–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Taylor CL, Altig R (1995) Oral disc kinematics of four rheophilous anuran tadpoles. Herp Nat Hist 3:101–106Google Scholar
  13. Taylor CL, Altig R, Boyle CR (1996) Oral disc kinematics of four lentic anuran tadpoles. Herp Nat Hist 4:49–56Google Scholar
  14. Van Buskirk J (2009) Getting in shape: adaptation and phylogenetic inertia in morphology of Australian anuran larvae. J Evol Biol 22:1326–1337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Venesky MD, Wassersug RJ, Parris MJ (2010a) How does a change in labial tooth row number affect feeding kinematics and foraging performance of a ranid tadpole (Lithobates sphenocephalus)? Biol Bull 218:160–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Venesky MD, Wassersug RJ, Parris MJ (2010b) Fungal pathogen changes the feeding kinematics of larval anurans. J Parasitol 96:552–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Venesky MD, Wassersug RJ, Parris MJ (2010c) The impact of variation in labial tooth number on the feeding kinematics of tadpoles of Southern Leopard Frog (Lithobates sphenocephalus). Copeia 2010:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vera Candioti MF, Altig R (2010) A survey of shape variation in keratinized labial teeth of anuran larvae as related to phylogeny and ecology. Biol J Linnean Soc 101:609–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wassersug RJ (1980) Internal oral features of tadpoles from eight anuran families: functional, systematic, evolutionary and ecological considerations. Occas Pap Mus Nat Hist Univ Kans 68:1–146Google Scholar
  20. Wassersug RJ, Rosenberg K (1979) Surface anatomy of the branchial food traps of tadpoles: a comparative study. J Morph 159:393–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wassersug RJ, Yamashita M (2001) Plasticity and constraints on feeding kinematics in anuran larvae. Comp Biochem Physiol A 31:183–195Google Scholar
  22. Wilbur HM, Alford RA (1985) Priority effects in experimental pond communities: responses of Hyla to Bufo and Rana. Ecology 66:1106–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew D. Venesky
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard J. Wassersug
    • 2
  • Michael E. Jorgensen
    • 3
  • Mellie Riddle
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Parris
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and NeurobiologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations