Laserfiche WebLink
238 <br />We measured mouth gapes of P. lucius at the <br />Dexter National Fish Hatchery, Dexter, New <br />Mexico. We took measurements from 103 live <br />specimens. We took total and standard lengths <br />using a fish board. We determined weights with a <br />spring scale. We measured mandibular arch width <br />and maximum mouth gape (both laterally and <br />dorsoventrally) using digital calipers. In addition, <br />we took a measurement of the maximum pharyn- <br />geal opening with tong spreaders placed inside the <br />pharynx. We used an inside dimension spring <br />caliper to measure the pharyngeal opening on fish <br />too small for the spreaders. Measurements of the <br />mouth and pharyngeal cavity revealed that the <br />dentary and maxillary bones of the P. lucius lim- <br />ited maximum sizes of prey that could be swal- <br />lowed. Therefore, we calculated gape as the <br />maximum distance between the maxillary and the <br />dentary bones dorsoventrally in the mouth. We <br />evaluated the relationship between mouth size <br />(gape) of the predator and maximum dorsoventral <br />body depth of the hump of the prey with regres- <br />sion analysis. <br />Results <br />Drag assessment <br />Drag coefficients using our apparatus and tech- <br />niques were similar to that reported for a sphere <br />(CD = 0.45 vs. 0.47 reported by Vogel 1994) and <br />0. mykiss (CD = 0.025 vs. 0.022 reported by Webb <br />1975, Table 1). Also, drag coefficients demon- <br />strated the importance of streamlining. The sphere <br />(no streamlining) had the highest drag coefficient, <br />and among the four Colorado River fishes that we <br />tested, the catostomid and cyprinid without humps <br />(i.e., C. latipinnis and G. robusta) had the lowest <br />drag coefficient (Table 1). A comparison of CD of <br />the two humped forms from which humps were <br />removed and sympatric forms were identical for <br />Gila and almost identical for the catostimids (X. <br />texanus = 0.24 and C. latipinnis = 0.25). When <br />looking at the fish casts with humps vs. humps <br />removed, there was a reduction in the drag force <br />and therefore a reduction in the drag coefficient <br />after the removal of the nuchal humps (Table 1; <br />Figure 3; p < 0.05). Thus, the extra mass of the <br />nuchal hump resulted in appreciable drag. <br />An increase in area or wetted surface of the fish <br />casts always resulted in increased drag, and drag <br />force was greatest on fish with the largest frontal <br />areas proportional to their length (Table 1). Drag <br />coefficients obtained were consistent with pub- <br />lished values (Table 1; Webb 1975, Vogel 1994), <br />and diminished as fish became more streamlined <br />(Table 1). There was a significant reduction <br />(p < 0.05) in the drag force upon removal of the <br />nuchal hump from the X. texanus and G. cypha <br />casts (Figure 3, Table 1), as reflected by a 27% <br />reduction in CD for X. texanus and a 14% reduc- <br />tion for G. cypha (Table 1). However, drag forces <br />seemed to be Reynolds number dependant because <br />of the characteristic length, which takes into ac- <br />count the different shapes of the fish and were not <br />Table 1. Drag coefficients obtained from published sources and experimental results at water velocities of 0.3 m s-1 and their <br />respective type of reference area. <br />Objects Drag coefficients Reference area <br />Theoretical sphere 0.47' Frontal area <br />Experimental sphere 0.45 Frontal area <br />0. mykiss 0.0226 Wetted area <br />0. mykiss 0.025 Wetted area <br />X. texanus 0.033 Wetted area <br />X. texamm (hump removed) 0.024 Wetted area <br />C. latipimeis 0.025 Wetted area <br />G. cypha 0.029 Wetted area <br />G. cypha (hump removed) 0.025 Wetted area <br />G. robusta 0.025 Wetted area <br />'Vogel (1994). <br />bWebb (1975).