To request copies of my publications, please contact me thru ResearchGate:
Kolmann, M.A., Grubbs, R.D., Huber, D.R., Fisher, R., Lovejoy, N.R., & Erickson, G.M. In Review. Bigger pups and more muscle: ontogenetic feeding mechanics in two populations of stingrays. Journal of Zoology.
Kolmann, M.A., Elbassiouny, A.A., Liverpool, E.A., & Lovejoy, N.R. Accepted. DNA barcoding reveals the diversity of sharks in Guyana coastal markets. Neotropical Ichthyology.
Freshwater stingrays are found in South American river basins and feed on a diverse array of prey. Many of these species specialize on a single kind of prey, be they fish, crustaceans, snails, or even aquatic insect larvae. But not all of these prey are created equal – some prey are harder, softer, or tougher than others. Insectivorous freshwater stingrays are the only elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) to feed on insects – which are difficult to eat and digest due to high amounts of chitin in their exoskeletons, a remarkably complex and tough material. Other vertebrates, namely mammals like shrews, bats, and tenrecs also eat insects and they use complex jaw motions – chewing – to shred chitin to allow digestive juices to breakdown prey. Stingrays can protrude their jaws away from their skull as well as protrude these jaws laterally, to the left or right. Using high-speed videography we determined that freshwater stingrays (Potamotrygon) do actually chew their food – just like mammals. We also found that these stingrays lift their disk to suck prey underneath the body – thereby capturing food with their pectoral fin ‘limbs.’
Kolmann, M.A., Welch, K.C., Summers, A.P., & Lovejoy, N.R. (2016). Always chew your food: freshwater stingrays use mastication to process tough insect prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Part B. 283: 20161392.
A new paper by my labmate, Ahmed Elbassiouny, on which I am a coauthor! Really interesting look at the evolution of mitochondrial genomes in fishes which use electricity to navigate, communicate, and sometimes even for defense!
Elbassiouny, A.A., Schott, R.K., Waddell, J.C., Kolmann, M.A., Lehmberg, E.S., Van Nynatten, A., Crampton, W.G., Chang, B.S. and Lovejoy, N.R., 2016. Mitochondrial genomes of the South American electric knifefishes (Order Gymnotiformes). Mitochondrial DNA Part B, 1: 401-403.
All stingrays in the family Myliobatidae eat hard-shelled prey, be it crabs, snails, or clams. Just as there are differences in diet between these rays, there are different jaw shapes - presumably these two phenomena are related (ecomorphology); afterall, form follows function. We were interested in if different jaw shapes conferred a performance advantage for consuming specific hard prey. We made replica metal jaws for each ray species, rendered from computed tomography scans, and crushed live mollusks as well as 3D printed shells with these fabricated jaws. We found little difference in crushing performance between jaw shapes, suggesting that disparate morphologies are equally well-suited for crushing many kinds of shelled prey. This redundancy of function is despite prey exhibiting varying resiliency to crushing; regarding either the amount of energy invested (work) or the raw amount of force (load) required to fracturing the shells.
Kolmann, M.A., Crofts, S.B., Dean, M.N., Summers, A.P., & Lovejoy, N.R. (2015). Morphology does not predict performance: jaw curvature and prey crushing in durophagous stingrays. Journal of Experimental Biology. 218: 3941-3949.
We find that positive allometric growth of the primary feeding musculature, and not favorable lever mechanics drive increases in feeding performance (i.e. bite force) in juvenile cownose rays - in other words, juvenile rays have greater than expected ability to consume hard prey than we would expect given their smaller size. This is imperative for animals that eat durable prey, in this case, bivalves. Cownose rays use a Type-1 pulley system that arises from a tendon-sesamoid-muscle complex in order to reroute and therefore amplify muscle forces across the tooth surface - making them effective molluscivores.
Oh, and this is one of the only studies to analyze feeding performance in a stingray!
Kolmann, M.A., Huber, D.R., Motta, P.J., & Grubbs, R.D. (2015). Feeding biomechanics of the cownose ray, Rhinoptera bonasus, over ontogeny. Journal of Anatomy. 227(3): 341-351.
My abbreviated, functional review of feeding anatomy in stingrays. It poses functional hypotheses regarding general function of feeding structures (mostly muscles), with particular focus on the anatomical differences between durophagous and non-durophagous stingrays. We find that muscular complexity increases in general from ratfishes to sharks to batoids, possibly due to de-coupling of the jaws from the cranium (jaw suspension).
Kolmann, M.A., Huber, D.R., Dean, M.N., & Grubbs, R.D. (2014). Myological variability in a decoupled skeletal system: Batoid cranial anatomy. Journal of Morphology. 275(8): 862-881.
My study of feeding performance over ontogeny in horn sharks. We found that muscular hypertrophy drives positive allometry of bite force generation in these sharks. We also demonstrate that these functional gains in feeding performance allow horn sharks to prey on a large size range of sea urchins (a primary prey item in California) from a relatively small size.
Kolmann, M.A., & Huber, D.R. (2009). Scaling of feeding biomechanics in the horn shark Heterodontus francisci: ontogenetic constraints on durophagy. Zoology. 112(5): 351-361.