Diverse prey capture strategies in teleost larvae

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors used video tracking of 4 larval cichlid species and medaka to quantify prey-capture behaviors.

Strengths:

Comparing these behaviors is in principle an interesting question, and helps to address the typicality of the much better-understood zebrafish model. The authors make a good effort to analyze their data quantitatively.

Weaknesses:

(1) The overall conclusion, as summarized in the abstract as "Together, our study documents the diversification of locomotor and oculomotor adaptations among hunting teleost larvae" is not that compelling. What would be much more interesting would be to directly relate these differences to different ecological niches (e.g. different types of natural prey, visual scene conditions, height in water column etc), and/or differences in neural circuit mechanisms. While I appreciate that this paper provides a first step on this path, by itself it seems on the verge of stamp collecting, i.e. collecting and cataloging observations without a clear, overarching hypothesis or theoretical framework.

(2) The data to support some of the claims is either weak or lacking entirely.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is a fascinating study about the behavioral kinematics of prey capture in larvae of several fish species (zebrafish, four cichlid species, and medaka). The authors describe in great detail swimming kinematics, hunting movement, eye movement as well as prey capture kinematics across these species. One striking finding is that cichlids and zebrafish use binocular vision to hunt for prey whereas medaka uses a monocular hunting style with a sideways motion to capture prey. The behavioral variation described in this study forms a strong foundation for future studies on the mechanisms underlying variation in hunting styles.

Strengths:

In general, the paper is well-written and documents very interesting data. The authors used sophisticated analyses that help appreciate the complexity of the behaviors examined. The discussion attempts to place the paper in a broader, comparative context. Overall, this paper reveals novel insight into an important behavior across different teleost species and lays a foundation for future studies on the neural and genetic basis of these distinct swimming and hunting behaviors.

Weaknesses:

The paper is rather descriptive in nature, although more context is provided in the discussion. Most figures are great, but I think the authors could add a couple of visual aids in certain places to explain how certain components were measured.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper uses 2D pose estimation and quantitative behavioral analyses to compare patterns of prey capture behavior used by six species of freshwater larval fish, including zebrafish, medaka, and four cichlids. The convincing comparison of tail and eye kinematics during hunts reveals that cichlids and zebrafish use binocular vision and similar hunting strategies, but that cichlids make use of an expanded set of action types. The authors also provide convincing evidence that medaka instead use monocular vision during hunts. This finding has important implications for the evolution of distinct distance estimation algorithms used by larval teleost fish species during prey capture.

Strengths:

The quality of the behavioral data is solid and the high frame rate allowed for careful quantification and comparison of eye and tail dynamics during hunts. The statistical approach to assess eye vergence states (Figure 2B) is elegant, the cross-species comparison of prey location throughout each hunt phase is well done (Figure 3B-D), and the demonstration that swim bout tail kinematics from diverse species can be embedded in a shared "canonical" principal component space to explain most of the variance in 2D postural dynamics for each species (Figure 4A-C) provides a simple and powerful framework for future studies of behavioral diversification across fish species.

Weaknesses:

More evidence is needed to assess the types of visual monocular depth cues used by medaka fish to estimate prey location, but that is beyond the scope of this compelling paper. For example, medaka may estimate depth through knowledge of expected prey size, accommodation, defocus blur, ocular parallax, and/or other possible algorithms to complement cues from motion parallax.