An official website of the United States government
ABSTRACT Bite force and gape are two important performance metrics of the feeding system, and these metrics are inversely related for a given muscle size because of fundamental constraints in sarcomere length–tension relationships. How these competing performance metrics change in developing primates is largely unknown. Here, we quantified in vivo bite forces and gapes across ontogeny and examined these data in relation to body mass and cranial measurements in captive tufted capuchins, Sapajus spp. Bite force and gape were also compared across geometric and mechanical properties of mechanically challenging foods to investigate relationships between bite force, gape and food accessibility (defined here as the ability to breach shelled nuts). Bite forces at a range of gapes and feeding behavioral data were collected from a cross-sectional ontogenetic series of 20 captive and semi-wild tufted capuchins at the Núcleo de Procriação de Macacos-Prego Research Center in Araçatuba, Brazil. These data were paired with body mass, photogrammetric measures of jaw length and facial width, and food geometric and material properties. Tufted capuchins with larger body masses had absolutely higher in vivo bite forces and gapes, and animals with wider faces had absolutely higher bite forces. Bite forces and gapes were significantly smaller in juveniles compared with subadults and adults. These are the first primate data to empirically demonstrate the gapes at which maximum active bite force is generated and to demonstrate relationships to food accessibility. These data advance our understanding of how primates meet the changing performance demands of the feeding system during development.
more »
« less
Tradeoffs between bite force and gape in Eulemur and Varecia
Abstract In 1974, Sue Herring described the relationship between two important performance variables in the feeding system, bite force and gape. These variables are inversely related, such that, without specific muscular adaptations, most animals cannot produce high bite forces at large gapes for a given sized muscle. Despite the importance of these variables for feeding biomechanics and functional ecology, the paucity of in vivo bite force data in primates has led to bite forces largely being estimated through ex vivo methods. Here, we quantify and compare in vivo bite forces and gapes with output from simulated musculoskeletal models in two craniofacially distinct strepsirrhines:Eulemur, which has a shorter jaw and slower chewing cycle durations relative to jaw length and body mass compared toVarecia. Bite forces were collected across a range of linear gapes from 16 adult lemurs (suborder Strepsirrhini) at the Duke Lemur Center in Durham, North Carolina representing three species:Eulemur flavifrons(n = 6; 3F, 3M),Varecia variegata(n = 5; 3F, 2M), andVarecia rubra(n = 5; 5F). Maximum linear and angular gapes were significantly higher forVareciacompared toEulemur(p = .01) but there were no significant differences in recorded maximum in vivo bite forces (p = .88). Simulated muscle models using architectural data for these taxa suggest this approach is an accurate method of estimating bite force‐gape tradeoffs in addition to variables such as fiber length, fiber operating range, and gapes associated with maximum force. Our in vivo and modeling data suggestVareciahas reduced bite force capacities in favor of absolutely wider gapes compared toEulemurin relation to their longer jaws. Importantly, our comparisons validate the simulated muscle approach for estimating bite force as a function of gape in extant and fossil primates.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10524756
- Publisher / Repository:
- Journal of Morphology
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Morphology
- Volume:
- 285
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 0362-2525
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
ABSTRACT ObjectivesBite force has received significant attention in biological anthropology, but maximum bite force estimates for a single primate species often span hundreds of newtons. In this synthesis, we discuss the definitions of maximum bite force, review and highlight the variability in methods used to assess bite force in primates, and compare bite force ranges in macaques to bracket maximum force estimates between physiological and mechanical maxima. Materials and MethodsMethods of estimating bite force in primates were gathered from the literature along with published estimates of maximum bite force for macaques (Macacasp.). ResultsMaximum bite force can be defined physiologically or mechanically, and methods of estimating bite force can be grouped as in vivo, muscle‐based, and craniodental within these two definitions. Physiological estimates occur under natural conditions modulated by sensorimotor feedback, whereas mechanical maximum bite forces ignore muscular and neural limitations. Published maximum bite forces for macaques at the molars vary from 127 N to 898 N, a 771 N range. Using a bracketing approach suggested here, we narrow the estimated bite force range at the incisors to 487–503 N and 503–898 N for the molars. DiscussionThis synthesis emphasizes the need for comparisons between in vivo, muscle‐based, and craniodental bite force methods in living primates. We propose bracketing bite force estimates between physiological and mechanical maxima in order to provide more reliable bite force estimates and improve understanding of how bite force relates to primate functional morphology and feeding ecology.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT The jaw‐adductor muscles drive the movements and forces associated with primate feeding behaviors such as biting and chewing as well as social signaling behaviors such as wide‐mouth canine display. The past several decades have seen a rise in research aimed at the anatomy and physiology of primate chewing muscles to better understand the functional and evolutionary significance of the primate masticatory apparatus. This review summarizes variation in jaw‐adductor fiber types and muscle architecture in primates, focusing on physiological, architectural, and behavioral performance variables such as specific tension, fatigue resistance, muscle and bite force, and muscle stretch and gape.Paranthropus andAustralopithecusare used as one paleontological example to showcase the importance of these data for addressing paleobiological questions. The high degree of morphological variation related to sex, age, muscle, and species suggests future research should bracket ranges of performance variables rather than focus on single estimates of performance.more » « less
-
Abstract Jaw muscles are key features of the vertebrate feeding apparatus. The jaw musculature is housed in the skull whose morphology reflects a compromise between multiple functions, including feeding, housing sensory structures, and defense, and the skull constrains jaw muscle geometry. Thus, jaw muscle anatomy may be suboptimally oriented for the production of bite force. Crocodylians are a group of vertebrates that generate the highest bite forces ever measured with a flat skull suited to their aquatic ambush predatory style. However, basal members of the crocodylian line (e.g.,Prestosuchus) were terrestrial predators with plesiomorphically tall skulls, and thus the origin of modern crocodylians involved a substantial reorganization of the feeding apparatus and its jaw muscles. Here, we reconstruct jaw muscles across a phylogenetic range of crocodylians and fossil suchians to investigate the impact of skull flattening on muscle anatomy. We used imaging data to create 3D models of extant and fossil suchians that demonstrate the evolution of the crocodylian skull, using osteological correlates to reconstruct muscle attachment sites. We found that jaw muscle anatomy in early fossil suchians reflected the ancestral archosaur condition but experienced progressive shifts in the lineage leading to Metasuchia. In early fossil suchians, musculus adductor mandibulae posterior and musculus pterygoideus (mPT) were of comparable size, but by Metasuchia, the jaw musculature is dominated by mPT. As predicted, we found that taxa with flatter skulls have less efficient muscle orientations for the production of high bite force. This study highlights the diversity and evolution of jaw muscles in one of the great transformations in vertebrate evolution.more » « less
-
Abstract There is increasing interest from evolutionary biologists in the evolution of avian bill shape, how the bill is used during feeding and, in particular, the bite forces the bill can deliver. Bite force exhibits isometry with the total mass of the jaw musculature, but there is variation in the functional categories of the jaw muscles in different avian taxa. Qualitative descriptions of the jaw musculature do not allow analysis of the relative contributions that adductor or retractor muscles play in generating a bite force. This study is a meta-analysis of published data for body mass and the mass of the jaw musculature in 66 bird species from 10 orders. The masses of the different muscles contributing to adduction and retraction in closing the jaw, and to depression and protraction in opening the jaw, were summed and allometric relationships explored before investigating the effects of taxonomic order on these relationships. The categories of muscles, and the masses of each category of jaw musculature varied among avian orders. Some species, such as the flightless ratites, had relatively small jaw muscle mass but parrots had an additional adductor muscle. Phylogenetically controlled relationships between body mass and the mass of each muscle category irrespective of taxonomic order were isometric. However, analysis of covariance revealed significant interactions between body mass and taxonomic order. Most orders had low values for body-mass-specific muscle masses in the jaw with the notable exceptions of the Passeriformes (songbirds) and Psittaciformes (parrots). The values of these orders were 3–4 times greater, although the relative amounts of muscles contributing to adduction and retraction were similar in Psittaciformes, but adduction was markedly higher in Passeriformes. The results of these analyses highlight the lack of species-specific data for most birds, which is adversely impacting our understanding of the anatomical features that are determining the functional properties of the bill during feeding.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.21699
