spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online May 8, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1752-1761 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.002246
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pontzer, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pontzer, H.

Effective limb length and the scaling of locomotor cost in terrestrial animals

Herman Pontzer

Washington University, Department of Anthropology, 119 McMillan Hall, St Louis, MO 63130, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (3K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Effective limb length, LE. Note that LE is shorter than the cumulative lengths of the component long bones.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. The relationship between (A) effective limb length (LE) and (B) body mass and the cost of transport (COT) for all 28 species. (C) Path analysis indicating the independent effects of LE and body mass on the mass-specific cost of transport. Results of Analysis group 1 species are shown; similar results were obtained for Analysis groups 2 and 3. Arrow thickness is proportional to path coefficient. N=15 species, d.f.=12 for all comparisons.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. (A) The fit of four taxonomic groups to the overall log10LE–COT trendline: mammals (red), birds (blue), reptiles (gray) and arthropods (yellow). (B) Boxplots of log10COT residuals from the LE–COT regression for each taxonomic group. *Residuals significantly greater than for mammals (P<0.05, Student's t-test). COT, cost of transport; LE, effective limb length.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Boxplots of residual log10COT, controlling for (A) body mass and (B) LE, for semi-aquatic (white), generalist (gray) and cursorial (black) species. Number of species in each locomotor group is shown below each category heading. (C) Log10 residuals of LE and COT controlling for body mass for each locomotor group. Squares indicate group means, error bars indicate standard error. Shading indicates locomotor group as in A. COT, cost of transport; LE, effective limb length.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (4K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Effective limb length (LE) versus cost of transport (COT) within species. Circles indicate different size classes (see Table 4): lizards (green), dogs (red), humans (white), caribou (blue). Line indicates trendline for all species.

 




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007