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 December 14, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 86-91 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.012211
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herrel, A.
Right arrow Articles by Aerts, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Herrel, A.
Right arrow Articles by Aerts, P.

Morphological and mechanical determinants of bite force in bats: do muscles matter?

Anthony Herrel1,*, Ann De Smet1, Luis F. Aguirre2 and Peter Aerts1

1 Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium
2 Centro de Biodiversidad y Genética, Universidad Mayor de San Simon, Cochabamba, Bolivia


Figure 1
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. (A) Photograph of the head of a Pteropus giganteus after removal of the skin. The two most important jaw closer groups are the m. temporalis and the m. masseter. The m. digastricus is the jaw opener. For a detailed account of the morphology of the jaw muscles see Storch (Storch, 1968Go). (B) Skull of the same Pteropus giganteus after removal of the jaw muscles. Indicated are the center of rotation (COR), the bite points (BP1 and BP2), and the angle of the food reaction forces (AFRF), which are all defined in the model. The food reaction forces (FRF), the joint forces, and the angle of the joint forces are the variables that are calculated by the model.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Phylogenetic relationships between the species included in our analysis. Based on Jones et al. (Jones et al., 2002Go).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Scaling of the physiological cross sectional area with cranial length for the different cranial muscles. Cross sectional area scales with a slope not significantly different from the expected slope of two for all muscles (see text for details).

 

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

  		Fig. 4. Plot showing the correlation between calculated and in vivo bite forces. Both are strongly correlated (r=0.87; P<0.01) and the slope is not significantly different from one. Thus calculated bite forces are a good approximation of in vivo bite forces. The white circle represents Glossophaga soricina, a nectar eater and the gray one Desmodus rotundus, a blood-licking bat.

 




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008