| Literature DB >> 25919313 |
Sílvia Serrano-Fochs1, Soledad De Esteban-Trivigno2, Jordi Marcé-Nogué3, Josep Fortuny3, Richard A Fariña4.
Abstract
Finite element analyses (FEA) were applied to assess the lower jaw biomechanics of cingulate xenarthrans: 14 species of armadillos as well as one Pleistocene pampathere (11 extant taxa and the extinct forms Vassallia, Eutatus and Macroeuphractus). The principal goal of this work is to comparatively assess the biomechanical capabilities of the mandible based on FEA and to relate the obtained stress patterns with diet preferences and variability, in extant and extinct species through an ecomorphology approach. The results of FEA showed that omnivorous species have stronger mandibles than insectivorous species. Moreover, this latter group of species showed high variability, including some similar biomechanical features of the insectivorous Tolypeutes matacus and Chlamyphorus truncatus to those of omnivorous species, in agreement with reported diets that include items other than insects. It remains unclear the reasons behind the stronger than expected lower jaw of Dasypus kappleri. On the other hand, the very strong mandible of the fossil taxon Vassallia maxima agrees well with the proposed herbivorous diet. Moreover, Eutatus seguini yielded a stress pattern similar to Vassalia in the posterior part of the lower jaw, but resembling that of the stoutly built Macroeuphractus outesi in the anterior part. The results highlight the need for more detailed studies on the natural history of extant armadillos. FEA proved a powerful tool for biomechanical studies in a comparative framework.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25919313 PMCID: PMC4412537 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120653
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
List of extant extant species used in the present study.
| Taxon | Collection number | Subfamily | Redford (1985) category |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| AMNH 246460 | Tolypeutinae | Generalist insectivore |
|
| AMNH 208104 | Tolypeutinae | Specialist insectivore |
|
| MNHN 1953/457 | Tolypeutinae | Specialist insectivore |
|
| ZMB 4321 | Chlamyphorinae | Generalist insectivore |
|
| ZMB 85899 | Dasypodinae | Generalist insectivore |
|
| MNHN 1995/207 | Dasypodinae | Generalist insectivore |
|
| AMNH 133338 | Dasypodinae | Generalist insectivore |
|
| MLP 18.XI.99,9 | Euphractinae | Omnivore/ Carnivore |
|
| MNCN 2538 | Euphractinae | Omnivore/ Carnivore |
|
| MNHN 1917/13 | Euphractinae | Omnivore/ Carnivore |
|
| MLP 9.XII.2.10 | Euphractinae | Omnivore/ Carnivore |
Diet following Redford (1985): Specialist insectivores (social insects, mainly ants and termites), Generalist insectivores (beetles, beetle larvae, spiders, ants, termites), Omnivores/ Carnivores (characterized by a diet including plant material-e.g. tubers, roots, palm, nuts-, animal matter and a variety of invertebrates-beetles, ants, termites, worms- and vertebrates-mice, carrion, birds, eggs-). Abbreviations preceding the names of institutions are used to identify the location of specimens. AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA; FMNH, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, USA; MNCN, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain; MNHN, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturalle, Paris, France; ZMB, Zoologisches Museum, Berlin, Germany; MLP, Museo de la Plata, La Plata, Argentina.
Data for those Cingulate species used in the present study regarding the area of the lower jaw, insertion places, forces (musculature force per unit area in N m-2), and the thickness and scale factor variables used in the elasticity equation.
| Species | Thickness (mm) | Model area [mm2] | Masseter area [mm2] | Temporalis area [mm2] | Masseter Force [N] | Temporalis Force [N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.94 | 1038.9 | 300.6 | 156.1 | 0.66 | 0.34 |
|
| 6.41 | 2051.7 | 616.0 | 255.1 | 1.29 | 0.53 |
|
| 3.51 | 415.8 | 112.1 | 22.9 | 0.37 | 0.08 |
|
| 2.00 | 113.2 | 16.0 | 34.0 | 0.04 | 0.09 |
|
| 3.68 | 538.8 | 145.0 | 117.0 | 0.3 | 0.24 |
|
| 3.51 | 971.4 | 105.4 | 153.2 | 0.28 | 0.41 |
|
| 2.94 | 613.5 | 225.8 | 92.2 | 0.32 | 0.13 |
|
| 2.78 | 527.9 | 150.7 | 71.5 | 0.27 | 0.13 |
|
| 5.66 | 1019.2 | 331.2 | 190.6 | 0.72 | 0.41 |
|
| 3.56 | 497.4 | 157.0 | 64.1 | 0.35 | 0.14 |
|
| 3.51 | 327.4 | 89.7 | 66.1 | 0.23 | 0.17 |
|
| 25.97 | 4620.3 | 2208.4 | 140.2 | 10.43 | 0.66 |
|
| 13.74 | 3517.9 | 890.5 | 551.2 | 3.16 | 1.96 |
|
| 25.97 | 11750.0 | 5328.0 | 1455.9 | 13.89 | 3.79 |
Fig 1Points where stress values were recorded for posterior analysis.
The mandible was oriented making horizontal the line linking the anterior and most posterior part of the tooth row at alveolar level. Landmarks: 1) ventral part of the jaw at the most anterior part of the tooth row, 2) most anterior part of the tooth row at alveolar level, 3) the middle of the tooth row located at alveolar level, 4) drawing a vertical line from the point 3, the point where this line intersects with the ventral part of the mandible, 5) most posterior point of the tooth row at alveolar level, 6) drawing a vertical line from the point 5, the point where this line intersects with the ventral part of the mandible, 7) tracing a line at an angle at 45° from the horizontal, the point where this line intersects with the outer part of the mandibular angle, 8) situated at the upper part of the mandible corpus, where there is an upward shift due to the ascending ramus, 9) tracing an horizontal line that goes trough the point five, the middle point between 5 and the external part of the mandibular ramus, and 10) located between the landmark 5 and the upper part of the coronoid process. The muscle forces were applied in the masseter and the temporalis in directions appropriate for the relative direction of force during chewing. Drawing of Chaetophractus villosus mandible.
Fig 2Patterns of Von Mises stress for the studied species under the boundary conditions of Set 1.
Fig 3Patterns of Von Mises stress for the studied species under the boundary conditions of Set 2.
Fig 4Box-plots of the Von Mises stress values for most of the landmarks for Set 1 (those with extreme outliers or affected by boundary conditions were excluded).
Values of extant species are grouped by diet. The median is the middle line of the box and the whiskers represent the range of values.
Fig 5Dispersion graph of the two first principal components for Set 1.
A hypothetical lower jaw is represented in each extreme of the axes, highlighting those landmarks with higher loadings in each PC (i.e., that have more importance in that PC) with red circles. The size of the circles is an approximation to the standardized value of the loading. Subfamilies are represented by different symbols; squares: Tolypeutinae, circles: Dasypodinae, diamonds: Euphractinae, stars: Chlamyphorinae.
Fig 6Dispersion graph of the two first principal components for Set 2.
An hypothetical lower jaw is represented in each extreme of the axes, highlighting those landmarks with higher loadings in each PC (i.e., that have more importance in that PC) with red circles. The size of the circles is an approximation to the standardized value of the loading. Subfamilies are represented by different symbols; squares: Tolypeutinae, circles: Dasypodinae, diamonds: Euphractinae, stars: Chlamyphorinae.
Fig 7Line graph for the Von Mises stress values at each landmark, extant species grouped by diet.