Energetics of burrowing by the cirratulid polychaete<i>Cirriformia moorei</i>

Dorgan, Kelly M.; Lefebvre, Stephane C.; Stillman, Jonathon H.; Koehl, M. A. R.

doi:10.1242/jeb.054700

Cited by 25 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[50], who assumed that earthworms penetrate sediments by crack propagation and estimated energy requirements for soil penetration using linear elastic fracture mechanics. Estimations of energy requirements for soil penetration by crack propagation were conducted using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) utilizing an energy formulation defined by Dorgan et al .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Estimations of energy requirements for soil penetration by crack propagation were conducted using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) utilizing an energy formulation defined by Dorgan et al . [50]: where K Ic is the fracture toughness, ν is the Poisson’s ratio, G is the shear modulus, l is considered to be the distance over which the crack grows, and r f is considered to be the width of the crack. For simplicity, this study assumes that the width of the crack is the same size as the radius of the earthworm penetrating the soil, and the length that the crack grows is equal to the depth of a given earthworm tunnel.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For simplicity, this study assumes that the width of the crack is the same size as the radius of the earthworm penetrating the soil, and the length that the crack grows is equal to the depth of a given earthworm tunnel. For comparison with our model, we assumed a 1 m long penetration depth with a radius of 1.2 mm [50]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Soil Penetration by Earthworms and Plant Roots—Mechanical Energetics of Bioturbation of Compacted Soils

Ruiz

Schymanski

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We quantify mechanical processes common to soil penetration by earthworms and growing plant roots, including the energetic requirements for soil plastic displacement. The basic mechanical model considers cavity expansion into a plastic wet soil involving wedging by root tips or earthworms via cone-like penetration followed by cavity expansion due to pressurized earthworm hydroskeleton or root radial growth. The mechanical stresses and resulting soil strains determine the mechanical energy required for bioturbation under different soil hydro-mechanical conditions for a realistic range of root/earthworm geometries. Modeling results suggest that higher soil water content and reduced clay content reduce the strain energy required for soil penetration. The critical earthworm or root pressure increases with increased diameter of root or earthworm, however, results are insensitive to the cone apex (shape of the tip). The invested mechanical energy per unit length increase with increasing earthworm and plant root diameters, whereas mechanical energy per unit of displaced soil volume decreases with larger diameters. The study provides a quantitative framework for estimating energy requirements for soil penetration work done by earthworms and plant roots, and delineates intrinsic and external mechanical limits for bioturbation processes. Estimated energy requirements for earthworm biopore networks are linked to consumption of soil organic matter and suggest that earthworm populations are likely to consume a significant fraction of ecosystem net primary production to sustain their subterranean activities.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Soil Penetration by Earthworms and Plant Roots—Mechanical Energetics of Bioturbation of Compacted Soils

Ruiz

Schymanski

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, humans walking through light and heavy brush have power requirements that are 1.2 and 1.6 times higher than those of humans walking on open ground (Knapik et al 2004). Locomotion within sand, soil, and sediments by vertebrates and invertebrates can also be considered in this framework, although the costs of burrowing in these viscoelastic media are less well understood (Maladen et al 2009;Dorgan et al 2011).…”

Section: Static Energy Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Landscapes Shape Animal Movement Ecology

Shepard

Wilson²,

Rees³

et al. 2013

The American Naturalist

325

374

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Submitted January 5, 2013; Accepted April 11, 2013; Electronically published July 12, 2013 abstract: The metabolic costs of animal movement have been studied extensively under laboratory conditions, although frequently these are a poor approximation of the costs of operating in the natural, heterogeneous environment. Construction of "energy landscapes," which relate animal locality to the cost of transport, can clarify whether, to what extent, and how movement properties are attributable to environmental heterogeneity. Although behavioral responses to aspects of the energy landscape are well documented in some fields (notably, the selection of tailwinds by aerial migrants) and scales (typically large), the principles of the energy landscape extend across habitat types and spatial scales. We provide a brief synthesis of the mechanisms by which environmentally driven changes in the cost of transport can modulate the behavioral ecology of animal movement in different media, develop example cost functions for movement in heterogeneous environments, present methods for visualizing these energy landscapes, and derive specific predictions of expected outcomes from individual-to population-and species-level processes. Animals modulate a suite of movement parameters (e.g., route, speed, timing of movement, and tortuosity) in relation to the energy landscape, with the nature of their response being related to the energy savings available. Overall, variation in movement costs influences the quality of habitat patches and causes nonrandom movement of individuals between them. This can provide spatial and/or temporal structure to a range of population-and specieslevel processes, ultimately including gene flow. Advances in animalattached technology and geographic information systems are opening up new avenues for measuring and mapping energy landscapes that are likely to provide new insight into their influence in animal ecology.

show abstract

“…Forces resisting forward movement in linear elastic muds include cohesive fracture resistance, elastic resistance to sediment deformation and friction. The work to extend a burrow by fracture is the sum of the work of fracture, W Cr ¼ G c (Dx)w cr , and the elastic work, W El ¼ 2s w w w (Dx)h [22]. G c is the fracture toughness (J m…”

Section: (B) Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meandering worms: mechanics of undulatory burrowing in muds

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work has shown that muddy sediments are elastic solids through which animals extend burrows by fracture, whereas non-cohesive granular sands fluidize around some burrowers. These different mechanical responses are reflected in the morphologies and behaviours of their respective inhabitants. However, Armandia brevis, a mud-burrowing opheliid polychaete, lacks an expansible anterior consistent with fracturing mud, and instead uses undulatory movements similar to those of sandfish lizards that fluidize desert sands. Here, we show that A. brevis neither fractures nor fluidizes sediments, but instead uses a third mechanism, plastically rearranging sediment grains to create a burrow. The curvature of the undulating body fits meander geometry used to describe rivers, and changes in curvature driven by muscle contraction are similar for swimming and burrowing worms, indicating that the same gait is used in both sediments and water. Large calculated friction forces for undulatory burrowers suggest that sediment mechanics affect undulatory and peristaltic burrowers differently; undulatory burrowing may be more effective for small worms that live in sediments not compacted or cohesive enough to extend burrows by fracture.

show abstract

Energetics of burrowing by the cirratulid polychaeteCirriformia moorei

Cited by 25 publications

References 48 publications

Soil Penetration by Earthworms and Plant Roots—Mechanical Energetics of Bioturbation of Compacted Soils

Soil Penetration by Earthworms and Plant Roots—Mechanical Energetics of Bioturbation of Compacted Soils

Energy Landscapes Shape Animal Movement Ecology

Meandering worms: mechanics of undulatory burrowing in muds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About