2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.05.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Food mechanical properties, feeding ecology, and the mandibular morphology of wild orangutans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
59
0
4

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 117 publications
1
59
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Acknowledging that the lack of statistical support for the SNC model in some genera/premolar positions may be related to small sample sizes, our results do suggest that other factors may be influencing variation in root form within and between hominoid taxa. For example, both Gorilla and Pongo have mechanically demanding diets (see Dominy et al, ; Constantino et al, ; Vogel et al, ) and our results could be related to functional adaptations in premolar root structure rather than size variability. Masticatory demands selecting for increased root number (i.e., greater attachment area and/or stability; Kupczik et al, ) would explain why, for example, the UP3/LP4 are conserved across the sample and the UP4 is nearly monomorphic in Gorilla / Pongo .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Acknowledging that the lack of statistical support for the SNC model in some genera/premolar positions may be related to small sample sizes, our results do suggest that other factors may be influencing variation in root form within and between hominoid taxa. For example, both Gorilla and Pongo have mechanically demanding diets (see Dominy et al, ; Constantino et al, ; Vogel et al, ) and our results could be related to functional adaptations in premolar root structure rather than size variability. Masticatory demands selecting for increased root number (i.e., greater attachment area and/or stability; Kupczik et al, ) would explain why, for example, the UP3/LP4 are conserved across the sample and the UP4 is nearly monomorphic in Gorilla / Pongo .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…Our LP3 type 4‐A‐1 (found only in Pongo ) has not been described in extant apes and resembles the “molarized” form of Paranthropus boisei (Abbott, ; Wood et al, ). As the craniodental morphology of Pongo has also been implicated in the mastication of hard/tough food items (e.g., Vogel et al, ) future research should explore whether this is an example of convergent evolution with Paranthropus . For the LP4, Abbott () reports specimens with four canals (we found this type at low frequency) and Emonet and Kullmer () report a three rooted (possibly 3‐C‐1) type (50%), which is not present in our sample.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, while our data reveal co-occurrence of seed-eating and ingestive work, this observation is far from adequate for implicating a causal connection. Nevertheless, by integrating oral processing data from the field with those on material properties across the entirety of the diet (e.g., Vogel et al, 2014), we establish the context for studiesdsuch as those on bone stiffness (e.g., Daegling et al, 2011a,b) and secondary remodeling (Bouvier and Hylander, 1996;Lad et al, 2013)dthat help decipher how load frequency and load magnitude influence the structural and material variation in masticatory morphology.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The toughest foods in a primate's diet are not necessarily those eaten most frequently. The most mechanically challenging foods in a primate's diet may represent rarely consumed fallback foods (Lambert et al, 2004;Marshall and Wrangham, 2007; although some mechanically challenging food are preferentially selected for consumption, for example, Vogel et al, 2008Vogel et al, , 2009Vogel et al, , 2014Chalk, 2011;Daegling et al, 2011). Thus, estimates of average and median toughness are potentially more representative of the overall mechanical challenges of a given diet than is maximum toughness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%