Macroevolutionary trends in theropod dinosaur feeding mechanics

Ma, Waisum; Pittman, Michael; Butler, Richard J.; Lautenschlager, Stephan

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.11.060

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While initially common in engineering, architecture, and orthopaedic sciences, it is now widely used to assess the biomechanics of the human musculoskeletal system, and in recent years it has been a crucial tool in understanding vertebrate biomechanics and evolution ( Ross, 2005 ; Rayfield, 2007 ). FEA has been used in studies of 2D ( Rayfield, 2004 ; Rayfield, 2005a ; Rayfield, 2005b ; Pierce, Angielczyk & Rayfield, 2008 ; Pierce, Angielczyk & Rayfield, 2009 ; Fletcher, Janis & Rayfield, 2010 ; Ma et al, 2021 ) and 3D structures ( Moreno et al, 2008 ; Bell, Snively & Shychoski, 2009 ; Oldfield et al, 2012 ; Cost et al, 2019 ; Rowe & Snively, 2021 ) to assess patterns and magnitudes of stresses and strain in both extant and extinct organisms, as well as suture morphology in the crania of reptiles ( Rayfield, 2005a ; Rayfield, 2005b ; Jones et al, 2017 ) and mammals ( Bright & Gröning, 2011 ; Bright, 2012 ). While studies involving FEA commonly focus on stress and strain occurring in the skull during feeding ( Rayfield, 2007 ), studies may also examine the biomechanics of other vertebrate appendages ( Arbour & Snively, 2009 ; Lautenschlager, 2014 ; Bishop et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis

Rowe

Rayfield

2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a commonly used application in biomechanical studies of both extant and fossil taxa to assess stress and strain in solid structures such as bone. FEA can be performed on 3D structures that are generated using various methods, including computed tomography (CT) scans and surface scans. While previous palaeobiological studies have used both CT scanned models and surface scanned models, little research has evaluated to what degree FE results may vary when CT scans and surface scans of the same object are compared. Surface scans do not preserve the internal geometries of 3D structures, which are typically preserved in CT scans. Here, we created 3D models from CT scans and surface scans of the same specimens (crania and mandibles of a Nile crocodile, a green sea turtle, and a monitor lizard) and performed FEA under identical loading parameters. It was found that once surface scanned models are solidified, they output stress and strain distributions and model deformations comparable to their CT scanned counterparts, though differing by notable stress and strain magnitudes in some cases, depending on morphology of the specimen and the degree of reconstruction applied. Despite similarities in overall mechanical behaviour, surface scanned models can differ in exterior shape compared to CT scanned models due to inaccuracies that can occur during scanning and reconstruction, resulting in local differences in stress distribution. Solid-fill surface scanned models generally output lower stresses compared to CT scanned models due to their compact interiors, which must be accounted for in studies that use both types of scans.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis

Rowe

Rayfield

2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If their forelimb shortening was linked to a reduced need for prey handling associated with their dietary shift, it is possible that this was a driver of sternum loss. However, the closely related oviraptorosaurians had a less carnivorous diet but had sterna ( 31 , 32 ), so the absence of the sternum in troodontids remains enigmatic.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preserved soft anatomy confirms shoulder-powered upstroke of early theropod flyers, reveals enhanced early pygostylian upstroke, and explains early sternum loss

Pittman

Kaye²,

Wang

et al. 2022

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anatomy of the first flying feathered dinosaurs, modern birds and crocodylians, proposes an ancestral flight system divided between shoulder and chest muscles, before the upstroke muscles migrated beneath the body. This ancestral flight system featured the dorsally positioned deltoids and supracoracoideus controlling the upstroke and the chest-bound pectoralis controlling the downstroke. Preserved soft anatomy is needed to contextualize the origin of the modern flight system, but this has remained elusive. Here we reveal the soft anatomy of the earliest theropod flyers preserved as residual skin chemistry covering the body and delimiting its margins. These data provide preserved soft anatomy that independently validate the ancestral theropod flight system. The heavily constructed shoulder and more weakly constructed chest in the early pygostylian Confuciusornis indicated by a preserved body profile, proposes the first upstroke-enhanced flight stroke. Slender ventral body profiles in the early-diverging birds Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis suggest habitual use of the pectoralis could not maintain the sternum through bone functional adaptations. Increased wing-assisted terrestrial locomotion potentially accelerated sternum loss through higher breathing requirements. Lower expected downstroke requirements in the early thermal soarer Sapeornis could have driven sternum loss through bone functional adaption, possibly encouraged by the higher breathing demands of a Confuciusornis -like upstroke. Both factors are supported by a slender ventral body profile. These data validate the ancestral shoulder/chest flight system and provide insights into novel upstroke-enhanced flight strokes and early sternum loss, filling important gaps in our understanding of the appearance of modern flight.

show abstract

“…Large theropods undoubtedly also preyed on smaller herbivorous dinosaurs, and also each other (Dalman & Lucas, 2021;Drumheller et al, 2020). In at least some large theropods, there was likely an ontogenetic change in diet as they grew (Codron et al, 2012(Codron et al, , 2013Holtz Jr, 2021;Ma et al, 2022;Schroeder et al, 2021;Therrien et al, 2021), with the youngest, smallest individuals likely taking small vertebrate and even invertebrate prey (Farlow, 1976b). Given taphonomic preservation biases against small-bodied animals typically seen in Mesozoic faunas (cf.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because the DPFm and especially the MFm megaherbivores were quite big animals, a substantial fraction of their body masses would have been skeleton, which we can probably discount as a major source of nutrition for most big theropods. Tyrannosaurids may be an exception, given the stoutness of their jaws and teeth (Ma et al, 2022;Therrien et al, 2021;and references therein), as well as trace evidence from bite marks and coprolites (Chin, 1997;Hone & Rauhut, 2010; and references therein), which may have allowed them to break bones apart and consume fragments for their organic content. Prange et al (1979) examined the relationship between dry skeleton mass (kg) and body mass:…”

Section: Useable Carcass Meat Fractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Dragons” on the landscape: Modeling the abundance of large carnivorous dinosaurs of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation (USA) and the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation (Canada)

Farlow

Coroian

Currie

et al. 2022

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Counts of the number of skeletal specimens of "adult" megaherbivores and large theropods from the Morrison and Dinosaur Park formations-if not biased by taphonomic artifacts-suggest that the big meat-eaters were more abundant, relative to the number of big plant-eaters, than one would expect on the basis of the relative abundance of large carnivores and herbivores in modern mammalian faunas. Models of megaherbivore population density (number of individuals per square kilometer) that attempt to take into account ecosystem productivity, the size structure of megaherbivore populations, and individual megaherbivore energy requirements, when combined with values of the large theropod/megaherbivore abundance ratio, suggest that large theropods may have been more abundant on the landscape than estimates extrapolated from the population density versus body mass relationship of mammalian carnivores. Models of the meat production of megaherbivore populations and the meat requirements of "adult" large theropods suggest that herbivore productivity would have been insufficient to support the associated number of individuals of "adult" large theropods, unless the herbivore production/biomass ratio was substantially higher, and/or the large theropod meat requirement markedly lower, than expectations based on modern mammals. Alternatively, or in addition to one or both of these other factors, large theropods likely included dinosaurs other than megaherbivores as significant components of their diet.

show abstract

Macroevolutionary trends in theropod dinosaur feeding mechanics

Cited by 16 publications

References 64 publications

The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis

The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis

Preserved soft anatomy confirms shoulder-powered upstroke of early theropod flyers, reveals enhanced early pygostylian upstroke, and explains early sternum loss

“Dragons” on the landscape: Modeling the abundance of large carnivorous dinosaurs of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation (USA) and the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation (Canada)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About