2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.111140
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationships between dietary breadth and flexibility in jaw movement: A case study of two recently diverged insular populations of Podarcis lizards

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To ensure consistency in the output bite force generated by the MDA models, the location of the contact between the food particle and the teeth was prescribed to match the location of the contact between the teeth and the plates of the force transducer used to measure in vivo bite force in the field [37]. To run further simulations, the location of the item was then standardized at the middle of the maxillary toothrow, as observations revealed that lizards typically crush prey at that location [38]. The stiffness of the food particle was intentionally set beyond the hardness of prey typically consumed by the lizards to ensure that the gape angle did not change during a biting simulation and to obtain the maximal bite force.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To ensure consistency in the output bite force generated by the MDA models, the location of the contact between the food particle and the teeth was prescribed to match the location of the contact between the teeth and the plates of the force transducer used to measure in vivo bite force in the field [37]. To run further simulations, the location of the item was then standardized at the middle of the maxillary toothrow, as observations revealed that lizards typically crush prey at that location [38]. The stiffness of the food particle was intentionally set beyond the hardness of prey typically consumed by the lizards to ensure that the gape angle did not change during a biting simulation and to obtain the maximal bite force.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These models allowed us to test the impact of changes in cranial morphology and muscle anatomy on the calculated bite force by comparing the results of the simulations. The bite force in each of the four models was calculated for 10 different gape angles, from 0° (closed jaw) to 45° (maximum gape typically attained at the onset of fast closing [38]), thereby effectively varying the size of the prey item. For each MDA model, the conversion rate of the total muscle force into bite force was calculated at every gape tested by dividing bite force by the total muscle force and was used to assess the efficiency of a muscle to translate intrinsic muscle force into bite force.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%