Scaling of Supportive Tissue Mass

Anderson, John F.; Rahn, Hermann; Prange, Henry D.

doi:10.1086/411153

Cited by 77 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study by Anderson et al (1979) indicated that the external skeletons of spiders, freshwater mollusks, and bird eggs scale similarly to endoskeletons of birds, land mammals, and whales (Smith and Pace, 1971;Prange et al, 1979), and that, if anything, investment in supportive tissue increases at an even faster rate as body size increases in organisms with exoskeletons than it does in organisms with endoskeletons. The data of Anderson et al (1979), while interesting, are hardly representative of arthropods in general because only three species of spiders (n 5 61; body size range of 25 mg to 1.2 g) were represented, data of individuals were plotted, and individuals included were a combination of immature and adult animals. The study by Wheatley and Ayers (1995) possesses similar limitations.…”

Section: Scaling Of Exoskeletal Chitin In Insectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relationship between exoskeletal mass and body mass in arthropods, in contrast, has received very little attention. For arthropods, work is limited to an analysis by Anderson et al (1979) who measured the exoskeletal mass in three species of spiders and found that exoskeleton also scales with positive allometry (b 5 1.14), and an analysis by Wheatly and Ayers (1995) who measured the mineral content of one species of crayfish and found that scaling exponents varied from negative to positive allometry (b 5 0.93 to b 5 1.27).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exoskeletal chitin scales isometrically with body size in terrestrial insects

Lease

Wolf

2010

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The skeletal system of animals provides the support for a variety of activities and functions. For animals such as mammals, which have endoskeletons, research has shown that skeletal investment (mass) scales with body mass to the 1.1 power. In this study, we ask how exoskeletal investment in insects scales with body mass. We measured the body mass and mass of exoskeletal chitin of 551 adult terrestrial insects of 245 species, with dry masses ranging from 0.0001 to 2.41 g (0.0002-6.13 g wet mass) to assess the allometry of exoskeletal investment. Our results showed that exoskeletal chitin mass scales isometrically with dry body mass across the Insecta as M(chitin) = a M(dry) (b), where b = 1.03 +/- 0.04, indicating that both large and small terrestrial insects allocate a similar fraction of their body mass to chitin. This isometric chitin-scaling relationship was also evident at the taxonomic level of order, for all insect orders except Coleoptera. We additionally found that the relative exoskeletal chitin investment, indexed by the coefficient, a, varies with insect life history and phylogeny. Exoskeletal chitin mass tends to be proportionally less and to increase at a lower rate with mass in flying than in nonflying insects (M(flying insect chitin) = -0.56 x M(dry) (0.97); M(nonflying insect chitin) = -0.55 x M(dry) (1.03)), and to vary with insect order. Isometric scaling (b = 1) of insect exoskeletal chitin suggests that the exoskeleton in insects scales differently than support structures of most other organisms, which have a positive allometry (b > 1) (e.g., vertebrate endoskeleton, tree secondary tissue). The isometric pattern that we document here additionally suggests that exoskeletal investment may not be the primary limit on insect body size.

show abstract

Section: Scaling Of Exoskeletal Chitin In Insectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exoskeletal chitin scales isometrically with body size in terrestrial insects

Lease

Wolf

2010

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Seymour & Lillywhite (2000) demonstrated in model calculations that an upright posture of the neck in sauropods is incompatible with the present understanding of cardiovascular function in vertebrates. Other examples for the use of allometry are the studies by Gunga et al (2007Gunga et al ( , 2008, who used allometric equations on the organ size of mammals from Anderson et al (1979), Schmidt-Nielsen (1984) and Calder (1996) to test whether reconstructions of the body size of a prosauropod and a sauropod (in particular, the volume of the coelomic cavity of these animals) match the calculated space requirement of the internal organs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allometry of visceral organs in living amniotes and its implications for sauropod dinosaurs

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allometric equations are often used to extrapolate traits in animals for which only body mass estimates are known, such as dinosaurs. One important decision can be whether these equations should be based on mammal, bird or reptile data. To address whether this choice will have a relevant influence on reconstructions, we compared allometric equations for birds and mammals from the literature to those for reptiles derived from both published and hitherto unpublished data. Organs studied included the heart, kidneys, liver and gut, as well as gut contents. While the available data indicate that gut content mass does not differ between the clades, the organ masses for reptiles are generally lower than those for mammals and birds. In particular, gut tissue mass is significantly lower in reptiles. When applying the results in the reconstruction of a sauropod dinosaur, the estimated volume of the coelomic cavity greatly exceeds the estimated volume of the combined organ masses, irrespective of the allometric equation used. Therefore, substantial deviation of sauropod organ allometry from that of the extant vertebrates can be allowed conceptually. Extrapolations of retention times from estimated gut contents mass and food intake do not suggest digestive constraints on sauropod dinosaur body size.

show abstract

“…Body mass, body surface and presumable physiological data of a slim reconstruction of Brachiosaurus brancai mounted and exhibited at the Museum of Natural History (Berlin, Germany). Anatomical and physiological parameters were calculated after equations from Bronstein and Semendjajew (1985), Schmidt-Nielsen (1984), Anderson et al (1979), Calder (1984, Calder (1996) and equating after Schmidt-Nielsen (1984) 1 l oxygen consumption during oxydative metabolism (at 0 C, 760 mm Hg) with 20,083 kJ, and assuming that 1,000 cm 3 of tissue mass has a specific weight of 0.8 kg according to Wedel (2005 volume resp. mass factor, plays an essential part.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, anatomical and physiological parameters were calculated after equations from Schmidt-Nielsen (1984), Anderson et al (1979), Calder (1984Calder ( , 1996 assuming a high metabolic rate comparable to mammals, and equating after Schmidt-Nielsen (1984) 1 l oxygen consumption during oxydative metabolism (at 0 C, 760 mm Hg) with 20,083 kJ. Allometric equations from mammals were used because recent data from Sander (2000), Sander & Tçckmantel (2003), and Erickson (2005) indicate that whole-organism growth rates for dinosaurs were faster than those of living reptiles of equivalent size, especially in juvenile dinosaurs such as the exhibited specimen in the Museum of Natural History in Berlin.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new body mass estimation ofBrachiosaurus brancaiJanensch, 1914 mounted and exhibited at the Museum of Natural History (Berlin, Germany)

Gunga¹,

Suthau

Bellmann

et al. 2008

Fossil Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body mass and surface areas are important in several aspects for an organism living today. Therefore, mass and surface determinations for extinct dinosaurs could be important for paleo‐biological aspects as well. Based on photogrammetrical measurement the body mass and body surface area of the Late Jurassic Brachiosaurus brancai Janensch, 1914 from Tendaguru (East Africa), a skeleton mounted and exhibited at the Museum of Natural History in Berlin (Germany), has been re‐evaluated. We determined for a slim type of 3D reconstruction of Brachiosaurus brancai a total volume of 47.9 m3 which represents, assuming a mean tissue density of 0.8 kg per 1,000 cm3, a total body mass of 38,000 kg. The volume distributions from the head to the tail were as follows: 0.2 m3 for the head, neck 7.3 m3, fore limbs 2.9 m3, hind limbs 2.6 m3, thoracic‐abdominal cavity 32.4 m3, tail 2.2 m3. The total body surface area was calculated to be 119.1 m2, specifically 1.5 m2 for the head, 26 m2 neck, fore limbs 18.8 m2, hind limbs 16.4 m2, 44.2 m2 thoracic‐abdominal cavity, and finally the tail 12.2 m2. Finally, allometric equations were used to estimate presumable organ sizes of this extinct dinosaur and to test whether their dimensions really fit into the thoracic and abdominal cavity of Brachiosaurus brancai if a slim body shape of this sauropod is assumed. (© 2008 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

show abstract

Scaling of Supportive Tissue Mass

Cited by 77 publications

References 0 publications

Exoskeletal chitin scales isometrically with body size in terrestrial insects

Exoskeletal chitin scales isometrically with body size in terrestrial insects

Allometry of visceral organs in living amniotes and its implications for sauropod dinosaurs

A new body mass estimation ofBrachiosaurus brancaiJanensch, 1914 mounted and exhibited at the Museum of Natural History (Berlin, Germany)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About