2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00903.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sex-specific strategies of dentine depletion in red deer

Abstract: Worn teeth in herbivore ungulates may be related to lower efficiency in mastication and hence lower performance. However, selection should favour maximal performance in terms of body mass and reproductive capacity during reproductive lifespan, when permanent teeth are already partially worn. We hypothesize that wear rate may respond to a strategy of use of tooth materials (notably dentine), which balances instantaneous wear rate and performance against tooth preservation for future performance and reproduction… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
18
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
(102 reference statements)
2
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, differences in incisor wear, perhaps related to sexual dimorphism in incisor size, would be expected between the sexes. In red deer ( Cervus elaphus ), males had a faster molar wear rate than females (Loe et al ., ; Carranza et al ., , ); however, their relative (or even absolute) molar sizes were smaller than those of females (Carranza et al ., ). This counteracts the expectation that faster molar wear in males of dimorphic species, owing to their consumption of more tough plant material than females (Bell, ; Jarman, ; Staines, Crisp & Parish, ), would result in an evolutionary increase in molar size, particularly in height, in males.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, differences in incisor wear, perhaps related to sexual dimorphism in incisor size, would be expected between the sexes. In red deer ( Cervus elaphus ), males had a faster molar wear rate than females (Loe et al ., ; Carranza et al ., , ); however, their relative (or even absolute) molar sizes were smaller than those of females (Carranza et al ., ). This counteracts the expectation that faster molar wear in males of dimorphic species, owing to their consumption of more tough plant material than females (Bell, ; Jarman, ; Staines, Crisp & Parish, ), would result in an evolutionary increase in molar size, particularly in height, in males.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tooth wear was estimated by measuring, with the aid of a calliper and a magnifying glass, the thickness of the dentine on the sectioned mesial section of M 1 (molar height, MH, ± 0.1 mm) from the top of the cementum of the radicular pad to the middle point of the sectioned crown [ 7 , 26 ]. It has been noted that although crown formation in M 1 is fully complete at the age of 4 months [ 19 , 29 ], the completion of eruption and final positioning of the molar in the mandible does not take place until 3 years of age in red deer [ 19 , 20 ], and teeth also move in the mandible at very old age.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As ungulate teeth are not replaceable or repairable, their rate of wear is a useful indicator of accumulative life energy investment in intake and mastication and their interactions with diet, as the abrasive effect of forage, phytoliths and soil adhered to external surfaces differs between plants, their stage of maturity and environments [ 3 , 4 ]. Due to this accumulative effect, tooth wear provides a longitudinal view of the animal’s strategy to balance current intake and lifetime maintenance [ 5 7 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Teeth wear, because they contact each other or are abraded by particles ingested during feeding. Because wear cannot be avoided, abrasive particles ingested, largely impact tooth function and life expectancy (Carranza et al 2004, Carranza et al 2008, Ozaki et al 2009, Skogland 1988, and thus overall energy intake and chewing efficiency (e.g. Clauss et al (2008), Fritz et al (2009), Kaiser et al (2010), Schwarm et al (2009)).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%