Size Influences on Primate Locomotion and Body Shape, with Special Emphasis on the Locomotion of ‘Small Mammals’

Preuschoft, Holger; Witte, Hartmut; Christian, Andreas; Fischer, Martin S.

doi:10.1159/000157188

Cited by 49 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A more flexed hip joint also increases the amount of leg extension available before take-off, increasing effective leg length during the push-off phase (see above). Like other leapers, gibbons have relatively long hindlimbs relative to their trunk length (Schultz, 1936;Alexander, 1985;Isler et al, 2006) (although the long forelimbs disguise this in traditional indices such as the intermembral index), which helps to compensate for the downward movement of the pole by allowing force production over a longer time period (Preuschoft et al, 1996), so increasing impulse without increasing peak force. A downside of this tactic is that the extra impulse gained compared with leaps from stiff poles (Fig. 4B) is used in deflecting the compliant pole, and is not used to accelerate the centre of mass (Figs 5, 6 and 7).…”

Section: Leaps From Compliant Vs Stiff Substratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of substrate compliance on the biomechanics of gibbon leaps

Channon

Günther

Crompton

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe storage and recovery of elastic strain energy in the musculoskeletal systems of locomoting animals has been extensively studied, yet the external environment represents a second potentially useful energy store that has often been neglected. Recent studies have highlighted the ability of orangutans to usefully recover energy from swaying trees to minimise the cost of gap crossing. Although mechanically similar mechanisms have been hypothesised for wild leaping primates, to date no such energy recovery mechanisms have been demonstrated biomechanically in leapers. We used a setup consisting of a forceplate and two high-speed video cameras to conduct a biomechanical analysis of captive gibbons leaping from stiff and compliant poles. We found that the gibbons minimised pole deflection by using different leaping strategies. Two leap types were used: slower orthograde leaps and more rapid pronograde leaps. The slower leaps used a wider hip joint excursion to negate the downward movement of the pole, using more impulse to power the leap, but with no increase in work done on the centre of mass. Greater hip excursion also minimised the effective leap distance during orthograde leaps. The more rapid leaps conversely applied peak force earlier in stance where the pole was effectively stiffer, minimising deflection and potential energy loss. Neither leap type appeared to usefully recover energy from the pole to increase leap performance, but the gibbons demonstrated an ability to best adapt their leap biomechanics to counter the negative effects of the compliant pole.

show abstract

Section: Leaps From Compliant Vs Stiff Substratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of substrate compliance on the biomechanics of gibbon leaps

Channon

Günther

Crompton

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mechanical problems of leaping have been discussed in great detail by Peters and Preuschoft [22] and Günther [23]. The implications of the mechanics of leaping for animals of different sizes have been dealt with by Günther [23], Demes and Günther [24,25] and by Preuschoft et al [21,26]. Thus, a brief summary of their findings should sufficiently explain the biomechanics of this type of locomotion.…”

Section: Leapingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data taken from Günther et al [7]. atively large [26]. For 'small' primates (Tarsius, small galagos, Phaner, i.e.…”

Section: Leapingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Walking is largely based on the physical principles which regulate the swing of a pendulum. The biomechanics of walking have been dealt with by Mochon and McMahon [32,33], the implications for body shape by Witte et al [34], Preuschoft and Witte [9], and Preuschoft et al [35] and its relationship to size was emphasised by Preuschoft et al [26,35].…”

Section: Walkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Size Dependence in Prosimian Locomotion and Its Implications for the Distribution of Body Mass

Preuschoft

Günther²,

Christian³

1998

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mechanical requirements for arboreal life are reviewed and the constraints which these requirements impose on the body of a prosimian are defined. The mechanical necessities can be fulfilled only by animals which possess the appropriate morphological characters. It is incorrect to refer to these morphological traits directly as ‘adaptations’. Instead their a priori existence must be considered as the precondition for the acquisition of a certain life-style. Once such a life-style has been acquired, a strong selective pressure acts towards a further refinement of such ‘adaptations’ or ‘pre-adaptations’. Postcranial morphology must be seen in a context of following natural laws and is strictly related to the mechanics of posture and locomotion. The traits emphasised and explained here are body proportions – specifically the relative lengths of body segments and the distribution of (muscle) mass on these segments.

show abstract

“…relative limb length, extensor muscle mass, body mass and percentage of fast-twitch fibers (Tihanyi et al, 1982;Bosco et al, 1983). In leaping primates, body size has a dominant influence on locomotor performance (Demes and Günther, 1989;Preuschoft et al, 1996). With increasing body size, the decreasing ratio of muscle force, available for acceleration during take-off to the body mass that has to be accelerated, dictates the proportions of the hindlimbs and then the movement pattern, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hindlimb interarticular coordinations inMicrocebus murinusin maximal leaping

Legreneur

Thévenet

Libourel³

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe purpose of this study was to investigate the pattern of coordinations of the hindlimb joints in the world's smallest living primate (Microcebus murinus). The sequencing and timing of joint rotations have been analyzed in five adult males performing maximal leaping from a take-off immobile platform to their own wooden nest. Angular kinematics of hip, knee, angle and metatarso-phalangeal (MT) joints were deduced from high-speed X-ray films in the sagittal plane of the animals. The body mass center (BMC) of the lemurs was assimilated to their iliac crest. The maximal airborne performance of the lemurs was 0.33±0.04m, which represented 2.55±0.36 times their snout-vent length. Take-off instant occurred 72±7ms after the start of the push-off, with a BMC velocity of 3.23±0.48ms

show abstract

Size Influences on Primate Locomotion and Body Shape, with Special Emphasis on the Locomotion of ‘Small Mammals’

Cited by 49 publications

References 12 publications

The effect of substrate compliance on the biomechanics of gibbon leaps

The effect of substrate compliance on the biomechanics of gibbon leaps

Size Dependence in Prosimian Locomotion and Its Implications for the Distribution of Body Mass

Hindlimb interarticular coordinations inMicrocebus murinusin maximal leaping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About