Article

Mechanical analysis of feeding behavior in the extinct "terror bird" Andalgalornis steulleti (Gruiformes: Phorusrhacidae).

CONICET-División Paleontología Vertebrados, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Museo de La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 08/2010; 5(8):e11856. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011856
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The South American phorusrhacid bird radiation comprised at least 18 species of small to gigantic terrestrial predators for which there are no close modern analogs. Here we perform functional analyses of the skull of the medium-sized (approximately 40 kg) patagornithine phorusrhacid Andalgalornis steulleti (upper Miocene-lower Pliocene, Andalgalá Formation, Catamarca, Argentina) to assess its mechanical performance in a comparative context. Based on computed tomographic (CT) scanning and morphological analysis, the skull of Andalgalornis steulleti is interpreted as showing features reflecting loss of intracranial immobility. Discrete anatomical attributes permitting such cranial kinesis are widespread phorusrhacids outgroups, but this is the first clear evidence of loss of cranial kinesis in a gruiform bird and may be among the best documented cases among all birds. This apomorphic loss is interpreted as an adaptation for enhanced craniofacial rigidity, particularly with regard to sagittal loading. We apply a Finite Element approach to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the skull. Based on regression analysis we estimate the bite force of Andalgalornis at the bill tip to be 133 N. Relative to results obtained from Finite Element Analysis of one of its closest living relatives (seriema) and a large predatory bird (eagle), the phorusrhacid's skull shows relatively high stress under lateral loadings, but low stress where force is applied dorsoventrally (sagittally) and in "pullback" simulations. Given the relative weakness of the skull mediolaterally, it seems unlikely that Andalgalornis engaged in potentially risky behaviors that involved subduing large, struggling prey with its beak. We suggest that it either consumed smaller prey that could be killed and consumed more safely (e.g., swallowed whole) or that it used multiple well-targeted sagittal strikes with the beak in a repetitive attack-and-retreat strategy.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
137 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Between the Middle Jurassic and Holocene, birds evolved an enormous diversity of behaviours. The distribution and antiquity of these behaviours is difficult to establish given a relatively poor fossil record. Rare crop, stomach and gut contents typically reveal diets consistent with morphology but stem‐members of some lineages (including Cariamae and Coraciiformes) seem to have been different in ecology from their extant relatives. Most of our ideas about the behaviour of fossil birds are based on analogy (with skull form, limb proportions and claw curvature being used to guide hypotheses). However, this has limitations given that some extinct taxa lack extant analogues and that some extant taxa do not behave as predicted by osteology. Reductionist methods have been used to test predation style and running ability in fossil taxa including moa, G astornis and phorusrhacids. Virtually nothing is known of nesting and nest‐building behaviour but colonial nesting is known from the Cretaceous onwards. Rare vegetative nests demonstrate modern nest‐building from the Eocene onwards. Ornamental rectrices indicate that sexually driven display drove some aspects of feather evolution and evidence for loud vocal behaviour and intraspecific combat is known for some taxa. Our knowledge of fossil bird behaviour indicates that ‘modern’ behaviours are at least as old as crown birds. Stem‐members of extant lineages, however, may sometimes or often have differed from extant taxa.
    Journal of Zoology 04/2014; 292(4). · 1.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined the relationship between bill morphology and bite performance in Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus), small passerines with raptorial bills. Shrikes feed on arthropods and vertebrates, and our aim was to understand how upper bill shape and jaw performance are integrated to meet the demands of their phenotypically diverse prey. We used geometric morphometrics to quantify variation in the shape of the upper bill, which houses the hooked tip and tomial ‘teeth,’ and took measurements of bite force and pressure (force per unit bill contact area) of wild-caught Loggerhead Shrikes throughout California, USA. We expected that longer bill hooks and tomial teeth would covary positively with bite force, because both hooks and teeth, as well as force, ought to be important for capturing, subduing, and dispatching vertebrate prey. Shrikes, however, with relatively longer, narrower culmens and longer hook tips produced lower bite forces than those with relatively stouter culmens and shorter hook tips. There was no significant relationship, however, between upper bill shape and bite pressure. Our results suggest that shrikes may achieve functional equivalence in bite pressure (force per unit of bill contact area) through variation in the amount of force applied by bills of different shapes. In this way, bill shape may be decoupled from force production, but without any direct costs to overall bite performance. This decoupling, in turn, may provide shrikes with greater phenotypic flexibility to meet the varied demands of their arthropod and vertebrate prey. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2014, 112, 485–498.
    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 07/2014; 112(3). · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted convergence analyses of finite element models of a mongoose skull.•Results show that higher resolution models did not provide more stable outputs.•Convergence patterns varied by model resolution but also bite position simulated.•We used a jackknife approach to analyze robustness of outputs in sub-datasets.•The best sub-dataset sampled several low-resolution models per specimen.
    Journal of Theoretical Biology 01/2015; 365. · 2.35 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
60 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014