Affiliation:
1. Department of Life Sciences, School of Life and Environmental Sciences , University of Lincoln, Joseph Banks Laboratories , Lincoln, LN6 7DL , UK
Abstract
Abstract
There is increasing interest from evolutionary biologists in the evolution of avian bill shape, how the bill is used during feeding and, in particular, the bite forces the bill can deliver. Bite force exhibits isometry with the total mass of the jaw musculature, but there is variation in the functional categories of the jaw muscles in different avian taxa. Qualitative descriptions of the jaw musculature do not allow analysis of the relative contributions that adductor or retractor muscles play in generating a bite force. This study is a meta-analysis of published data for body mass and the mass of the jaw musculature in 66 bird species from 10 orders. The masses of the different muscles contributing to adduction and retraction in closing the jaw, and to depression and protraction in opening the jaw, were summed and allometric relationships explored before investigating the effects of taxonomic order on these relationships. The categories of muscles, and the masses of each category of jaw musculature varied among avian orders. Some species, such as the flightless ratites, had relatively small jaw muscle mass but parrots had an additional adductor muscle. Phylogenetically controlled relationships between body mass and the mass of each muscle category irrespective of taxonomic order were isometric. However, analysis of covariance revealed significant interactions between body mass and taxonomic order. Most orders had low values for body-mass-specific muscle masses in the jaw with the notable exceptions of the Passeriformes (songbirds) and Psittaciformes (parrots). The values of these orders were 3–4 times greater, although the relative amounts of muscles contributing to adduction and retraction were similar in Psittaciformes, but adduction was markedly higher in Passeriformes. The results of these analyses highlight the lack of species-specific data for most birds, which is adversely impacting our understanding of the anatomical features that are determining the functional properties of the bill during feeding.
Reference57 articles.
1. Bailey, N. T. J. 1981. Statistical Methods in Biology, 2nd ed. – Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK.
2. Baker, M. C. 1979. Morphological correlates of habitat selection in a community of shorebirds (Charadriiformes). – Oikos 33(1): 121–126. DOI: 10.2307/3544520
3. Baumel, J. J., King, A. S., Breazile, J. E., Evans, H. E. & Van den Berge, J. C. 1993. Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina Anatomica Avium, 2nd ed. – Harvard University: Pub Nuttall Ornithol Club
4. Bhattacharyya, B. N. 1994. Diversity of feeding adaptations in certain columbid birds: A functional morphological approach. – Journal of Bioscience 19: 415–427. DOI: 10.1007/BF02703178
5. Bhattacharyya, B. N. 2013. Avian jaw function: adaptation of the seven-muscle system and a review. – Proceedings of Zoological Society 66: 75–85. DOI: 10.1007/s12595-012-0056-x