What explains vast differences in jumping power within a clade? Diversity, ecology and evolution of anuran jumping power
What explains vast differences in jumping power within a clade? Diversity, ecology and evolution of anuran jumping power
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1365-2435.13545
复制
发表时间：
2020-03
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
E. Mendoza;E. Azizi;D. Moen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Mendoza;E. Azizi;D. Moen
无尾两栖动物(青蛙和蟾蜍)的跳跃能力在不同物种之间差异很大，但肌肉力量不同。考虑到一些物种的跳跃力量比典型的肌肉14力量高出5倍，建议用弹性元件来放大力量来解释这种差异。然而，这种跳跃力量变化的生态原因尚不清楚。一种假设是，小跳跃运动员在起跳过程中加速身体的时间受到限制，17导致小跳跃运动员需要比大跳跃运动员更大的动力来实现类似的跳跃表现。另一个(非互斥的)假设是，栖息的19个物种可能通过与特定于微生境的20种非跳跃行为的表现进行权衡来驱动变化。212.我们比较了68种无尾两栖动物的跳跃能力，这些物种在进化关系、微生境使用和体重方面存在差异。我们使用系统发育比较方法，比较了小生境和体重在解释24个物种跳跃能力差异方面的作用。25.我们发现，包含两个因素及其交互作用的模型得到了最强的支持。26首先，随着身体质量的增加，跳跃能力下降。第二，有洞穴的物种比没有洞穴的物种的跳跃能力低27。第三，体质量28与穴居行为的交互作用表明，29种穴居物种的跳跃能力随体质量下降的速度比非穴居物种快。所有4.体重的影响表明，种间跳跃力量的差异可能部分解释了尺度关系。体重较小的无尾两栖动物可能能够通过更有效地放大肌肉力量来实现与较大体重的无尾两栖动物相似的运动性能(例如，起飞速度)。此外，洞穴行为的影响表明，使用后肢挖掘洞穴的物种可能会经历产生跳跃力量的能力下降。这可能表明跳跃和挖洞36的表现之间存在功能性权衡。
: 12 1. Anuran (frog and toad) jumping power varies greatly across species, yet muscle power does 13 not. Given that the jumping power of some species is up to five times higher than typical muscle 14 power, power amplification by elastic elements is suggested to explain this discrepancy. 15 However, the ecological reasons for this variation in jumping power are unclear. One hypothesis 16 is that small jumpers are limited by the time available to accelerate their body during take-off, 17 leading to small species needing greater power production than larger species to achieve similar 18 jumping performance. Another (non-mutually exclusive) hypothesis is that the microhabitat 19 species inhabit may drive variation through trade-offs with performance in microhabitat-specific, 20 non-jumping behaviors. 21 2. We compared jumping power across 68 anuran species that were diverse in evolutionary 22 relationships, microhabitat use, and body mass. We used phylogenetic comparative methods to 23 compare the role of microhabitat and body mass in explaining variation in jumping power across 24 species. 25 3. We found the strongest support for a model that included two factors and their interaction. 26 First, as body mass increased, jumping power decreased. Second, species that burrowed showed 27 lower jumping power than species that did not burrow. Third, the interaction between body mass 28 and burrowing behavior showed that jumping power declines more rapidly with body mass in 29 burrowing species than non-burrowing species. All 4. The effect of body mass suggests that interspecific variation in jumping power might be partly 31 explained by scaling relationships. Anurans with small body mass may be able to achieve similar locomotor performance (e.g. takeoff velocity) as those with larger body mass, by more 33 effectively amplifying muscle power. Additionally, the effect of burrowing behavior suggests 34 that species that use hindlimbs to burrow may experience a reduction in their ability to generate 35 jumping power. This may indicate a functional trade-off between jumping and burrowing 36 performance.