The biodynamics of arboreal locomotion: the effects of substrate diameter on locomotor kinetics in the gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica)
1 Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701,
USA
2 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ohio University College of Osteopathic
Medicine, Athens, OH 45701, USA
* Author for correspondence at present address: Department of Health Sciences, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA (e-mail: a.lammers13{at}csuohio.edu)
Accepted 9 August 2004
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: locomotion, arboreal, terrestrial, substrate reaction force, required coefficient of friction, gray short-tailed opossum, Monodelphis domestica
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Quadrupeds adapted to arboreal locomotion display an altered pattern of SRF
(Kimura, 1985;
Ishida et al., 1990
;
Demes et al., 1994
; Schmitt,
1994
,
1999
;
Schmitt and Lemelin, 2002
):
peak vertical forces tend to be reduced, hind limbs commonly take on a greater
role in body-weight support, and the limbs exert strong laterally directed
SRFs (medially directed limb forces). Differences between the terrestrial and
arboreal SRF patterns have been related to differences in substrates. For
example, lowered peak vertical forces observed in primates moving on
horizontal, narrow supports may help reduce branch oscillations
(Demes et al., 1990
;
Schmitt, 1999
).
To date, studies on arboreal locomotor kinetics have concentrated almost
exclusively on primates. Yet, virtually any small mammal must negotiate
heterogeneous terrain that includes some non-terrestrial substrates. For
example, many species of rodents
(Montgomery, 1980) and the
didelphid marsupial Didelphis virginiana
(Ladine and Kissell, 1994
)
utilize fallen logs and branches on the forest floor as arboreal runways.
Terrestrial mammals navigating an arboreal substrate are likely to adapt their
locomotor behavior in an attempt to enhance stability on this curved
substrate, and some of these strategies may result in observable differences
in limb function and, thus, SRFs. Such strategies might include adjustments in
speed, limb placement and gait. Terrestrial mammals may choose to move more
slowly on arboreal supports; decreased speed is generally associated with
lower peak vertical forces (Demes et al.,
1994
; Schmitt and Lemelin,
2002
). Limb placement about a curved substrate will affect the
potential for slipping off of the sides of a branch. When limb contacts occur
on the top of the branch (or anywhere on a flat substrate), then the shear
force is the vector sum of the mediolateral and craniocaudal forces, while the
normal force is equivalent to the vertical force. But vertical and
mediolateral forces will each contribute shear and normal components when
contact occurs on any other part of the branch
(Fig. 1A,B). Therefore, the
relative proportions of the three-dimensional SRFs may be altered to avoid
excessive shear forces. It is also possible that the limb force could be
reoriented towards the centroid of the branch, which would increase the normal
reaction force. Finally, it is possible that gait (defined by
Hildebrand, 1976
, as timing
and duration of foot contacts relative to stride duration) shifts may occur
between terrestrial and arboreal locomotor bouts. A gait that is dynamically
stable (where stability is provided by motions through conditions that are
statically unstable) on a terrestrial substrate may be inadequate on arboreal
substrates, particularly if speeds are reduced. Animals may switch to more
statically stable gait (e.g. towards a single-foot gait)
(Hildebrand, 1976
).
|
The aim of this study was to determine whether and how limb function, as
reflected by SRFs, differ in terrestrial and arboreal locomotion in a
non-arboreal specialist. We used Monodelphis domestica
(Wagner, 1842), the gray
short-tailed opossum, as our model. M. domestica is a small
terrestrial marsupial (Cartmill,
1972
; Nowak, 1999
)
that is readily capable of moving on narrow substrates
(Lammers, 2001
). Although
specialization for aboreal locomotion evolved several times within the family
Didelphidae, terrestrial habitation is probably primitive
(Fig. 2). Furthermore,
Monodelphis is considered the most terrestrial genus within the
family (Nowak, 1999
). In this
paper, we address the mechanics of arboreal locomotion through two primary
questions. Firstly, do terrestrial mammals necessarily adopt SRF patterns
observed in arboreal specialists? Arboreal specialists, such as Caluromys
philander have morphological as well as behavioral adaptations for
arboreal habitation and locomotion
(Schmitt and Lemelin, 2002
),
whereas the terrestrial M. domestica presumably must rely much more
on behavioral modifications to move on arboreal substrates. Thus, it is likely
that M. domestica will move along a branch differently than would an
arboreal specialist. Secondly, how does limb placement about a curved
substrate affect stability on a branch?
|
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Kinetic data
Force transducers for recording SRFs were constructed based on the
spring-blade design described in Biewener and Full
(1992) and Bertram et al.
(1997
). The terrestrial
trackway was 160 cm long, with a 48 x 11 cm force platform integrated in
the middle and was covered with 60-grit sandpaper for traction. This force
platform was initially developed to evaluate whole-body mechanics, so its
length necessitated capturing individual fore and hind limb SRFs in separate
trials. Fore limb data were obtained as the first footfall on the platform
whereas hind limb data represent the last limb off the platform. The arboreal
trackway was constructed from 2.03 cm diameter aluminum tubing (including
60-grit sandpaper covering); the trackway, therefore, corresponded to
approximately one-half body width. This trackway was 151 cm long, with a 4 cm
force-transducer instrumented section. Because the force transducer was short
in the arboreal trackway, sequential fore and hind limb SRFs were obtained in
each trial. Animals were encouraged to run towards a wooden box placed at the
end of each trackway. Force transducer calibration protocol followed Bertram
et al. (1997
). Briefly, the
vertical transducers were calibrated by placing known weights on the platform
or hanging weights from the pole; craniocaudal and mediolateral directions
were calibrated by hanging weights through a pulley apparatus.
SRF data were collected at 1200 Hz for 36 s. Analog outputs from the force transducers were amplified (SCXI-1000 and 1121; National Instruments, Austin, TX, USA), converted to a digital format (National Instruments; NB-M10-16L), and recorded as voltage changes with a LabVIEW 5.1 (National Instruments) virtual instrument data-acquisition program. Voltage changes were then converted into forces (in N) using calibration scaling factors. All force traces were filtered with Butterworth notch filters at 60 Hz, 4858 Hz and 8292 Hz for the terrestrial trials, and at 60 Hz, 115125 Hz and 295305 Hz for the arboreal trials.
Only trials that approximated steady speed over the force transducers were analyzed. This was determined in the arboreal trials by comparing the total braking impulse of both fore and hind limbs to the total craniocaudal impulses [(braking impulse)/(craniocaudal impulse) x 100%]; see below for description of impulse calculations. If this percentage fell between 4555%, then the trial was considered to be steady speed. A different criterion for steady speed was developed for the terrestrial trials. Whole-body SRFs were obtained as the animals crossed the force platform. The craniocaudal SRFs were divided by mass and then integrated to obtain craniocaudal velocity profiles; the integration constant was set as mean speed determined videographically over three 12 cm intervals. Terrestrial trials were accepted as steady speed when braking and propulsive components of the whole body velocity were balanced. We made every effort to obtain steady-speed trials at a large range of speeds on each substrate, but despite our persistance only one slow terrestrial trial (0.724 m s1) was acceptable.
Kinetic data include peak vertical force, time to peak vertical force,
vertical impulse, braking impulse, propulsive impulse and net mediolateral
impulse for fore and hind limbs. A fourth LabVIEW virtual instrument was used
to calculate impulse by integrating the force/time curve separately for each
limb and each orthogonal direction (vertical, craniocaudal, mediolateral). In
this study, `impulse' refers to the impulse generated by individual limbs
(contact impulse) rather than the change in momentum of the whole body
(Bertram et al., 1997).
Substrate reaction forces were divided by the animal's body weight to account
for the 0.1050.149 kg range in mass; forces and impulses were therefore
analyzed in units of body weight (BW) and BW s, respectively.
Kinematic data
The trackways were illuminated with three 233.3 Hz strobe lights
(Monarch-Nova, Amherst, NH, USA) as two high-speed 120 Hz digital cameras with
a 1/250 s shutter speed (JVC GR DVL 9800; Yokohama, Japan) captured footfall
patterns and limb movement. The first camera obtained a lateral view of the
left side of the animal and the second obtained a dorsolateral view. These
videos were uploaded to a computer using U-lead Video Studio 4.0 (Ulead,
Taipei, Taiwan), and then the APAS motion analysis system (Ariel Dynamics, San
Diego, CA, USA) was used to synchronize the kinematic events from the two
camera views, digitize the landmarks and convert each two-dimensional set of
digitized data into three-dimensional coordinates for each landmark.
The center of pressure for each foot was estimated using the landmarks. Because the fore limb assumed a fully plantigrade posture on both arboreal and terrestrial substrates, the center of pressure of the manus (`hand', composed of the structures distal to the wrist joint) was estimated as the geometric midpoint between the wrist and third manual digit landmarks. Because the heel did not contact either substrate, the center of pressure of the pes (`foot', composed of the structure distal to the angle joint) was set as the geometric midpoint between the metatarsophalangeal and fifth pedal digit landmarks. Given that the distance between manual and pedal landmarks was short (15.7 and 6.8 mm, respectively), placing the center of pressure at the midpoint between proximal and distal contacts was not unreasonable. This estimate also assumes that the manus and pes contact the substrate without gripping, which is reasonable for the fore limb because the manus in M. domestica is short and lacks opposable digits. Although the pes is longer than the manus and has an opposable hallux, the diameter of the substrate is considerably greater than the span of the grip of the pes and the grit of the sandpaper did not offer much claw penetration. Furthermore, because the heel did not touch the substrate, only a small part of the pes was used to connect with the branch.
Timing variables (speed, stance duration, stride frequency, stride length)
were also measured from the videos. Gaits were identified by footfall patterns
using limb phase, which is the proportion of stride duration that the left
fore limb contacted the substrate after the left hind limb contact
(Hildebrand, 1976). Hildebrand
(1976
) divided limb phase into
octiles of equal size. A limb phase close to 50% (between 43.75 and 56.25%)
indicates a trot; limb phases greater than 56.25% are different lateral
sequence gaits (for further details see
Reilly and Biknevicius, 2003
).
[We acknowledge that `trot' has been applied differently in kinematic
(Hildebrand, 1976
) and
whole-body mechanics (Cavagna et al.,
1977
) studies, the former as a footfall pattern, the latter as
bouncing mechanics or in-phase fluctuations of kinetic and gravitational
potential energies. In the present study, `trot' is used in its traditional,
kinematic sense, namely, diagonal couplet footfalls
(Newcastle, 1657
). Whole-body
mechanics was not assessed in the arboreal trials.] Duty factor of the hind
limb (ratio of stance duration to stride duration) was also calculated.
Differences between arboreal and terrestrial duty factor and limb phase were
determined by Student's t-test.
Calculating required coefficient of friction
The required coefficient of friction (µreq), the ratio of
shear force to normal force, is one way of estimating the ability of an animal
to generate friction with its limbs. If the limb does not slip when it makes
contact with the substrate, then the true coefficient of friction is greater
than the required coefficient of friction. On the flat terrestrial substrate,
shear force is the vector sum of craniocaudal and mediolateral forces, and
normal force is the vertical force. On the arboreal substrate, the animal's
limbs contacted the pole between its lateral aspect to its dorsal-most
surface. Thus, while craniocaudal forces continue to contribute exclusively to
shear force in the arboreal trackway, vertical and mediolateral forces each
contribute to shear and normal forces (Fig.
1A,B).
To calculate µreq on the arboreal substrate, the components
of the vertical, craniocaudal and mediolateral SRFs contributing to shear, and
normal, forces were computed as:
![]() |
Statistical analyses
Data from all individuals were pooled, and Systat 9.0 (Point Richmond, CA,
USA) was used for all analyses. Least squares regression was used to determine
the correlation of forces and impulses with speed for each substrate and
limb-pair grouping. Because most of the regressions of vertical impulse
versus speed were significant, a two-way analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) with speed as the covariate was used to determine differences among
groups with respect to vertical impulse. However, because peak vertical force
and remaining impulses were typically not significantly correlated with speed,
a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant
differences between substrates and limbs. We considered P 0.05
to be the cut-off for statistical significance, and data are reported as means
± standard error of the mean (S.E.M.) unless otherwise
indicated.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
The animals predominantly used trotting (diagonal couplet) gaits on terrestrial and arboreal substrates (limb phase range: 34.757.1%; Fig. 3A). However, arboreal trials had a significantly lower limb phase than terrestrial trials (t-test, N=38, P=0.0003), where 22.7% of the arboreal trials were classified as a lateral-sequence diagonal-couplet gait (a trot-like gait with limb phase between 31.2543.75%).
|
Duty factor was significantly larger in arboreal trials (arboreal 42.4±0.8%; terrestrial 30.2±1.0%; t-test, N=38, P<0.00001; Fig. 3A). Stance duration decreased with speed in a concave-up manner (Fig. 3B). The slope of stance duration versus speed was significantly steeper in the arboreal trials than in terrestrial trials (one-way analysis of covariance, ANCOVA, N=76, P=0.00621). Stride frequency increased linearly with speed, and there was no significant difference in slope with respect to limb pair or substrate (two-way ANCOVA, N=76, P=0.8). However, the arboreal trials had a significantly higher stride frequency than the terrestrial trials (least squares means: arboreal, 6.92±1.01 Hz; terrestrial, 6.02±1.26 Hz; N=76, P=0.00012).
Substrate reaction forces
Sample force traces from the arboreal and terrestrial trackways are shown
in Fig. 4. Two patterns were
observed in the terrestrial trials. Vertical force profiles for both fore and
hind limbs on the arboreal trackway always yielded single peaks
(Fig. 4A,B) as did most
terrestrial trials (Fig. 4C,D).
However, at the slowest speeds on the terrestrial substrate (below 1.5 m
s1 for the fore limbs and below 1.25 m s1
for the hind limbs; Fig. 4E,F)
vertical force profiles displayed a double-peak.
|
Peak vertical force was not correlated with speed for any substratelimb pair except for terrestrial hind limbs. Fore limbs had significantly higher peak vertical force than hind limbs on each substrate (two-way ANCOVA, N=75, P<0.00001; Fig. 5A; Table 2). Peak vertical forces of fore and hind limbs were higher in the terrestrial trials than in arboreal trials (N=75, P<0.00001). Interaction was also significant (N=75, P=0.01006), so that the substrate effect on peak vertical force was significantly more pronounced in the fore limbs than in hind limbs. Relative to percent stance duration, peak vertical force occurred significantly earlier in hind limbs than in fore limbs, regardless of substrate (two-way analysis of variance, ANOVA, N=75, P<0.00001). Furthermore, this peak occurred significantly earlier in arboreal trials than in terrestrial trials (N=75, P=0.00753; Fig. 4E,F). The ratio of fore limb to hind limb peak vertical forces was higher for the terrestrial substrate (1.702) than the arboreal substrate (1.617; ratios were calculated using mean peak vertical forces for each limb and substrate).
|
|
Vertical impulse decreased significantly with speed in all substratelimb groups except for the terrestrial hind limb group (Fig. 5B; Table 3). Slopes were significantly different from each other (two-way ANCOVA, N=75, P=0.00003), and in both fore and hind limbs the slope of vertical impulse versus speed was steeper on the arboreal substrate than on the terrestrial. On each substrate, the vertical impulse of fore limbs had significantly higher y-intercept means than that of hind limbs (least squares linear regression, 95% confidence intervals to determine slope and y-intercept differences, N=38, P<0.00001). Arboreal fore limb and hind limb slopes were not significantly different. On the terrestrial substrate, fore limb vertical impulse was negatively correlated with speed (N=16, P<0.00001), while terrestrial hind limb vertical impulse was not correlated with speed. The ratio of fore limb to hind limb vertical impulse was 2.047 on the terrestrial substrate and 1.727 on the arboreal.
|
Regardless of substrate, craniocaudal force traces were characterized by a braking phase followed by a propulsive phase (Fig. 4). On the terrestrial substrate, the fore limbs usually exerted a net braking impulse and the hind limbs a net propulsive impulse. However, when propulsive impulse was considered alone, there was no significant difference between fore limb and hind limbs on the terrestrial substrate. On the arboreal substrate, fore limbs exerted braking and propulsive impulses that were both strong and not significantly different from each other (Fig. 5C,D). Hind limbs similarly generated braking and propulsive impulses that were equal, but these impulse magnitudes were significantly lower than those produced by the fore limbs (N=75, P=0.00017). The net foreaft impulse of fore and hind limbs on the arboreal substrate was nearly zero.
Within each substrate, there were no significant differences between limb pairs with respect to net mediolateral impulse (Fig. 6). On the terrestrial substrate, both limb pairs produced strong medially directed SRFs. Among the arboreal trials, the limbs generated strong medially directed limb force (laterally directed SRFs). Differences between substrates were highly significant (N=75, P<0.00001).
|
Limb placement and required coefficient of friction
On the arboreal trackway, the pes was usually placed considerably lower on
the branch than manus (Fig.
7A). The required coefficient of friction (µreq) at
foot touchdown for all trials on both substrates was initially high, but
quickly dropped for most of the stance phase, only to rise again at the end of
the step (Fig. 7B). The highest
values were typically found at touchdown. Because we used the filtered data
for these calculations, it is unlikely that these high values were the result
of impact noise. The median µreq was significantly higher in the
arboreal trials than in terrestrial trials (N=74,
P<0.00001; Fig.
7C). In arboreal trials hind limbs had significantly higher median
µreq than fore limbs (N=74, P=0.0008). No
significant difference in µreq was found between limb pairs in
the terrestrial trials (t-test, N=32, P=0.172).
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Substrate diameter does appear to have some effect on locomotor behavior in
M. domestica. Narrow substrates (<12.5 mm) clearly challenge the
species' stability, as individuals were frequently observed to falter and fall
(Pridmore, 1994). Once
habituated to the 20 mm arboreal trackway, M. domestica in the
present study appeared quite capable of freely traversing the 1.5 m trackway,
but we were unable to entice animals to travel at steady speeds higher than
1.32 m s1. Thus, it appears that speed is an important
behavioral adaptation to moving on a more treacherous substrate.
M. domestica relies more heavily on the fore limbs than on the
hind limbs to support its body weight on both terrestrial and arboreal
trackways. The vertical component of the SRF reflects limb function in
body-weight support. Peak vertical forces in terrestrial trials of M.
domestica conform to the pattern of typical terrestrial mammals, namely,
fore limb values exceed hind limb values
(Demes et al., 1994;
Schmitt and Lemelin, 2002
;
present study). The most likely explanation for this finding is that the
center of mass in M. domestica lies closer to the fore limbs than to
the hind limbs (about 40% of the distance between the shoulder and hip joints;
A.R.L, unpublished data). Fore limbs continue to dominate in body mass support
when M. domestica moved along the arboreal trackway, but the ratio of
fore limb to hind limb peak vertical force drops. This occurs largely because
hind limbs display somewhat higher than expected peak vertical forces relative
to speed (as displayed by an extrapolation of the terrestrial hind limb slope
into the arboreal speed range; Fig.
5A). This shift in body-weight support between fore and hind limbs
is relatively small in comparison to the pattern exhibited by the arboreal
C. philander (Schmitt and
Lemelin, 2002
): whereas peak vertical force on arboreal substrates
for the hind limbs are comparable in the two species (0.50.9 BW units
in M. domestica; 0.61.0 in C. philander), C.
philander's fore limb forces (0.50.8 BW units) fall below the
range observed in M. domestica (0.81.3 BW units).
Comparisons of peak vertical force beyond the marsupials fail to uphold a
strict terrestrialarboreal dichotomy. Although most primates are hind
limb dominant in body-weight support
(Demes et al., 1994), the
highly arboreal slow loris (Nycticebus coucang) and common marmoset
(Callithrix jacchus) display higher fore limb peak vertical forces
when moving pronograde (over the branch) on an arboreal trackway
(Ishida et al., 1990
;
Schmitt, 2003a
). Furthermore,
the more terrestrial chipmunk and the more arboreal squirrel are both fore
limb dominant in body-mass support when moving over a terrestrial trackway
(Biewener, 1983
).
The effect of substrate curvature on peak vertical force does, however,
appear to be consistent across arboreal specialist and more terrestrial
species. Primates and marsupials alike typically apply lower peak vertical
forces when switching from a terrestrial trackway to an arboreal one (Schmitt,
1994,
1999
,
2003b
;
Schmitt and Lemelin, 2002
;
this study). Furthermore, there is a significant reduction in peak vertical
force as primates move on progressively smaller arboreal substrates
(Schmitt, 2003b
). A benefit
for reducing vertical forces on arboreal substrates might be a concomitant
reduction in branch oscillation (Demes et
al., 1994
; Schmitt,
1999
). Therefore, while hind limb dominance in body-weight support
is not a prerequisite for moving along an arboreal support, reduction in
vertical force application relative to terrestrial values does appear to be an
inescapable consequence of arboreal locomotion, especially if arboreal speeds
are slow. To support body weight, however, these lower forces must then be
distributed over a longer interval. This could be accomplished with greater
stance duration and/or stride frequency on the arboreal substrate (as was the
case in this study).
Our data do suggest, however, that a small degree of posterior weight shift
occurred on the arboreal substrate. First, the fore limb to hind limb ratio of
peak vertical force (BW) and vertical impulse (BW s) was higher on the
terrestrial substrate than on the arboreal substrate. Also, the time (relative
to stance duration) that the peak vertical force occurred was significantly
delayed in both limb pairs on the arboreal substrate. Because the time at
which peak vertical force occurs is closely associated with the time that a
limb is supporting the greatest amount of body weight, if the center of mass
is effectively moved posteriorly relative to the base of support, then both
fore and hind limbs will support the greatest weight at a later portion of the
stance phase. Posterior weight shift has been found for most primate species,
whether on arboreal or terrestrial substrates
(Schmitt and Lemelin, 2002);
furthermore, this posterior weight shift tends to be exaggerated when arboreal
specialists move on arboreal substrates.
Limb differences in vertical impulse largely parallel those of peak
vertical force in M. domestica, except that vertical impulse tends to
decrease with speed as is common in mammals moving with symmetrical gaits. The
decrease in vertical impulse with speed is driven primarily by a
speed-dependent reduction in stance duration, more so than any increase in
peak vertical force. A concave-up negative relationship between support
duration versus speed is typical for terrestrial locomotion (e.g.
Demes et al., 1990;
Abourachid, 2001
), a pattern
that may reflect the need to move more cautiously to remain stable at slower
speeds. The particularly long stance durations in the slower arboreal trials
in M. domestica may indicate an increased perception of hazard by the
animals when moving on an arboreal substrate. Because vertical impulse, which
is responsible for body-weight support, decreases with speed faster on the
arboreal trackway, the higher stride frequency on the arboreal trackway may be
a way of compensating so that body-weight support is adequately
maintained.
Our final note on vertical forces concerns force profile shape in the
terrestrial trials: double-peaked at lower speeds and single-peaked at higher
speeds. The same pattern has been reported in humans
(Enoka, 2002), sheep and dogs
(Jayes and Alexander, 1978
),
and horses (Biewener et al.,
1983
). A double-peaked vertical force is normally indicative of a
vaulting mechanic (`mechanical walk'), that is, the animal is exchanging
kinetic and gravitational potential energy via an inverted pendulum
mechanism (Cavagna et al.,
1977
). Because our terrestrial trials were obtained with a force
platform system that also captures whole body forces, we evaluated the
fluctuations of external mechanical energies of the center of mass in the
slowest trials. In spite of the double-peaked configuration of the trials, the
whole-body mechanics indicated in-phase fluctuations in the kinetic and
gravitational potential energies (phase shift <45°) and low recovery of
mechanical energy via pendulum-like mechanisms (<20%). This is
consistent with the findings of Parchman et al.
(2003
), which reported only
trot and trot-like gaits, and only bouncing mechanics in M.
domestica. Parchman et al.
(2003
) suggested that some of
the slower trials may represent a high compliance locomotor behavior
(`Groucho' running).
Craniocaudal forces control forward impulsion, and all mammals moving at
steady speed on a terrestrial substrate rely on the hind limbs to provide most
of the propulsive force (Demes et al.,
1994). Although craniocaudal forces fluctuate from an initial
braking action to a final propulsive action in both fore and hind limbs, hind
limbs generate greater propulsive impulses than do fore limbs. Previous
studies on arboreal specialists report similar functions for locomotion on
arboreal trackways (Ishida et al.,
1990
; Schmitt,
1994
). Shifting between terrestrial and arboreal substrates
resulted in either no significant changes in craniocaudal force
(Schmitt, 1994
) or smaller
propulsive forces on arboreal substrates (fore limbs only were evaluated;
Schmitt, 1999
). By contrast,
results reported here suggest that terrestrial mammals may shift a greater
role in forward propulsion to the fore limbs when moving on an arboreal
support.
Most terrestrial mammals generate small and erratic mediolateral forces
(e.g. Hodson et al., 2001),
yet mediolateral forces in M. domestica are often substantial, with
magnitudes that rival the craniocaudal forces
(Fig. 4). The net direction of
the mediolateral SRF is medial (reflective of a laterally directed limb
force). This is consistent with SRF data on terrestrial animals that use a
more sprawled and semi-erect posture, such as lizards and alligators
(Christian, 1995
;
Willey et al., 2004
). A
similar orientation (but lesser magnitude) was also reported for higher
primates (Schmitt, 2003c
). The
polarity of mediolateral forces switches to reflect medially directed limb
forces when M. domestica moved along the arboreal trackway. Not
surprisingly, this is also the primary orientation for most other mammals when
moving on arboreal substrates (Schmitt,
2003c
). Thus, on the terrestrial substrate, the mediolateral SRFs
are `tipping' (i.e. oriented in such a way to provide stability against
rolling), whereas on the arboreal substrate they are `gripping.'
Thus, compared with more arboreally adapted mammals, M. domestica
appears to retain fore limb dominance in body-weight support and to shift a
greater role in forward impulsion to the fore limbs when moving on an arboreal
substrate. We believe that the explanation of the dominance of the fore limb
during arboreal locomotion lies in the differences in limb placement about the
curved substrate. This is best illustrated by a consideration of friction.
Kinoshita et al. (1997)
estimated that the coefficient of static friction (µs) between
220-grit sandpaper and human skin is 1.67±0.24 (index finger) and
1.54±0.27 (thumb); Cartmill
(1979
) estimated values of
µs in excess of five between the volar skin of primates and a
plastic surface. It is likely that the true µs in our study was
higher than the values reported by Kinoshita et al.
(1997
) because: (1) we used
60-grit sandpaper, which is rougher than 220-grit, and (2) the claws and the
palmar tubercles on the manus and pes of the opossums may improve the degree
of interlocking between foot and substrate (as per
Cartmill, 1974
), and (3) the
limbs did not demonstrably slip (implying that the true coefficient of static
friction is higher than the mean µreq).
The values for the median µreq, and thus the potential for slipping, was significantly higher in both fore and hind limbs in the arboreal trials than in terrestrial trials, which verifies the more precarious nature of arboreal locomotion. The reason for this may be twofold. First, vertical force was significantly lower on the arboreal substrate than on the terrestrial (in both limbs), so that there simply was less vertical force to contribute to the generation of normal force (although see the section above). The normal force is the stabilizing force for maintaining the position of the manus and pes on the substrate. Second, some proportion of vertical force results in a shear force across the surface of arboreal substrates because of the placement of the manus and pes laterally off the top of the branch. Consequently, a smaller proportion of vertical force is available to contribute to the normal force during arboreal locomotion.
Similarly, the positioning of manus and pes can explain the significantly greater µreq of hind limbs on the arboreal trackway. Hind limbs were nearly always placed lower and more laterally on the branch than fore limbs, and they supported significantly less body weight than the fore limbs. The difference in µreq and foot placement between fore and hind limbs on the arboreal trackway may also serve to explain why the fore limbs were apparently so dominant in body-weight support, braking and propulsion. By placing the manus closer to the top of the branch, the fore limbs were more stable than the hind limbs and so they were recruited to assume a greater role in propulsion than is normally found during terrestrial locomotion. The hind limbs, with their more lateral placement on the branch and their smaller role in body-weight support, were perhaps less able to exert significantly higher propulsive forces without slipping.
Behavioral adaptations for arboreal locomotion
The results of this paper suggest that there are three important factors
that animals may regulate in order to maintain stability during locomotion:
speed, gait and limb placement. We propose that all three of these factors
should be analyzed when conducting locomotor analyses, especially if different
substrates are used.
This study examines arboreal locomotion in a terrestrial mammal with a
primitive, generalized morphology and behavior
(Lee and Cockburn, 1985), in
the context of comparing terrestrial generalists and arboreal specialists.
Although some animals move within arboreal habitats with impressive skill and
speed (e.g. squirrel and many primates), many arboreal specialists apparently
use speed reduction to maintain stability on branches and to reduce detection
by predators (e.g. slow loris, woolly opossum, chameleon). Thus, speed
reduction may serve as a common behavioral adjustment to arboreal
locomotion.
On the terrestrial and arboreal substrates, M. domestica almost
always kinematically trotted, although this species tended somewhat to
dissociate the diagonal couplets and list towards the lateral sequence
trot-like gait on arboreal trackways
(Hildebrand, 1976). That this
gait shift may be reflective of a need to increase stability is supported by
data from Lammers (2001
) that
indicate that opossums use lateral sequence trot-like and single-foot gaits at
slow speeds and/or on narrow (a quarter body diameter) supports. By contrast,
most primates and the woolly opossum
(Lemelin et al., 2003
) use a
diagonal sequence trot-like gait on both arboreal and terrestrial substrates.
It appears that divergent gait (footfall) patterns exist between arboreal
specialists and terrestrial generalists.
When arboreal specialists move on branches that are narrower than their
body diameter, but too wide to grasp with opposable digits, do they place
manus and pes on branches in different locations than terrestrial generalists?
Data and/or tracings of images indicate that like M. domestica, the
lesser mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus), fat-tailed dwarf lemur
(Cheirogaleus medius), slow loris (Nycticebus caucang), and
the brown lemur (Eulemur fulvus) may place their manus relatively
dorsally on the branch and the pes more laterally
(Cartmill, 1974;
Jouffroy and Petter, 1990
;
Larson et al., 2001
). However,
illustrations of chameleon (Chameleo spp.) locomotion suggest that
the manus and pes contact the branch in approximately the same location around
a large arboreal support (manus: Peterson,
1984
; pes: Higham and Jayne,
2004
). The common opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) places
its manus slightly laterally to the pes on narrow supports
(Cartmill, 1974
). Finally, the
aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis) contacts branches in a wide
variety of locations (Krakauer et al.,
2002
). It is not yet possible to determine whether the kinetic and
kinematic patterns observed in the present study represent a general
behavioral adaptation to the challenges of arboreal locomotion by terrestrial
mammals or simply a solution specific for this species.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Abourachid, A. (2001). Kinematic parameters of terrestrial locomotion in cursorial (ratites), swimming (ducks), and striding birds (quail and guinea fowl). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 131,113 -119.
Bertram, J. E. A., Lee, D. V., Todhunter, R. J., Foels, W. S., Williams, A. J. and Lust, G. (1997). Multiple force platform analysis of the canine trot: a new approach to assessing basic characteristics of locomotion. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 10,160 -169.
Biewener, A. A. (1983). Locomotory stresses in the limb bones of two small mammals: the ground squirrel and chipmunk. J. Exp. Biol. 103,131 -154.[Abstract]
Biewener, A. A. (1990). Biomechanics of mammalian terrestrial locomotion. Science 250,1097 -1103.[Medline]
Biewener, A. A. and Full, R. J. (1992). Force platform and kinematic analysis. In Biomechanics Structures and Systems: A Practical Approach (ed. A. A. Biewener), pp.45 -73. Oxford: IRL Press at Oxford University Press.
Biewener, A. A., Thomason, J., Goodship, A. and Lanyon, L. E. (1983). Bone stress in the horse fore limb during locomotion at two different gaits: a comparison of two experimental methods. J. Biomech. 16,565 -576.[Medline]
Cartmill, M. (1972). Arboreal adaptations and the origin of the order Primates. In The Functional and Evolutionary Biology of Primates (ed. R. Tuttle), pp.97 -112. Chicago: AldineAtheron Inc.
Cartmill, M. (1974). Pads and claws in arboreal locomotion. In Primate Locomotion (ed. F. A. Jenkins, Jr), pp. 45-83. New York: Academic Press.
Cartmill, M. (1979). The volar skin of primates: its frictional characteristics and their functional significance. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 50,497 -510.[Medline]
Cavagna, G. A., Heglund, N. C. and Taylor, C. R. (1977). Mechanical work in terrestrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure. Am. J. Physiol. 233,R243 -R261.[Medline]
Christian, A. (1995). Zur Biomechanik der Lokomotion vierfüßiger Reptilien (besonders der Squamata). Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senskenberg 180, 1-58.
Demes, B., Jungers, W. L and Nieschalk, C. (1990). Size-and speed-related aspects of quadrupedal walking in slender and slow lorises. In Gravity, Posture and Locomotion in Primates (ed. F. K. Jouffroy, M. H. Stack and C. Niemitz), pp.175 -197. Florence: Editrice Il Sedicesimo.
Demes, B., Larson, S. G., Stern, J. T., Jr, Jungers, W. L., Biknevicius, A. R. and Schmitt, D. (1994). The kinetics of primate quadrupedalism: `hind limb drive' reconsidered. J. Hum. Evol. 26,353 -374.[CrossRef]
Enoka, R. M. (2002). Neuromechanics of Human Movement. Third edition. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Higham, T. E. and Jayne, B. C. (2004).
Locomotion of lizards on inclines and perches: hind limb kinematics of an
arboreal specialist and a terrestrial generalist. J. Exp.
Biol. 207,233
-248.
Hildebrand, M. (1976). Analysis of tetrapod gaits: general considerations and symmetrical gaits. In Neural Control of Locomotion, vol. 18 (ed. R. M. Herman, S. Grillner, P. Stein and D. G. Stuart), pp.203 -206. New York: Plenum.
Hodson, E., Clayton, H. M. and Lanovaz. (2001). The hind limb in walking horses: 1. Kinematics and ground reaction forces. Equine Vet. J. 33,38 -43.[Medline]
Ishida, H., Jouffroy, F. K. and Nakano, Y. (1990). Comparative dynamics of pronograde and upside down horizontal quadrupedalism in the slow loris (Nycticebus coucang). In Gravity, Posture and Locomotion in Primates (ed. F. K. Jouffroy, M. H. Stack and C. Niemitz), pp. 209-220. Florence: Editrice Il Sedicesimo.
Jayes, A. S. and Alexander, R. McN. (1978). Mechanics of locomotion of dogs (Canis familiaris) and sheep (Ovis aries). J. Zool. Lond. 185,289 -308.
Jouffroy, F. K. and Petter, A. (1990). Gravity-related kinematic changes in lorisine horizontal locomotion in relation to position of the body. In Gravity, Posture and Locomotion in Primates (ed. F. K. Jouffroy, M. H. Stack and C. Niemitz), pp. 199-208. Florence: Editrice Il Sedicesimo.
Kimura, T. (1985). Bipedal and quadrupedal walking of primates: comparative dynamics. In Primate Morphophysiology, Locomotor Analyses and Human Bipedalism (ed. S. Kondo), pp. 81-104. Tokyo: Univerisity of Tokyo Press.
Kinoshita, H., Bäckström, L., Flanagan, J. R. and
Johansson, R. S. (1997). Tangential torque effects on the
control of grip forces when holding objects with a precision grip.
J. Neurophysiol. 78,1619
-1630.
Krakauer, E., Lemelin, P. and Schmitt, D. (2002). Hand and body position during locomotor behavior in the aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis). Am. J. Primatol. 57,105 -118.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ladine, T. A. and Kissell, R. R., Jr (1994). Escape behavior of Virginia opossums. Am. Midl. Nat. 132,234 -238.
Lammers, A. R. (2001). The effects of incline and branch diameter on the kinematics of arboreal locomotion. Am. Zool. 41,1500 .
Larson, S. G., Schmitt, D., Lemelin, P. and Hamrick, M. (2001). Limb excursion during quadrupedal walking: how do primates compare to other mammals? J. Zool. Lond. 255,353 -365.
Lee, A. K. and Cockburn, A. (1985). Evolutionary Ecology of Marsupials. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lemelin, P., Schmitt, D. and Cartmill, M. (2003). Footfall patterns and interlimb co-ordination in opossums (Family Didelphidae): evidence for the evolution of diagonal sequence walking gaits in primates. J. Zool. Lond. 260,423 -429.
Montgomery, W. I. (1980). The use of arboreal runways by the woodland rodents, Apodemus sylvaticus (L.), A. flavicollis (Melchior) and Clethrionomys glareolus (Schreber). Mammal. Rev. 10,189 -195.
Newcastle, P. G. (1657). La methode et l'evention nouvelle de dresser le chevaux. Anvers.
Nowak, R. M. (1999). Walker's Mammals of The World, vol. 1. Sixth edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Palma, R. E. and Spotorno, A. E. (1999). Molecular systematics of marsupials based on the rRNA 12S mitochondrial gene: The phylogeny of Didelphimorphia and of the living fossil microbiotheriid Dromiciops gliroides Thomas. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 13,525 -535.[CrossRef][Medline]
Parchman, A. J., Reilly, S. M. and Biknevicius, A. R.
(2003). Whole-body mechanics and gaits in the gray
short-tailed opossum Monodelphis domestica: integrating
patterns of locomotion in a semi-erect mammal. J. Exp.
Biol. 206,1379
-1388.
Peterson, J. A. (1984). The locomotion of Chamaeleo (Reptilia: Sauria) with particular reference to the fore limb. J. Zool. Lond. 202, 1-42.
Pridmore, P. A. (1992). Trunk movements during locomotion in the Marsupial Monodelphis domestica (Didelphidae). J. Morphol. 211,137 -146.
Pridmore, P. A. (1994). Locomotion in Dromiciops australis (Marsupialia: Microbiotheriidae). Austral. J. Zool. 42,679 -699.
Reilly, S. M. and Biknevicius, A. R. (2003). Integrating kinetic and kinematic approaches to the analysis of terrestrial locomotion. In Vertebrate Biomechanics and Evolution (ed. V. L. Bels, J.-O. Gasc and A. Casinos), pp.243 -265. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd.
Schmitt, D. (1994). Fore limb mechanics as a function of substrate type during quadrupedalism in two anthropoid primates. J. Hum. Evol. 26,441 -457.[CrossRef]
Schmitt, D. (1999). Compliant walking in primates. J. Zool. Lond. 248,149 -160.
Schmitt, D. (2003a). Evolutionary implications of the unusual walking mechanics of the common marmoset (C. jacchus). Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 122, 28-37.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schmitt, D. (2003b). Substrate size and primate fore limb mechanics: implications for understanding the evolution of primate locomotion. Int. J. Primatol. 24,1023 -1036.[CrossRef]
Schmitt, D. (2003c). Mediolateral reaction forces and fore limb anatomy in quadrupedal primates: implications for interpreting locomotor behavior in fossil primates. J. Hum. Evol. 44,47 -58.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schmitt, D. and Lemelin, P. (2002). Origins of primate locomotion: gait mechanics of the woolly opossum. Am. J. Phys. Anthop. 118,231 -238.[CrossRef]
Wagner, J. A. (1842). Diagnosen neuer Arten brasilischer Säugetheire. Arch. Naturgesch. 8, 356-362.
White, T. D. (1990). Gait selection in the brush-tail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), and the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). J. Mammal. 71, 79-84.
Willey, J. W., Biknevicius, A. R., Reilly, S. M. and Earls, K.
D. (2004). The tale of the tail: limb function and locomotor
mechanics in Alligator mississippiensis. J. Exp. Biol.
207,553
-563.