Propulsive impulse as a covarying performance measure in the comparison of the kinematics of swimming and jumping in frogs
Department of Biology, University of Antwerp (UIA), Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk (Antwerpen), Belgium
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: sandran{at}uia.ua.ac.be)
Accepted 21 August 2003
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In this study, we examine the use of the propulsive impulse as a covariate in the comparison of the kinematics of locomotion of a semi-aquatic frog Rana esculenta, across land and through water. We focused on the propulsive phase because it is functionally the most significant phase of the locomotor cycle in both jumping and swimming, and it is also the most comparable.
The frog alters the joint angles of its legs in order to adjust its performance (i.e. impulse) within both locomotor modes. The kinematics and this modulation of the propulsive phase differ between the two modes; however, we found that the impulse ranges of swimming and jumping do not fully overlap. Possible explanations for this include larger lateral forces during swimming, a reduced force transmission due to a lower external load during swimming and reduced muscle recruitment due to differences in coordination patterns.
Key words: locomotion, Anura, frog, Rana esculenta, kinematics, swimming, jumping
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Most anurans use their hind limbs to generate propulsive forces during both jumping and swimming. The same apparatus, the legs, is used to perform the same task, but in two different media. During both locomotor modes, a forceful extension of the legs results in an acceleration of the center of mass. Since this is essentially the same task, the kinematics of the leg segments are expected to be identical for both locomotor modes. After all, the kinematics represent the dynamic equilibrium between the internal and external forces.
Previous studies on anurans (Kamel et
al., 1996; Olson and Marsh,
1998
; Gillis and Biewener,
2000
) have mainly focused on hind limb muscle function, and have
suggested slightly different functional roles for some muscles, depending upon
the external environment. However, if the goal of the movement is the same for
both locomotor modes (see earlier), but the circumstances are different,
muscle recruitment is bound to be different. This theory seems to be confirmed
by a study on kinematics of swimming and hopping frogs
(Peters et al., 1996
), where
no differences were found. However, Peters et al.
(1996
) decided to compare the
joint angles at comparable moments in a locomotor cycle, which in turn were
determined by limb configuration (essentially the joint angles as well). By
determining the different phases in this way, however, the data could be
biased. In the present study we have focused on the propulsive phase (the
kick), because it is functionally the most significant phase of the locomotor
cycle in both jumping and swimming
(Nauwelaerts et al., 2001
) and
it is the only phase that can be independently determined, i.e. from the
velocity profile of the center of mass.
The major challenge when comparing aquatic and terrestrial locomotion is to
determine which swimming sequence should be compared with which jumping
sequence. This is important because it is known that movement patterns change
within a locomotor mode. Previous studies on kinematics
(Peters et al., 1996) and on
muscle function (Kamel et al.,
1996
; Olson and Marsh,
1998
; Gillis and Biewener,
2000
) compared average sequences, which ignores any
intersequential variation. In many studies on terrestrial locomotion, the
usual covariate used to assess the within-mode variability is locomotor speed.
The drastic difference in the physical properties of the two media, however,
rules out the use of velocity in the comparison of terrestrial and aquatic
locomotion. We therefore propose to add a covariate to the analysis, assuming
that a similar value represents the same `effort' for both locomotor modes. We
suggest that a relevant covariate has to control for (1) differences in the
physical properties of the medium and (2) for differences in the
direction and magnitude of the resultant force of all
external forces (Fig. 1). Both
selection criteria may have significant mechanical consequences on the
locomotor behavior. On land, some of the vertical ground reaction forces
counteract the gravitational forces and result in a vertical acceleration.
These parallel forces dominate and work in the vertical plane, while during
jumping the direction of the movement of the body is at an angle to the
horizontal plane. In contrast, in water, the effective weight of an animal is
reduced by buoyancy, whereas fluid-dynamic forces are drastically increased
(Martinez et al., 1998
). Drag
is the resultant force in the orientation of the locomotion, and therefore
works for horizontal swimming in the horizontal plane. During aquatic
locomotion, the resultant external forces are therefore oriented parallel to
the direction of motion.
|
In this study, we evaluate the use of propulsive impulse as a covarying
performance measure that fulfils the two selection criteria above. Impulse is
the change in momentum of a body, and equals the integral of the resultant
force acting on this body over the equivalent time interval:
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
The purpose of this study is to compare the kinematics of swimming and jumping in a semi-aquatic frog within the full range of their locomotor behaviour. Our working hypothesis is that motor control will strive to achieve similar kinematics for both modes. To make a valid comparison, we will calculate and evaluate the use of propulsive impulse as a covariate. We expect the propulsive impulse to be a measure of the `effort' an animal has to undertake in order to make this movement. Since a full range of impulses was obtained for both modes, we also expect the ranges of the impulses for both locomotor modes to overlap.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Data recording
Jumping
Frogs jumping from an AMTI force plate were simultaneously recorded,
laterally using a high-speed Redlake Motionscope (Redlake MASD, Inc., San
Diego, CA, USA) and dorsally using a NAC-1000 (NAC Image Technology, Inc.,
Tokyo, Japan), both at a frame rate of 500 Hz. The two views were
synchronized. Care was taken to include maximal jumps. For practical reasons,
this set-up did not allow small jumps, so additional (smaller) jumps were
recorded using the Redlake Motionscope system only, with a mirror placed at an
angle of 45° next to the take-off position. The area was lit using a
Tri-lite light (3x650 W; Cool Light Co., Inc., Hollywood, CA, USA). In
both experiments, the surface of the take-off position was covered with fine
sandpaper to prevent the feet slipping.
The following criteria were used to select the sequences. (1) The whole propulsion phase was visible; (2) both hind limbs extended simultaneously; (3) in the mirror experiments, jumps were straight and parallel to the mirror. For each animal, 20 sequences had to pass the selection criteria before concluding the experiment. These 20 sequences were then screened on their ground reaction force output, and six sequences for each animal (see Table 1) were chosen for further analysis in order to obtain as large a performance range as possible.
|
Swimming
Swimming sequences were recorded at 250 Hz using a Redlake Motionscope
system. The frogs were transferred to a swimming tank consisting of two open
tanks (0.5 m x 0.5 m x 0.4 m) connected by a glass tunnel (0.15 m
x 0.10 m x 1 m long). The tanks were filled above the level of the
tunnel so that the frogs were compelled to swim completely submerged when
crossing from one tank to the other. A mirror placed beneath the swimming
tunnel allowed both ventral and lateral images to be recorded using a single
camera. The water in the swimming tank was kept at a temperature of 21°C
for the duration of the experiment.
To ensure that the full velocity range was obtained, frogs were stimulated by touch to swim at maximal speed. The selection of sequences retained for further analysis was based upon the following three criteria: (1) constant swimming depth, (2) displacement parallel to, but not touching, the tunnel walls, and (3) symmetrical hind limb movements.
Again, 20 sequences for each individual were selected. 57 sequences for each animal (see Table 1) were chosen for further analysis, based upon the velocity range.
Data analysis
Kinematics
For each sequence, the snout tip, cloaca, hip, knee, ankle and midfoot were
digitized, frame by frame, using an APAS (Ariel Performance Analyzing System;
Ariel Dynamics, Inc., Trabuco Canyon, CA, USA). We decided to compare the
kick, which is the only phase of the cycle that is undoubtedly homologous in
the two environments. The kick is defined in this study as the phase in which
the snout tip accelerates. We calculated the three-dimensional (3-D) joint
angles of the hip, knee and ankle for the entire swimming and jumping trials,
but our further analysis was restricted to the data relating to the kick
phase. Time was set to zero when velocity reached its maximum.
To compare the posture of the different segments, the coordinates of the digitized markers were transformed from a global coordinate system to a new relative coordinate system that moves (and rotates) with the animal. The origin of this local coordinate system was situated at the coordinates of the cloaca, with the X-axis through the trunk of the frog (on the axis snoutcloaca) and therefore in the direction of the locomotion. The Y-axis was placed parallel to the perpendicular axis on the X-axis through the hip. The Z-axis was defined as the cross product of the X- and Y-axes. The projections of the joint angles in the XY (the coronal plane), the XZ (the sagittal plane) and the YZ plane (the transverse plane) were calculated from these new coordinates (Fig. 2). In this way, we looked not only at the 3-D joint angles, but also at their orientation in reference to the trunk. By `immobilizing' the body in a new coordinate system we were able to compare the leg movements more accurately. As a result of using this method to calculate the projection angles, however, it was impossible to determine the hip angle in the YZ plane, as the hip and trunk segments determine the X- and Y-axis of the local coordinate system.
|
Impulse
The propulsive impulse was calculated as the sum of the mass multiplied by
the velocity change of the snout, and the impulse of the external force acting
against motion.
In terrestrial locomotion, the mass is simply the mass of the frog itself
and gravity is the only external force that has to be taken into account. The
impulse of gravity was calculated as mass x gravitational acceleration
(9.81 m s2) x duration of the kick t.
For each sequence of the jumping data, the propulsive impulse was calculated
as the sum of the velocity impulse and the impulse of the gravitational force:
![]() | (3) |
Calculating the propulsive impulse for the swimming sequences is more
complex. When a body moves through a fluid, it pushes the fluid out of the
way. If the body is accelerated, the surrounding fluid must also be
accelerated. The body behaves as if it were heavier, by an amount called the
hydrodynamic mass (or added mass) of the fluid. Therefore, a correction must
be made for the mass utilising the added mass factor 0.2
(Nauwelaerts et al., 2001),
which is the added mass coefficient (AMC) taken for an ellipsoid body with the
dimensions of a frog's trunk (Daniel,
1984
). Drag on the body is the resistive force that must be taken
into account during swimming. The propulsive impulse during swimming was
therefore calculated as:
![]() | (4) |
Statistical analysis
To evaluate the method of calculating the impulse from the digitization
data, impulse values were compared in pairs with those obtained by integrating
the ground reaction force. The two methods were compared and then
statistically substantiated using a Method Validation Tool Kit
(http://www.westgard.com/mvtools.html),
using a paired data calculator. The resulting value for the observed bias was
tested for significance using a Student t-test
(Westgard, 1995).
The 3-D and projection angle profiles (angles against time) were tested for differences between the two locomotor modes, examining not only average differences in profiles sensus strictus, but also differences in angle profiles with respect to changes in impulse, using a linear mixed model (ANCOVA) in SAS version 10.0 for Microsoft Windows. This model compared the profiles after adjustments (1) for individual differences, and (2) for correlations of the angles within a sequence (a first order autoregressive covariance-structure). A general Sattherthwaite method was used for correcting the degrees of freedom.
Significant interactions (1) between mode, time and impulse were interpreted as differences in the linear changes in impulse modulation, and (2) between mode, time2 and impulse as differences in how the shape of the profiles were affected by impulse. A second analysis, within one locomotor mode, was performed using the same linear model to enable us to describe the profiles (angle vs time and angle vs time2) and changes in these profiles that lead to a different impulse for each mode.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Impulses
Although a large range of impulses was obtained for both locomotor modes,
the impulses of the propulsion force were greater in jumping (between 0.018
and 0.053 kg m s1) than in swimming (between 0.005 and 0.026
kg m s1). Despite a large overlap in duration, there is
little overlap in the impulseduration graph for the two modes (impulse
overlap range = 0.0180.026 kg m s1)
(Fig. 3).
|
Kinematics
Mean joint angles within modes
All 3-D joint angles have a significant, linear change with time (see
columns T, Table 2), even after
Bonferroni correction in both locomotor modes. The angle patterns are shown in
Fig. 4, where 3-D angle is
plotted against time (time set to zero at maximal velocity). The effect of
impulse is shown along the Y-axis.
|
|
The projection angles show that most movement occurs in the XY plane (the coronal plane) and the YZ plane (transverse plane).
Mean joint angles between modes
The traditional method for comparing kinematic profiles is to compare the
average profile from different situations. Here, the mean slopes of the hip
and knee 3-D angletime profiles differ significantly (see column
TxMode of Table
2A) between the two modes, which indicates a difference in angle
velocity or a difference in timing of the extension during the propulsive
phase. These dissimilarities are for the knee and ankle due to differences in
the slope of the angletime curves in the XY plane, i.e. the
coronal plane through the trunk. However, these significant differences
disappear after Bonferroni correction.
The shape of the angletime curve (column T2xMode) only differs for the hip XY angle: during swimming this angle changes linearly over time, while during jumping a significant curvature is found.
This means that the conventional method of comparing the kinematics, that is without taking into account the variation within a locomotor mode, does not yield any differences between the kinematics of jumping and swimming in R. esculenta.
Influence of impulse on the kinematic profiles
The intersequential variation is considerable (see
Fig. 5). When impulse is added
to the analysis, most of the intersequential variation can be explained. The
3-D knee and 3-D ankle angle profiles change significantly with impulse, and
this change differs between swimming and jumping. For the knee joint, during
jumping, the kinematic profiles change with impulse in the XY and
YZ plane, whereas during swimming the change with impulse also occurs
in the XY and XZ plane. For the ankle, a trend with impulse
is obtained in the XY and XZ plane in both modes, but this
modulation differs in the XY plane. In the hip joint, modulation of
the 3-D angle differs due to a linear and parabolic change during swimming,
and a slight parabolic change during jumping. The difference mainly occurs in
the XY plane.
|
Joint angle profiles between modes with respect to impulse
Most angles change with impulse (see columns TxL of
Table 2), which means that to
look solely at the average profiles is to overlook a significant source of
variation within a locomotor mode. Therefore, for the remaining angles,
profiles of different modes should be compared with respect to the impulse.
The unexpected finding that the impulse ranges only display a partial overlap
means that the overlapping range is based on a limited data set. For the hip,
this comparison results in a larger angle (15°) of the hip at the
beginning of the propulsion phase of jumping. This means the hip is more
flexed at the start position, probably due to the weight of the trunk on the
legs, because this difference in angle is the greatest in the XY
plane. Although the knee is extended more and flexed less in the XY
plane during swimming, this effect is compensated for by the fact that the
knee does not move in the YZ plane during swimming, whereas during
jumping, the knee displays considerable movement (60°). This results in a
slightly more flexed knee during swimming, but a less extended knee at the end
of the propulsive phase, producing the same range of movement for both
locomotor modes in 3-D. The ankle flexes more during swimming (15°),
because the ankle XY projection angle is smaller at the start and
extends more slowly during swimming and because the ankle extends more during
jumping in the YZ plane.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In locomotion, it is known that the performance level, for example
locomotor speed or jumping distance, is an important source of variation.
Kinematic characteristics change with speed and a convenient solution is to
add speed as a covariate in the kinematic analyses (e.g.
Hoyt et al., 2000;
Vanhooydonck et al., 2002
).
Swimming at a certain speed is not similar to performing at the same speed on
land, however, because (1) the two media, i.e. water and air, differ
drastically in their physical properties, and (2) the musculoskeletal system
has to act against different substrates, namely viscous water versus
solid ground.
Jumping distance and swimming speed can be considered the overall collective result of a more basic performance measure, namely the forces transmitted by the feet to the substrate. These forces are necessary in order to accelerate the body, and in case of swimming, to accelerate the added mass. These forces are also required to overcome resistive forces (gravity and drag) during the propulsive kick in both locomotor modes. Therefore, the use of the propulsive impulse as a covarying performance measure potentially permits a sound comparison of swimming and jumping. This converts the kinematic analysis into the comparison of two 3-D surface plots per joint, one for each medium (see Fig. 4).
For the sequences that result in a similar propulsive impulse, the kinematics of swimming and jumping differ significantly. As for the 3-D angles, these differences remain small, but the configuration with respect to the animal's body differs. It seems that moving from land to water coincides with a rotation in the hip joint, turning the knee more outwards and resulting in different foot positions. However, this comparison was only based on a limited data set. The initial expectations were that the performance ranges for swimming and jumping would largely overlap, because an effort was made to obtain the full range of performances for both locomotor modes (see Materials and methods). However, the performance overlap is surprisingly small (see Fig. 3) and the impulses for jumping are considerably higher than for swimming.
One possible explanation for this difference in impulse is that our
kinematically based estimations of the propulsive impulse are unreliable for
either or both locomotor modes. For jumping, however, the kinematic method
yielded similar results to those obtained via integration of the
ground reaction forces (i.e. the more conventional method). This gave support
to the kinematic method and the obligatory method of analyzing the swimming
bouts. There are two potential sources of error in this model: the drag
coefficient and the added mass coefficient (see equation 4). The drag
coefficient was obtained from the deceleration of the body during the glide
phase. It is possible this causes an underestimation of the
Cd because during the propulsive phase, the body is not in
such a streamlined posture. However, in order to obtain swimming impulses
within the range of the impulses of the jumping trials, a 14-fold increase of
the Cd is required, which would correspond to the drag
coefficient of a square cylinder normal to the flow. Such a large drag
coefficient is impossible for a frog's body. The second potential source of
error is the added mass coefficient, which might also be underestimated.
Again, to make the impulses overlap would require a unrealistically high value
and greatly exceed the values previously used
(Daniel, 1984;
Gal and Blake, 1988
;
Nauwelaerts et al., 2001
).
Moreover, the chosen drag coefficient and added mass coefficient have already
been succesfully used to mimic the displacement profiles of swimming frogs
(Nauwelaerts et al., 2001
).
Therefore, we can assume that the difference in propulsive impulse is real and
not caused by an unrealistic model for the swimming bouts.
Thus, the calculated impulse ranges differ. This leaves us with
three possible explanations. First, the present kinematically based impulse
calculations are equivalent to the time integral of the force components in
the direction of the observed displacement only. Force components
perpendicular to the direction of motion, but cancelling each other, might be
transmitted to the substrate. These forces do originate from muscular action
but do not result in a change in momentum, nor are they used to overcome
resistive forces. They therefore do not show up in the impulse estimations. In
symmetrical jumping, for instance, lateral forces exerted by left and right
foot (if present) cancel each other. From this point of view, maximal swimming
and maximal jumping might yield comparable efforts at the muscular level, but
these efforts might be translated into largely differing propulsive
impulses because of larger non-propulsive force components being transmitted
to water during swimming. If true, this reduced transmission efficiency can
presumably be linked to the fact that frogs are secondary swimmers, primarily
adapted to a terrestrial, saltatory motion
(Wake, 1997). It is remarkable
that fully aquatic frogs like Xenopus have entirely different leg
configurations, presumably to circumvent this problem, but inhibiting their
jumping ability (Trueb, 1996
).
The kinematic shift observed in Rana esculenta brings the legs into a
more Xenopus-like configuration, but this might not be sufficient to
equalize the impulse ranges for this semi-aquatic frog.
Alternatively, it should be considered that comparable efforts at the
muscular level result in an overall decreased force transmission to the
substrate during swimming, which logically ends in lower impulses. Such
conditions can occur when muscles have to act against lower external loads:
contraction will proceed more rapidly but, as a consequence of the
forcevelocity relationship, less forcefully. The external load acting
on the muscle system of the legs derives from two sources: the inertial load
(due to the change in momentum) and the load resulting from the resistive
forces. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that for the fastest swimming
kick and the longest jump both the muscular effort and activation are
maximized, we can compare the external loads for a frog of about 0.02 kg by
making use of the formulae presented in Equations 3 and 4. It appears that
both the average inertial load and the average resistive load are about twice
as high for jumping (inertial: 0.42 N versus 0.21 N; resistive: 0.12
Nversus 0.07 N), which gives support to this alternative explanation
based on the forcevelocity relationship of muscular contraction.
However, if this holds true, contraction velocities or joint extension
velocities should be higher for the swimming sequences. This is not confirmed
by Gillis and Biewener (2000),
who found no strain rate differences between swimming and jumping for the
muscles examined, nor by the data in the present study. When we compare the
velocity patterns of the maximal jumping and the maximal swimming trial for
each frog, joint velocities were found to be significantly higher for the
jumping sequences (paired t-test; P<0.05).
Finally, we consider the possibility that estimates of the propulsive
impulses are a good measure of the effort made by the frog's leg muscles, but
that some of the muscles become less activated, even when performance is
maximized. This would be analogous to a terrestrial animal attempting to move
on a slippery surface, such as ice. To optimize movement, recruitment is
reduced so as not to exceed static friction. This is possible when maximized
contraction, optimal for jumping, would cause less coordinated, ineffective
movement patterns during swimming, resulting in an even more feeble
performance than with reduced recruitment. This seems plausible given the
difference in external load and taking into account that frogs are primarily
adapted to terrestrial locomotion (Wake,
1997).
When we look at Fig. 6,
coordination does differ between the locomotor modes. During swimming, all
joints are active at the same moment, at approximately 70% of the total
propulsive phase, whereas during jumping the hip extends first (halfway the
propulsive phase), followed by a synchronous action of knee and hip. To
prolong the acceleration phase during jumping, a proximodistal
succession of the joint actions is favourable, causing the maximal velocity to
be reached as late as possible during push-off
(van Ingen Schenau, 1989).
However, a synchronous extension of all joints, as during swimming, enables a
higher maximal velocity to be reached
(Alexander, 1989
). It is
plausible that for swimming, attaining a higher velocity is more important
than the timing of this velocity peak. Interestingly, the coordination pattern
found for R. esculenta differs from the one described by Gillis and
Blob (2001
) for Bufo
marinus, a more terrestrial species. In these toads, limb extension
begins at the knee during swimming. In contrast, during jumping the hip
precedes extension at more distal joints, which is similar to R.
esculenta's coordination. When the coordination of the two locomotor
modes is different, muscle activation patterns are also expected to differ.
Gillis and Biewener (2000
)
found lower EMG intensities for the m. plantaris (primarily an ankle
extensor), and a shorter EMG burst duration for the m. cruralis (primarily a
knee extensor) during swimming in Bufo marinus. From our data, it
appears that the knee and ankle are fairly conservative joints. Despite
differences in starting angle, they have a similar movement range in both
locomotor modes. If we assume that EMG patterns are similar in Rana
esculenta, this finding may point at an active modulation. Yet, it must
be taken into account that the EMG data of Gillis and Biewener
(2000
) refer to averages over a
performance range, and it is not specified whether maximal performance is
included. Assuming, however, that the reported lower and shorter
EMG-activations also occur at maximal performance, a smaller plantaris and
cruralis muscle might suffice for swimming. Again, a comparison with a fully
aquatic frog like Xenopus might be very helpful.
|
In conclusion, the kinematically based impulse calculations are a promising
tool in the comparison of drastically different locomotor modes, but do not
tell the full story. The unexpected finding of the largely non-overlapping
impulse ranges in swimming and jumping raises new questions. The formulated
hypotheses are not mutually exclusive and the discussed phenomena might act
together. Although we agree that the kinematically based method is a
simplification of reality, we argue that this alone could not explain the
observed discrepancy. Without disregard for other explanations, we believe
that the concept of non-propulsive impulses being much larger in swimming than
in jumping is the most plausible. One step towards the solution would be to
map all the external forces involved in both locomotor modes. In a terrestrial
environment, the external forces consist of the gravitational forces and the
ground reaction forces, which should be measured for both feet separately.
Determining the external forces in an aquatic system is far more complex and
requires a special setup, i.e. studying the flow induced by the frog's
movements. It would also be interesting to investigate whether the same EMG
patterns and strain rate profiles as described for B. marinus
(Gillis and Biewener, 2000)
occur in a semi-aquatic frog such as R. esculenta. Since the
coordination patterns are different, the possibility exists that we cannot
simply use Gillis and Biewener's results to interprete our data. There remain
a few problems with the use of the propulsive impulse as a covariate in the
comparison between aquatic and terrestrial sequences. It is not easy to
determine a comparable level of effort when examining two locomotor modes in
such different physical environments. A measure for power input, the active
metabolic rate (Fish and Baudinette,
1999
), or the metabolic cost of transport, could be better
estimates for the `effort' exerted during the propulsive phase. However,
measuring instantaneous oxygen consumption in frogs is not straightforward.
These are all challenges for future research.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Alexander, R. McN. (1989). Sequential joint extension in jumping (Reaction to G. J. van Ingen Schenau, 1989). Hum. Movement Sci. 8,339 -345.[CrossRef]
Biewener, A. A. and Corning, W. R. (2001).
Dynamics of mallard (Anas platyrhinchos) gastrocnemius function
during swimming versus terrestrial locomotion. J. Exp.
Biol. 204,1745
-1756.
Biewener, A. A. and Gillis, G. B. (1999).
Dynamics of muscle function during locomotion: accommodating variable
conditions. J. Exp. Biol.
202,3387
-3396.
Bilo, D. and Nachtigall, W. (1980). A simple method to dertermine drag coefficients in aquatic animals. J. Exp. Biol. 87,357 -359.
Daniel, T. L. (1984). Unsteady aspects of aquatic locomotion. Am. Zool. 24,121 -134.
Denny, M. W. (1993). Air and Water. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fish, F. E. and Baudinette, R. V. (1999).
Energetics of locomotion by the Australian water rat (Hydromys
chrysogaster): a comparison of swimming and running in a semi-aquatic
mammal. J. Exp. Biol.
202,353
-363.
Gal, J. M. and Blake, R. W. (1988). Biomechanics of frog swimming. II. Mechanics of the limb beat cycle in Hymenochirus boettgeri. J. Exp. Biol. 138,413 -429.
Gillis, G. B. and Biewener A. A. (2000).
Hindlimb extensor muscle function during jumping and swimming in the toad
(Bufo marinus). J. Exp. Biol.
203,3547
-3563.
Gillis, G. B. and Blob, R. W. (2001). How muscles accommodate movement in different physical environments: aquatic vs. terrestrial locomotion in vertebrates. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 131,61 -75.
Hoyt, D. F., Wickler, S. J. and Taylor, C. R.
(2000). Time of contact and step length: the effect of limb
length, running speed, load carrying and incline. J. Exp.
Biol. 203,221
-227.
Irschick, D. J. and Jayne, B. C. (1998).
Effects of incline on speed, acceleration, body porsture and hindlimb
kinematics in two species of lizard Callisaurus draconoides and
Uma scoparia. J. Exp. Biol.
201,273
-287.
Kamel, L. T., Peters, S. E. and Bashor, D. P. (1996). Hopping and swimming in the leopard frog, Rana pipiens. 2. A comparison of muscle activities. J. Morphol. 230,17 -31.[CrossRef][Medline]
Martinez, M. M., Full, R. J. and Koehl, M. A. R.
(1998). Underwater punting by an intertidal crab: a novel gait
revealed by the kinematics of pedestrian locomotion in air versus
water. J. Exp. Biol.
201,2609
-2623.
Nauwelaerts, S., Aerts, P. and D'Aout, K. (2001). Speed modulation in swimming frogs. J. Motor Behav. 33,265 -272.[Medline]
Olson, J. M. and Marsh, R. L. (1998).
Activation patterns and length changes in hindlimb muscles of the bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana during jumping. J. Exp.
Biol. 201,2763
-2777.
Peters, S. E., Kamel, L. T. and Bashor, D. P. (1996). Hopping and swimming in the leopard frog, Rana pipiens.1. Step cycles and kinematics. J. Morphol. 230,1 -16.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shine, R., Cogger, H. G., Reed, R. R., Shetty, S. and Bonnet, X. (2003). Aquatic and terrestrial locomotor speeds of amphibious sea-snakes (Serpentes, Laticaudidae). J. Zool. 259,261 -268.[CrossRef]
Stelle, L. L., Blake, R. W. and Trites, A. W. (2000). Hydrodynamic drag in steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). J. Exp. Zool. 203,1915 -1923.
Trueb, L. (1996). Historical constraints and morphological novelties in the evolution of the skeletal system of pipid frogs (Anura: Pipidae). In The Biology of Xenopus (ed. R. C. Tinsley and H. R. Kobel), pp. 349-376. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vanhooydonck, B., Van Damme, R. and Aerts, P.
(2002). Variation in speed, gait characteristics and microhabitat
use in lacertid lizards. J. Exp. Biol.
205,1037
-1046.
van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1989). From rotation to translation: Constraints on multi-joint movements and the unique action of bi-articular muscles. Hum. Movement Sci. 8, 301-337.
Vogel, S. (1994). Life in Moving Fluids. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wake, M. H. (1997). Amphibian locomotion in evolutionary time. Zoology 100,141 -151.
Westgard, J. O. (1995). A method Evaluation Decision Chart (MEDx Chart) for Judging Method Performance. Clin. Lab. Sci. 8,277 -283.[Medline]