Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Ontogenetic scaling of burrowing forces in the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris Kim Quillin J Exp Biol 203, 2757-2770 (2000) Anatomy of the earthworm Earthworm Locomotion FR FA FR Apparatus for measuring burrowing forces Open burrow setup Dead-end burrow setup Apparatus controls (1) Burrow diameter (2) Soil Properties Measured force traces Scaling Laws L L2 L3 leg length segment length height surface area cross-sectional area muscle force volume mass weight mb1/3 mb2/3 mb1 Scaling Laws y = some Parameter y ∝ mbb what is b? Isometric Scaling if y ∝ L, measure b = 1/3 if y ∝ L2, measure b = 2/3 if y ∝ L3, measure b = 1 Allometric Scaling if the condition for isometry is not met (i.e. any other value for b) Scaling Laws y = some Parameter y ∝ mbb Parameter (y) what is b? y = ambb log y Body Mass (mb) [log y] = b [log mb] + C log mb Scaling Laws y = some Parameter y ∝ mbb what is b? b is the slope of the log-log plot b=1 log y b = 2/3 b = 1/3 log mb Scaling Laws y = Burrowing Force what is b? b = 2/3 log Force y ∝ mbb b = 1/3 log mb If wall thickness (t), max stess (σC) constant: σC t 1 Δp = r ∝ r If muscle properties constant during development: F ∝ muscle cross sectional area F ∝ mb0.67 b = 2/3 F ∝ L ∝ mb0.33 Force ∝ Area b = 1/3 Laplace’s Law: σC σL = = Δp r σC t Δp = r ∝ C t 1 2 If wall thickness scales with length: σC F ∝ L2 ∝ mb0.67 Force ∝ Area b = 2/3 Scaling of burrowing force H0: b = 0.67 Actual: b ≈ 0.5 - Radial burrow-enlarging forces >> radial anchoring forces - Axial and radial enlarging forces about same magnitude Scaling of burrowing force Force Weight ∝ L2 L3 ∝ L-1 a ∝ mb-1/3 b H 0: b = -0.33 H 0: b=0 Pressure Force Area = ∝ Force Area* L2 L2 ∝ C ∝ m b0 *Area of plane of the force transducer ⊥ to the force Scaling of burrowing force Burrowing force does not scale isometrically: Small worms can push 500 times body weight, large worms can only push 10 times body weight Hypotheses for cause of relatively weak large worms: 1) Muscle area might not increase isometrically with body size 2) Muscle stress might not be constant across body sizes 3) Mechanical advantage of segments might change with body size 4) Burrowing kinematics different for small & large worms 5) Soil deformation resistance might depend on scale of deformation 1) Muscle Area H 0: F ∝ CSA of muscle CSA ∝ mb0.67 HA: CSA ∝ mbb b < 0.67 Actual: b > 0.67 2) Muscle Stress σmuscle = Force Area* *Area of muscle crosssection Force Area ∝ L2 L2 ∝ C ∝ mb0 H0: σmuscle constant across all body sizes HA: σmuscle less in large worms untested 3) Mechanical Advantage Quillin (1998) MA = A B = L = 102 mb0.34 d15 = 5.3 mb0.34 d50 = 4.2 mb0.32 b a MA Length ∝ diameter Length and diameter both scale isometrically → no expected change in MA 4) Burrowing Kinematics larger worms→fewer strides per second larger worms→more elongated during crawling HA: Muscles of larger worms working at higher strains→produce less force untested 5) Soil Properties untested Scaling of burrowing force Burrowing force does not scale isometrically: Small worms can push 500 times body weight, large worms can only push 10 times body weight Hypotheses for cause of relatively weak large worms: 1) Muscle area might not increase isometrically with body size 2) Muscle stress might not be constant across body sizes TEST: σmuscle ↓ during development 3) Mechanical advantage of segments might change with body size 4) Burrowing kinematics different for small & large worms TEST: larger earthworm muscles working at larger strains 5) Soil deformation resistance might depend on scale of deformation Maximum forces in earthworms compared with other animals point here is that lever-like systems can’t scale with BOTH geometric and static stress similarity -- but hydrostatic skeletons can; worms grow isometrically, so these and dynamic stresses scale. 3) Mechanical Advantage Quillin (1998) L = 102 mb0.34 d15 = 5.3 mb0.34 d50 = 4.2 mb0.32 MA = A B = b a MA Length ∝ diameter Length and diameter both scale isometrically → no expected change in MA