Bite force quotient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bite force quotient (BFQ) is the regression of the quotient of an animal's bite force in newtons divided by its body mass in kilograms.[1] The BFQ was first applied by Wroe et al. (2005) in a paper comparing bite forces, body masses and prey size in a range of living and extinct mammalian carnivores, later expanded on by Christiansen & Wroe (2007). Results showed that predators that take relatively large prey have large bite forces for their size, i.e., once adjusted for allometry. The authors predicted bite forces using beam theory, based on the directly proportional relationship between muscle cross-sectional area and the maximal force muscles can generate. Because body mass is proportional to volume the relationship between bite force and body mass is allometric. All else being equal, it would be expected to follow a 2/3 power rule. Consequently, small species would be expected to bite harder for their size than large species if a simple ratio of bite force to body mass is used, resulting in bias. Applying the BFQ normalizes the data allowing for fair comparison between species of different sizes in much the same way as an encephalization quotient normalizes data for brain size to body mass comparisons. It is a means for comparison, not an indicator of absolute bite force. In short an animal or species with a high BFQ indicates that it bites hard for its size after correcting for allometry. In short, if an animal or species has a high BFQ this indicates that it bites hard for its size after controlling for allometry.

Hite et al.,[2] who include data from the widest range of living mammals of any bite force regression to date, produce from their regression the BFQ equation:

where BF = Bite Force (N), and BM = Body Mass (g)

Carnivore BFQs[]

Animal BFQ
Aardwolf 77
European badger 109
Asiatic black bear 44
American black bear 64
Brown bear 78
Domestic cat 67
Cheetah 119
Cougar 108
Coyote 88
Dhole 132
Dingo 125
African wild dog 142
Domestic dog 114
Singing dog 100
Arctic fox 97
Cape genet 48
Grey fox 80
Red fox 92
Grey wolf 136
Brown hyena 113
Spotted hyena 119
Jaguar 137
Jaguarundi 75
Leopard 94
Clouded leopard 137
Lion 112
Northern olingo 162
Sand cat 130
Sun bear 160
Least weasel 164
Spotted-tailed quoll 179
Tasmanian devil 181
Tiger 127
Thylacine 166

Table sources (unless otherwise stated):[1][3][4][5]

References[]

  1. ^ a b Wroe S, McHenry C, Thomason J (March 2005). "Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa". Proc. Biol. Sci. 272 (1563): 619–25. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2986. PMC 1564077. PMID 15817436.
  2. ^ Hite, Natalee J.; Germain, Cody; Cain, Blake W.; Sheldon, Mason; Perala, Sai Saketh Nandan; Sarko, Diana K. (2019). "The Better to Eat You With: Bite Force in the Naked Mole-Rat (Heterocephalus glaber) Is Stronger Than Predicted Based on Body Size". Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. 13: 70. doi:10.3389/fnint.2019.00070. ISSN 1662-5145. PMC 6904307. PMID 31866840.
  3. ^ Fish That Fake Orgasms: And Other Zoological Curiosities, Matt Walker, Macmillan, 2007, pp. 98-9, ISBN 978-0-312-37116-6 (retrieved 15 August 2010 from Google Books)
  4. ^ Per Christiansen; Stephen Wroe (2007). "Bite Forces and Evolutionary Adaptations to Feeding Ecology in Carnivores". Ecology. 88 (2): 347–358. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[347:bfaeat]2.0.co;2. PMID 17479753.
  5. ^ Campbell, C. "Biology: Behavior - Diet". The Thylacine Museum. Archived from the original on 2017-06-21. Retrieved 16 December 2020.


Retrieved from ""