4.8 Article

Two different jumping mechanisms of water striders are determined by body size

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2219972120

关键词

locomotion; water strider; allometry; jumping; biomechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that large water strider species do not conform to the existing theory of surface tension-dominant jumps and instead utilize surface-breaking jumps to evade underwater predators. This suggests that natural selection can disrupt the theoretical scaling relationship between prey size and jumping performance, leading to an evolutionary shift to a different physical mechanism for protection.
Current theory for surface tension-dominant jumps on water, created for small-and medium-sized water strider species and used in bioinspired engineering, predicts that jumping individuals are able to match their downward leg movement speed to their size and morphology such that they maximize the takeoff speed and minimize the takeoff delay without breaking the water surface. Here, we use empirical observations and theoretical modeling to show that large species (heavier than similar to 80 mg) could theoretically perform the surface-dominated jumps according to the existing model, but they do not conform to its predictions, and switch to using surface-breaking jumps in order to achieve jumping performance sufficient for evading attacks from underwater predators. This illustrates how natural selection for avoiding predators may break the theoretical scaling relationship between prey size and its jumping performance within one physical mechanism, leading to an evolutionary shift to another mechanism that provides protection from attacking predators. Hence, the results are consistent with a general idea: Natural selection for the maintenance of adaptive function of a specific behavior performed within environmental physical constraints leads to size-specific shift to behaviors that use a new physical mechanism that secure the adaptive function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据