4.5 Article

Steady swimming muscle dynamics in the leopard shark Triakis semifasciata

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 206, 期 7, 页码 1117-1126

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.00206

关键词

muscle activation; muscle strain; electromyography; sonomicrometry; shark; Triakis semifasciata

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patterns of red muscle strain and activation were examined at three positions along the body (0.42, 0.61 and 0.72L, where L is total body length) and correlated with simultaneous measurements of midline kinematics during steady swimming (approx. 1.0Ls(-1)) in the leopard shark Triakis semifasciata. Analysis of lateral displacement along the body indicates that the leopard shark is a subcarangiform swimmer. Longitudinal variation in red muscle strain was observed with strain amplitudes ranging from +/-3.9% in the anterior, +/-6.6% in the mid, to +/-4.8% in the posterior body position. Strain was in-phase with local midline curvature. In addition, strain amplitude calculated from a bending beam model closely matched strain measured using sonomicrometry at all three body positions. There is a high degree of similarity in red muscle activation patterns along the body between the leopard shark and many fish species, in that the onset of activation occurs during muscle lengthening while offset occurs during muscle shortening. However, we found no significant longitudinal variation in the EMG/strain phase relationship and duty cycles, with onset of muscle activation occurring at 51.4-61.8degrees and offset at 159.7-165.2degrees (90degrees is peak length). This consistent pattern of activation suggests that red muscle along the entire length of the body contributes to positive power production. Thus, sharks such as Triakis may have no regional specialization in red muscle function like that seen in many teleosts, which may indicate that the evolution of differential muscle function along the body occurred after the divergence of cartilaginous and bony fishes.

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

4.5
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