Why do Large Animals Never Actuate Their Jumps with Latch-Mediated Springs? Because They can Jump Higher Without Them.

As animals get smaller, their ability to generate usable work from muscle contraction is decreased by the muscle's force-velocity properties, thereby reducing their effective jump height. Very small animals use a spring-actuated system, which prevents velocity effects from reducing available energy. Since force-velocity properties reduce the usable work in even larger animals, why don't larger animals use spring-actuated jumping systems as well? We will show that muscle length-tension properties limit spring-actuated systems to generating a maximum one-third of the possible work that a muscle could produce-greatly restricting the jumping height of spring-actuated jumpers. Thus a spring-actuated jumping animal has a jumping height that is one-third of the maximum possible jump height achievable were 100% of the possible muscle work available. Larger animals, which could theoretically use all of the available muscle energy, have a maximum jumping height that asymptotically approaches a value that is about three times higher than that of spring-actuated jumpers. Furthermore, a size related "crossover point" is evident for these two jumping mechanisms: animals smaller than this point can jump higher with a spring-actuated mechanism, while animals larger than this point can jump higher with a muscle-actuated mechanism. We demonstrate how this limit on energy storage is a consequence of the interaction between length-tension properties of muscles and spring stiffness. We indicate where this crossover point occurs based on modeling and then use jumping data from the literature to validate that larger jumping animals generate greater jump heights with muscle-actuated systems than spring-actuated systems

Morphology & force dataset

Data for each individual used in morphology and force correlations, including: sex, body length, body mass, carapace length, merus length, saddle length, dactyl heel width, and maximum strike force

Data from: Contests with deadly weapons: telson sparring in mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda)

Mantis shrimp strike with extreme impact forces that are deadly to prey. They also strike conspecifics during territorial contests, yet theoretical and empirical findings in aggressive behaviour research suggest competitors should resolve conflicts using signals before escalating to dangerous combat. We tested how Neogonodactylus bredini uses two ritualized behaviours to resolve size-matched contests: meral spread visual displays and telson (tailplate) strikes. We predicted that (i) most contests would be resolved by meral spreads, (ii) meral spreads would reliably signal strike force and (iii) strike force would predict contest success. The results were unexpected for each prediction. Contests were not resolved by meral spreads, instead escalating to striking in 33 of 34 experiments. The size of meral spread components did not strongly correlate with strike force. Strike force did not predict contest success; instead, winners delivered more strikes. Size-matched N. bredini avoid deadly combat not by visual displays, but by ritualistically and repeatedly striking each other's telsons until the loser retreats. We term this behaviour ‘telson sparring', analogous to sparring in other weapon systems. We present an alternative framework for mantis shrimp contests in which the fight itself is the signal, serving as a non-lethal indicator of aggressive persistence or endurance

Data from: Modularity and scaling in fast movements: power amplification in mantis shrimp

No description availabl

Data from: Mechanical sensitivity reveals evolutionary dynamics of mechanical systems

A classic question in evolutionary biology is how form–function relationships promote or limit diversification. Mechanical metrics, such as kinematic transmission (KT) in linkage systems, are useful tools for examining the evolution of form and function in a comparative context. The convergence of disparate systems on equivalent metric values (mechanical equivalence) has been highlighted as a source of potential morphological diversity under the assumption that morphology can evolve with minimal impact on function. However, this assumption does not account for mechanical sensitivity—the sensitivity of the metric to morphological changes in individual components of a structure. We examined the diversification of a four-bar linkage system in mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda), and found evidence for both mechanical equivalence and differential mechanical sensitivity. KT exhibited variable correlations with individual linkage components, highlighting the components that influence KT evolution, and the components that are free to evolve independently from KT and thereby contribute to the observed pattern of mechanical equivalence. Determining the mechanical sensitivity in a system leads to a deeper understanding of both functional convergence and morphological diversification. This study illustrates the importance of multi-level analyses in delineating the factors that limit and promote diversification in form–function systems

Contests dataset

Data on each contestant, including: sex, residency status (resident/intruder), winner status (winner/loser), body length, body mass, maximum strike force, and number of strikes delivered during the contest

Contest behaviours and striking dataset

Data on which contests escalated to striking, how many strikes each contest included, how many strikes were not on the telson, and the first behaviour of each contest

Supplementary video 2

Video showing contest behaviour

Supplementary video 1

Video showing contest behaviour

Anderson&Patek2015_individuals_data

Using 196 museum specimens from 36 stomatopod species, we measured morphological and biomechanical data related to the 4-bar system in the raptorial appendage. These data are divided into two files: Anderson&Patek2015_individuals_data contains the PC scores and KT values for the 196 specimens measured. This data was used to construct the specimen-based morphospace in the manuscript