Bite force quotient
This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.(February 2013) |
Bite force quotient (BFQ) is a numerical value commonly used to represent the bite force of an animal, while also taking factors like the animal's size into account.
The BFQ is calculated as 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).[2] 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, 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.,[3] who include data from the widest range of living mammals of any bite force regression to date, produce from their regression the BFQ equation:
Or equivalently
where BF = Bite Force (N), and BM = Body Mass (g)
Carnivore BFQs
[edit]Animal | BFQ |
---|---|
Aardwolf | 77 |
European badger | 109 |
Asian 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 | 138 |
Domestic dog | 114 |
Singing dog | 100 |
Arctic fox | 97 |
Cape genet | 48 |
Gray fox | 80 |
Red fox | 92 |
Gray wolf | 136 |
Brown hyena | 123 |
Spotted hyena | 124 |
Jaguar | 134 |
Jaguarundi | 75 |
Leopard | 98 |
Clouded leopard | 137 |
Lion | 128.1 |
Northern olingo | 162 |
Sand cat | 137 |
Sun bear | 160 |
Least weasel | 164 |
Spotted-tailed quoll | 179 |
Tasmanian devil | 181 |
Tiger | 139 |
Thylacine | 166 |
Table sources (unless otherwise stated):[1][4][2][5]
References
[edit]- ^ 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.
- ^ a b Per Christiansen; Stephen Wroe (2007). "Bite Forces and Evolutionary Adaptations to Feeding Ecology in Carnivores" (PDF). Ecology. 88 (2): 347–358. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[347:bfaeat]2.0.co;2. PMID 17479753.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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)
- ^ Campbell, C. "Biology: Behavior - Diet". The Thylacine Museum. Archived from the original on 2017-06-21. Retrieved 16 December 2020.