Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
21
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
21 results for “evolutionary biomechanics”
Data from: When conifers took flight: A biomechanical evaluation of an imperfect evolutionary takeoff
Manifera talaris, a voltzian conifer from the late early to middle Permian (ca. 270 Ma) of Texas, is the earliest known conifer to produce winged seeds indicative of autorotating flight. In contrast to autorotating seeds and fruits of extant plants, the ones of M. talaris are exceptional in that they have variable morphology. They bore two wings that produced a range of wing configurations, from seeds with two equal-sized wings to single-winged specimens, via various stages of underdevelopment of one of the wings. To examine the effects of various seed morphologies on aerodynamics and dispersal potential, we studied the flight performance of paper models of three morphotypes: symmetric double-winged, asymmetric double-winged, and single-winged. Using a high-speed camera we identified the mode of descent (plummeting, gliding, autorotation) and quantified descent speed, autorotation frequency, and other flight characteristics. To validate such modeling as an inferential tool, we compared descent of extant analogues (kauri; Agathis australis) with descent of similarly constructed seed models. All three seed morphotypes exhibited autorotating flight behavior. However, double-winged seeds, especially symmetric ones, failed to initiate slow autorotative descent more frequently than single-winged seeds. Even when autorotating, symmetric double-winged seeds descend faster than asymmetric double-winged ones, and descent is roughly twice as fast compared to single-winged seeds. Moreover, the relative advantage that (effectively) single-winged seeds have in slowing descent during autorotation becomes larger as seed weight increases. Hence, the range in seed wing configurations in M. talaris produced a wide variation in potential dispersal capacity. Overall, our results indicate that the evolutionarily novel autorotating winged seeds must have improved conifer seed dispersal, in a time when animal vectors for dispersion were virtually absent. Because of the range in wing configuration, the early evolution of autorotative flight in conifers was a functionally imperfect one, which provides us insight into the evolutionary developmental biology of autorotative seeds in conifers.
Data from: Elevated evolutionary rates of biting biomechanics reveal patterns of extraordinary cranio-dental adaptations in some herbivorous dinosaurs
<p>Adaptation to specialist ecologies is a key innovation that has contributed to the evolutionary success of many vertebrate clades, underpinning the acquisition of diverse skull morphologies. Dinosaurs, which dominated Mesozoic terrestrial faunas, acquired herbivory multiple times, including in clades historically regarded as predominantly carnivorous. The evolution of herbivory in theropod dinosaurs is linked to drastic changes in dental and craniomandibular functional morphology, yet whether such changes occurred more rapidly in herbivorous lineages compared to in carnivorous lineages remains untested in a phylogenetic framework. Here, we infer rates of phenotypic evolution in relative biting edge lengths to test the hypothesis that the acquisition of herbivory is associated with rapid changes in jaw biomechanics. We find elevated rates of biomechanical evolution in theropods with foreshortened and beaked skulls (Oviraptorosauria, <em>Limusaurus</em>), as well as in ceratopsians and <em>Diplodocus</em>. A reduced biting edge length and increased jaw efficiency unites these high-rate lineages, indicating selection for greater efficiency in biting biomechanics. Additionally, we hypothesise that extreme ontogenetic changes within species' lifetimes may be behind some instances of branch-wise elevated rates. Thus, we show how exceptional rates of biomechanical evolution can reveal signatures of adaptations within dinosaur lineages and potentially along ontogenetic sequences.</p>
Figure 9 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 9. Transverse histological sections through the proboscis of three caenogastropod taxa. (A) Cabestana spengleri (Ranellidae) everted proboscis and branching ventral odontophoral retractor muscles; (B) C. spengleri proboscis base, ventrolateral and dorsolateral retractor muscles; (C) C. spengleri proboscis wall; (D) Semicassis pyrum (Cassidae) everted proboscis and ventral odontophoral retractor muscles; (E) S. pyrum proboscis wall; (F) Ficus subintermedia (Ficidae) introverted proboscis; (G) F. subintermedia proboscis wall. Scale bars: (A, B, D, F) 1 mm; (C, E, G) 200 µm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 8 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 8. Transverse histological sections through the proboscis of two epitoniid taxa. (A) Janthina janthina (Epitoniidae) proboscis and aortic muscles; (B) J. janthina proboscis wall; (C) Opalia ballinensis (Epitoniidae) introverted proboscis and accessory proboscis retractor muscles (D) O. ballinensis aortic muscles; (E) O. ballinensis proboscis wall. Scale bars: (A, C) 1 mm; (B, E) 100 µm; (D) 500 µm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 7 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 7. Transverse histological sections through the proboscis of three "ptenoglossan" taxa. (A) Mesophora fusca (Triphoridae) introverted proboscis and ventral odontophoral retractor muscles; (B) M. fusca proboscis wall; (C) Ataxocerithium sp. (Cerithiopsidae) introverted proboscis and aortic muscles; (D) Ataxocerithium sp. proboscis wall (E) Apicalia cf. brazieri (Eulimidae) partially everted proboscis; (F) Apicalia cf. brazieri introverted proboscis and aortic muscles (G) Apicalia cf. brazieri proboscis wall. Scale bars: (A, C, E, F) 200 µm; (B, D, G) 50 µm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 12 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 12. Snout and proboscis evolution in Caenogastropoda, illustrated on a phylogeny of Caenogastropoda based on the strict consensus tree generated by Ponder et al. (2008) (Figure 13.16) using maximum parsimony analysis of a morphological dataset. Taxa originally included in their analysis which were not examined in this study have been pruned; Columbellidae, Vanikoridae and Turbinellidae were not included by Ponder et al. (2008) and are not
Figure 2 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 2. Transverse histological sections through the snout of four non-caenogastropod taxa. (A) Montfortula rugosa (Fissurellidae) snout; (B) M. rugosa snout wall; (C) Austrocochlea porcata (Trochidae) snout; (D) A. porcata snout wall; (E) Nerita atramentosa (Neritidae) snout; (F) N. atramentosa snout wall; (G) Pyrgulina pascoei (Pyramidellidae) introverted proboscis (H) P. pascoei proboscis wall. Scale bars: (A, C, E) 1 mm; (B, D, F–H) 100 µm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 4 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 4. Transverse histological sections through the snout of three caenogastropod taxa. (A) Serpulorbis sp. (Vermetidae) snout; (B) Serpulorbis sp. snout wall; (C) Bembicium nanum (Littorinidae) snout; (D) B. nanum fused aortic muscles; (E) B. nanum snout wall; (F) Carinaria cristata (Carinariidae) snout; (G) C. cristata accessory retractor muscles; (H) C. cristata snout wall. Scale bars: (A, C, D, F, G) 1 mm; (B, E, H) 100 µm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 1 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 1. Schematic classification of proboscis and snout morphology, with retractor muscles shown in grey. (A) Snout; (B) acrembolic proboscis everted; (C) acrembolic proboscis introverted; (D) pleurembolic proboscis everted; (E) pleurembolic proboscis introverted; (F) intraembolic proboscis extended; (G) intraembolic proboscis retracted; (H) polyembolic proboscis everted; (I) polyembolic proboscis introverted; (J) "argobucciniform" proboscis extended; (K) "argobucciniform" proboscis retracted. A–E modified from Fretter and Graham (1994, Figure 88); F–I modified from Miller (1989, Figure 3); J–K modified from Day (1969, Figure 1).
Figure 3 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 3. Transverse histological sections through the snout of four caenogastropod taxa. (A) Pomacea bridgesii (Ampullariidae) snout (A); P. bridgesii snout wall; (C) Pupina robusta (Pupinidae) snout; (D) P. robusta snout wall; (E) Batillaria australis (Batillariidae) snout; (F) B. australis snout wall; (G) Cerithium columna (Cerithiidae) snout; (H) C. columna aortic muscles; (I) C. columna snout wall. Scale bars: (A, C, E, G, H) 1 mm; (B, D, E, I) 100 µm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 5 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 5. Transverse histological sections through the snout of four caenogastropod taxa. (A) Rissoina crassa (Rissoidae) snout; (B) R. crassa circumoesophageal nerve ring and aortic muscles (C) R. crassa snout wall; (D) Edgbastonia alanwillsi (Hydrobiidae) snout; (E) E. alanwillsi snout wall; (F) Vanikoro cancellata (Vanikoridae) snout; (G) V. cancellata snout wall; (H) Bostrycapulus pritzkeri (Calyptraeidae) snout; (I) B. pritzkeri snout wall. Scale bars: (A, B, D, H) 200 µm; (C, E, G, I) 50 µm; (F) 1 mm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 13 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 13. Diagrams of snout and proboscis wall structure. (A) Pomacea bridgesii (Ampullariidae); (B) Cerithium columna (Cerithiidae); (C) Opalia ballinensis (Epitoniidae); (D) Carinaria cristata (Carinariidae); (E) Mitra carbonaria (Mitridae); (F) Strombus gibberulus (Strombidae); (G) Monetaria annulus (Cypraeidae); (H) Vasum turbinellum (Turbinellidae); (I) Cabestana spengleri (Ranellidae); (J) Semicassis pyrum (Tonnidae); (K) Ficus subintermedia (Ficidae).
Figure 10 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 10. Transverse histological sections through the proboscis of three neogastropods. (A) Euplica scripta (Columbellidae) introverted proboscis; (B) E. scripta ventrolateral proboscis retractor muscles; (C) E. scripta proboscis wall; (D) Conus papilliferus (Conidae) retracted proboscis; (E) C. papilliferus ventrolateral proboscis retractor muscles; (F) C. papilliferus proboscis wall; (G) Cymbiola pulchra (Volutidae) everted proboscis; (H) C. pulchra proboscis wall. Scale bars: (A, B, G, H) 500 µm; (D, E) 1 mm; (C, F) 50 µm, for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Figure 11 in The evolutionary and biomechanical implications of snout and proboscis morphology in Caenogastropoda (Mollusca: Gastropoda)
Figure 11. Transverse histological sections through the proboscis of four muricoidean neogastropods. (A) Vasum turbinellum (Turbinellidae) introverted proboscis and ventrolateral proboscis retractor muscles; (B) V. turbinellum accessory retractor muscles; (C) V. turbinellum proboscis wall (D) Mitra carbonaria (Mitridae) proboscis and epiproboscis; (E) M. carbonaria proboscis wall; (F) Mesoginella translucida (Marginellidae) introverted proboscis and ventrolateral proboscis retractor muscles; (G) M. translucida aortic muscles; (H) M. translucida proboscis wall; (I) Morula marginalba (Muricidae) introverted proboscis and aortic muscles (J) M. marginalba circumoesophageal nerve ring and ventral odontophoral retractor muscles; (K) M. marginalba proboscis wall. Scale bars: (A, B, D, I) 1 mm; (C, E, F, J) 200 µm; (G, H, K) 50 µm; for abbreviations see Appendix 2.
Data from: The biomechanical basis of evolutionary change in a territorial display
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: When conifers took flight: A biomechanical evaluation of an imperfect evolutionary takeoff
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Elevated evolutionary rates of biting biomechanics reveal patterns of extraordinary cranio-dental adaptations in some herbivorous dinosaurs
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Evolutionary biomechanics: hard tissues and soft evidence?
<p>Biomechanical modelling is a powerful tool for quantifying the evolution of functional performance in extinct animals to understand key anatomical innovations and selective pressures driving major evolutionary radiations. However, the fossil record is composed predominantly of hard parts, forcing palaeontologists to reconstruct soft tissue properties in such models. Rarely are these reconstruction approaches validated on extant animals, despite soft tissue properties being highly determinant of functional performance. The extent to which soft tissue reconstructions and biomechanical models accurately predict quantitative or even qualitative patterns in macroevolutionary studies is therefore unknown. Here, we modelled the masticatory system in extant rodents to objectively test the ability of current muscle reconstruction methods to correctly identify quantitative and qualitative differences between macroevolutionary morphotypes. Baseline models generated using measured soft tissue properties yielded differences in muscle proportions, bite force and bone stress expected between extant sciuromorph, myomorph and hystricomorph rodents. However, predictions from models generated using reconstruction methods typically used in fossil studies varied widely from high levels of quantitative accuracy to a failure to correctly capture even relative differences between macroevolutionary morphotypes. Our novel experiment emphasises that correctly reconstructing even qualitative differences between taxa in a macroevolutionary radiation is challenging using current methods. Future studies of fossil taxa should incorporate systematic assessments of reconstruction error into their hypothesis testing and, moreover, seek to expand primary data sets on muscle properties in extant taxa to better inform soft tissue reconstructions in macroevolutionary studies.</p>
Evolutionary biomechanics: hard tissues and soft evidence?
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Cephalic biomechanics underpins the evolutionary success of trilobites
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.