Intraspecific scaling of chewing cycle duration in three species of domestic ungulates

Abstract

In mammals, chewing cycle duration (CCD) increases with various measures of size, scaling with body mass0.13-0.28 and jaw length0.55. Proposed explanations for these scaling relationships include the allometry of body size, basal metabolic rate and tooth size, on the one hand, and pendular mechanics treating the jaw as a gravity-driven pendulum, on the other. Little is known, however, about the relationship between CCD and size within species. Recent research in dogs demonstrates altogether different scaling exponents and weaker correlations. This research suggests that breed-specific growth rates influence the maturation of the neural networks generating chewing rhythm, which may be altered because of changes in jaw mass during early postnatal growth. Here, we explored the intraspecific scaling of CCD within a sample of adult horses ranging from miniatures to draft breeds and an ontogenetic sample of goats and alpacas from infants to adults. In horses, CCD scales with body mass0.19 and jaw length0.57, although in neither case is the correlation significant. In the ontogenetic samples of goats and alpacas, CCD is significantly correlated with body mass, scaling as CCD∝body mass0.37 in both species. In goats, but not alpacas, CCD is also significantly correlated with jaw length, scaling as jaw length1.032. As in dogs, the scaling of CCD in horses may reflect the influence of selective breeding on growth trajectories of different breeds, resulting in reduced body and jaw size differences among infants, when CCD is established, compared with adults. However, the allometric scaling of tooth size in horses of different breeds may be a potential influence on the scaling of CCD. The scaling of CCD with body and jaw size in goats, and to a lesser extent in alpacas, also suggests that the development of peripheral masticatory structures such as the teeth and occlusal relations may play a role in changes in CCD during the earliest stages of postnatal ontogeny. © 2011. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.