Advertisement

Science China Life Sciences

, Volume 54, Issue 11, pp 1036–1041 | Cite as

Comparative study of the mechanical properties, micro-structure, and composition of the cranial and beak bones of the great spotted woodpecker and the lark bird

  • LiZhen Wang
  • HongQuan Zhang
  • YuBo FanEmail author
Open Access
Research Papers

Abstract

Woodpeckers are well able to resist head injury during repeated high speed impacts at 6–7 m s−1 with decelerations up to 1000 g. This study was designed to compare the mechanical properties, microstructures and compositions of cranial bone and beak bone of great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) and the Mongolian sky lark (Melanocorypha mongolica). Microstructures were observed using micro-computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy and their compositions were characterized by X-ray powder diffraction and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Under high stress, the cranial bone and the beak of the woodpecker exhibited distinctive mechanical features, which were associated with differences in micro-structure and composition, compared with those of the lark. Evolutionary optimization of bone micro-structure has enabled functional adaptation to the woodpecker’s specific lifestyle. Its characteristic micro-structure efficiently avoids head impact injury and may provide potential clues to the prevention of brain injury using bio-inspired designs of shock-absorbing materials.

Keywords

woodpecker head mechanical property micro-structure composition 

References

  1. 1.
    Darwin C. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. 6th ed. London: Senate, 1872Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spring L W. Climbing and pecking adaptations in some north american woodpecker. Condor, 1965, 67: 457–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    May P R, Fuster J M, Haber J, et al. Woodpecker drilling behavior—an endorsement of the rotational theory of impact brain injury. Arch Neurol, 1979, 36: 370–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bock W J. Functional and evolutionary morphology of woodpecker. Ostrich, 1999, 70: 23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibson L J. Woodpecker pecking: how woodpeckers avoid brain injury. J Zool, 2006, 270: 462–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oda J, Sakamoto J, Sakano K. Mechanical evaluation of the skeletal structure and tissue of the woodpecker and its shock absorbing system. JSME Int J Ser A, 2006, 49: 390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bock W J. An approach to the funcitional analysis of bill shape. Auk, 1966, 83: 10–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrel A, Podos J, Huber S K, et al. Evolution of bite force in Darwin’s finches: a key role for head width. J Evol Biol, 2005, 18: 669–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Degrange F J, Tambussi C P, Moreno K, et al. Mechanical analysis of feeding behavior in the extinct “terror bird” Andalgalornis steulleti (Gruiformes: Phorusrhacidae). PLoS ONE, 2010, 5: e11856PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    May P R, Fuster J M, Newman P, et al. Woodpeckers and head injury. Lancet, 1976, 1: 454–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang L, Cheung J T, Pu F, et al. Why do woodpeckers resist head impact injury: a biomechanical investigation. PLoS ONE, 2011, 6: e26490PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rubner M. Materials science: synthetic sea shell. Nature, 2003, 423: 925–926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carter D R, Fyhrie D P, Whalen R T. Trabecular bone density and loading history: Regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech, 1987, 20: 785–794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cowin S C. Wollff’s law of trabecular bone architecture at remodeling equilibrium. J Biomech Eng, 1986, 108: 83–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lanyon L E. Using functional loading to influence bone mass and architecture: objectives, mechanisms, and relationship with estrogen of the mechanically adaptive process in bone. Bone, 1996, 18: S37–S43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roesler H. The history of some fundamental concepts in bone biomechanics. J Biomech, 1987, 20: 1025–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruimerman R, Huiskes R, Van Lenthe G H, et al. A computer-simulation model relating bone-cell metabolism to mechanical adaptation of trabecular architecture. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Eng, 2001, 4: 433–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Eijden T M G J, Giesen E B W, Ding M, et al. Mechanical properties of cancellous bone in the human mandibular condyle are anisotropic. J Biomech, 2001, 34: 799–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linde F, Gothgen C B, Hvid I, et al. Mechanical properties of trabecular bone by a nondestructive compression testing approach. Eng Med, 1988, 17: 23–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koutsopoulos S. Synthesis and characterization of hydroxyapatite crystals: A review study on the analytical methods. J Biomed Mater Res, 2002, 62: 600–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kandori K, Horigami N, Yasukawa A, et al. Texture and formation mechanism of fibrous calcium hydroxyapatite particles prepared by decomposition of calcium-edta chelates. J Am Ceram Soc, 1997, 80: 1157–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciarelli M J, Goldstein S A, Kuhn J L, et al. Evaluation of orthogonal mechanical properties and density of human trabecular bone from the major metaphyseal regions with materials testing and computed tomography. J Orthop Res, 1991, 9: 674–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dalen N, Hellstrom L G, Jacobson B. Bone mineral content and mechanical strength of the femoral neck. Acta Orthop Scand, 1976, 47: 503–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mittra E, Rubin C, Gruber B, et al. Evaluation of trabecular mechanical and microstructural properties in human calcaneal bone of advanced age using mechanical testing, mu CT, and DXA. J Biomech, 2008, 41: 368–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perilli E, Baleani M, Ohman C, et al. Structural parameters and mechanical strength of cancellous bone in the femoral head in osteoarthritis do not depend on age. Bone, 2007, 41: 760–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory for Biomechanics and Mechanobiology of Ministry of Education, School of Biological Science and Medical EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Materials Science and EngineeringWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations