Muscle work and power are important determinants of movement performance in animals. How these muscle properties scale determines, in part, the scaling of performance during movements, such as jump height or distance. Muscle-mass-specific work is predicted to remain constant across a range of scales, assuming geometric similarity, while muscle-mass-specific power is expected to decrease with increasing scale. We tested these predictions by examining muscle morphology and contractile properties of plantaris muscles from frogs ranging in mass from 1.28 to 20.60 g. Scaling of muscle work and power was examined using both linear regression on log10-transformed data (LR) and non-linear regressions on untransformed data (NLR). Results depended on the method of regression not because of large changes in scaling slopes, but because of changing levels of statistical significance using corrections for multiple tests, demonstrating the importance of careful consideration of statistical methods when analyzing patterns of scaling. In LR, muscle-mass-specific work decreased with increasing scale, but an accompanying positive allometry of muscle mass predicts constant movement performance at all scales. These relationships were non-significant in NLR, though scaling with geometric similarity also predicts constant jump performance across scales, because of proportional increases in available muscle energy and body mass. Both intrinsic shortening velocity and muscle-mass-specific power were positively allometric in both types of analysis. Nonetheless, scale accounts for little variation in contractile properties overall over the range examined, indicating that other sources of intraspecific variation may be more important in determining muscle performance and its effects on movement.
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of South Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
Alexander RM, Bennet-Clark HC (1977) Storage of elastic strain energy in muscle and other tissues. Nature 265:114–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Altringham JD, Johnston IA (1990) Scaling effects on muscle function: power output of isolated fish muscle fibres performing oscillatory work. J Exp Biol 151:453–467Google Scholar
Altringham JD, Morris R, James RS, Smith CI (1996) Scaling effects on muscle function in fast and slow muslces of Xenopus laevis. Exp Biol Online 1 (6)Google Scholar
Askew GN, Marsh RL (2002) Muscle designed for maximum short-term power output: quail flight muscle. J Exp Biol 205:2153–2160PubMedGoogle Scholar
James RS, Johnston IA (1998) Scaling of muscle performance during escape responses in the fish Myoxocephalus scorpius L. J Exp Biol 201:913–923PubMedGoogle Scholar
James RS, Cole NJ, Davies MLF, Johnston IA (1998) Scaling of intrinsic contractile properties and myofibrillar protein composition of fast muscle in the fish Myoxocephhalus scorpius L. J Exp Biol 201:901–912PubMedGoogle Scholar
Johnson TP, Swoap SJ, Bennett AF, Josephson RK (1993) Body size, muscle power output and limitations on burst locomotor performance in the lizard Dipsosaurus dorsalis. J Exp Biol 174:199–213Google Scholar
Marsh RL (1988) Ontogenesis of contractile properties of skeletal muscle and sprint performance in the lizard Dipsosaurus dorsalis. J Exp Biol 137:119–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
Marsh RL (1994) Jumping ability of anuran amphibians. In: Jones JH (ed) Comparative vertebrate exercise physiology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, pp 51–111Google Scholar
Mascaro J, Litton CM, Hughes RF, Uowolo A, Schnitzer SA (2014) Is logarithmic transformation necessary in allometry? Ten, one-hundred, one-thousand-times yes. Biol J Linn Soc 111:230–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar