Feeding Without Teeth: the Material Properties of Rhamphothecae from Two Species of Durophagous Sea Turtles

Overview

Journal R Soc Open Sci

Specialty Science

Date 2023 Apr 24

PMID 37090964

Authors

Danielle N Ingle

Eliza Perez

Marianne E Porter

Christopher D Marshall

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The feeding apparatus of sea turtles comprises cornified keratinous rhamphothecae overlaying a bony rostrum. Although keratin is less stiff than the enamel of toothed animals, certain species of sea turtles are capable of withstanding large forces when feeding on hard prey. We aimed to quantify the mineral density, water content and compressive mechanical properties of rhamphothecae from two durophagous species: loggerhead () and Kemp's ridley () sea turtles. Since loggerheads theoretically produce the greater bite forces of these two species, we predicted that keratin from their rhamphothecae would have a greater mineral density and be stiffer, stronger and tougher compared with Kemp's ridley sea turtles. We found that total water weight of hydrated specimens (20%) was consistent between species. Rhamphotheca mineral density ranged between 0 and 0.069 g cm; loggerheads had significantly greater mineral density compared with Kemp's ridleys, for which several specimens had no mineral detected. Despite the greater mineral density in loggerheads, we found no significant difference in Young's modulus, yield strength or toughness between these species. In addition to mineral density, our findings suggest that other material components, such as sulfur, may be influencing the material properties of keratin from sea turtle rhamphothecae.

References

Arencibia A, Rivero M, de Miguel I, Contreras S, Cabrero A, Oros J . Computed tomographic anatomy of the head of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Res Vet Sci. 2006; 81(2):165-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2005.12.009. View

Park S, Wang D, Zhang D, Romberg E, Arola D . Mechanical properties of human enamel as a function of age and location in the tooth. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007; 19(6):2317-24. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-007-3340-y. View

Amini S, Miserez A . Wear and abrasion resistance selection maps of biological materials. Acta Biomater. 2013; 9(8):7895-907. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.04.042. View

Zhang Y, Huang W, Hayashi C, Gatesy J, McKittrick J . Microstructure and mechanical properties of different keratinous horns. J R Soc Interface. 2018; 15(143). PMC: 6030630. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0093. View

Lee N, Horstemeyer M, Rhee H, Nabors B, Liao J, Williams L . Hierarchical multiscale structure-property relationships of the red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) beak. J R Soc Interface. 2014; 11(96):20140274. PMC: 4032540. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0274. View

Fraser R, Parry D . The structural basis of the filament-matrix texture in the avian/reptilian group of hard β-keratins. J Struct Biol. 2010; 173(2):391-405. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2010.09.020. View

Szewciw L, de Kerckhove D, Grime G, Fudge D . Calcification provides mechanical reinforcement to whale baleen alpha-keratin. Proc Biol Sci. 2010; 277(1694):2597-605. PMC: 2982044. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0399. View

Mara K, Motta P, Huber D . Bite force and performance in the durophagous bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo. J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol. 2009; 313(2):95-105. DOI: 10.1002/jez.576. View

Coulombe P, Omary M . 'Hard' and 'soft' principles defining the structure, function and regulation of keratin intermediate filaments. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2002; 14(1):110-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0955-0674(01)00301-5. View

10.

Yang T, Sander P . The origin of the bird's beak: new insights from dinosaur incubation periods. Biol Lett. 2018; 14(5). PMC: 6012709. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0090. View

11.

Davit-Beal T, Tucker A, Sire J . Loss of teeth and enamel in tetrapods: fossil record, genetic data and morphological adaptations. J Anat. 2009; 214(4):477-501. PMC: 2736120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01060.x. View

12.

Eliason C, Straker L, Jung S, Hackett S . Morphological innovation and biomechanical diversity in plunge-diving birds. Evolution. 2020; 74(7):1514-1524. DOI: 10.1111/evo.14024. View

13.

Putman N, Mansfield K . Direct evidence of swimming demonstrates active dispersal in the sea turtle "lost years". Curr Biol. 2015; 25(9):1221-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.014. View

14.

Marshall C, Guzman A, Narazaki T, Sato K, Kane E, Sterba-Boatwright B . The ontogenetic scaling of bite force and head size in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta): implications for durophagy in neritic, benthic habitats. J Exp Biol. 2012; 215(Pt 23):4166-74. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.074385. View

15.

Louchart A, Viriot L . From snout to beak: the loss of teeth in birds. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011; 26(12):663-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.004. View

16.

Miller C, Pittman M . The diet of early birds based on modern and fossil evidence and a new framework for its reconstruction. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021; 96(5):2058-2112. PMC: 8519158. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12743. View

17.

Greenberg R, Etterson M, Danner R . Seasonal dimorphism in the horny bills of sparrows. Ecol Evol. 2013; 3(2):389-98. PMC: 3586648. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.474. View

18.

Hieronymus T, Witmer L, Ridgely R . Structure of white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) horn investigated by X-ray computed tomography and histology with implications for growth and external form. J Morphol. 2006; 267(10):1172-6. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10465. View

19.

Seki Y, Bodde S, Meyers M . Toucan and hornbill beaks: a comparative study. Acta Biomater. 2009; 6(2):331-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.08.026. View

20.

Soons J, Genbrugge A, Podos J, Adriaens D, Aerts P, Dirckx J . Is Beak Morphology in Darwin's Finches Tuned to Loading Demands?. PLoS One. 2015; 10(6):e0129479. PMC: 4466803. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129479. View