How does bone microanatomy and musculature covary? An investigation in the forelimb of two species of martens (Martes foina, Martes martes)

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The long bones and associated musculature play a prominent role in the support and movement of the body and are expected to reflect the associated mechanical demands. But in addition to the functional response to adaptive changes, the conjoined effects of phylogenetic, structural and developmental constraints also shape the animal's body. In order to minimise the effect of the aforementioned constraints and to reveal the biomechanical adaptations in the musculoskeletal system to locomotor mode, we here study the forelimb of two closely related martens: the arboreal pine marten (Martes martes) and the more terrestrial stone marten (Martes foina), focusing on their forelimb muscle anatomy and long bone microanatomy; and, especially, on their covariation. To do so, we quantified muscle data and bone microanatomical parameters and created 3D and 2D maps of the cortical thickness distribution for the three long bones of the forelimb. We then analysed the covariation of muscle and bone data, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our results reveal that species‐specific muscular adaptations are not clearly reflected in the microanatomy of the bones. Yet, we observe a global thickening of the bone cortex in the radius and ulna of the more arboreal pine marten, as well a stronger flexor muscle inserting on its elbow. We attribute these differences to variation in their locomotor modes.Analyses of our 2D maps revealed a shift of cortical thickness distribution pattern linked to ontogeny, rather than species‐specific patterns. We found that although intraspecific variation is not negligible, species distinction was possible when taking muscular and bone microanatomical data into consideration. Results of our covariation analyses suggest that the muscle‐bone correlation is linked to ontogeny rather than to muscular strength at zones of insertion. Indeed, if we find a correlation between cortical thickness distribution and the strength of some muscles in the humerus, that is not the case for the others and in the radius and ulna. Cortical thickness distribution appears rather linked to bone contact zones and ligament insertions in the radius and ulna, and to some extent in the humerus. We conclude that inference on muscle from bone microanatomy is possible only for certain muscles in the humerus.

This publication has 74 references indexed in Scilit: