Incisor microwear of Arctic rodents as a proxy for microhabitat preference

Ungar, Peter S.; Saylor, Lindsay; Sokolov, Aleksandr; Sokolova, Natalia; Gilg, Olivier; Montuire, Sophie; Royer, Aurélien

doi:10.1007/s42991-021-00138-x

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a final note, this study also reiterates the notion that feature‐based analyses still have a place in dental microwear investigations. Indeed, several researchers have begun to combine texture and feature analyses (e.g., Kalthoff et al, 2019; Schulz et al, 2013; Ungar, et al 2021). While feature‐based analyses are more time intensive and subject to observer measurement error (e.g., Grine et al, 2002), taking and averaging multiple measurements of the same surfaces helps minimize the noise and allow the signal to rise above it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current study, not only were feature‐based result interpretations more intuitive, but they actually better distinguished species by more attributes than did SSFA texture‐based studies. This may be due to the microwear signal (e.g., shallow scratches) being swamped by the canine background surface (e.g., micromorphological furrows) in surface texture characterization (Ungar et al, 2021). This is usually not the case for flat occlusal facets on molars.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Microware 4.02 (Ungar, 2002) was used for the feature analysis. Major and minor axes of each wear feature were identified, and tallies ( n ), average length ( MajorX ), standard deviation of length ( MajorSD ), average breadth ( MinorX ), standard deviation of breadth ( MinorSD ), and length of the mean vector of long‐axis orientation ( r ) were recorded (following Ungar et al, 2021). Because feature‐based analyses tend to have an intraobserver error of around 7.0% (Grine et al, 2002), each surface was measured three times, at different times, by a single observer, and averages were used in analyses to reduce effects of measurement error.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Schulz et al (2013), Kalthoff et al (2019), andUngar et al (2021), both microwear feature Ungar, 1995) and microwear texture analysis (Ungar et al, 2003, et seq. ) were employed in this study.…”

Section: Dental Microwear Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) were employed in this study. While texture analysis has become the standard for microwear characterization for molar teeth with flat facets resulting from repeated mastication, anterior teeth may retain a background surface with micromorphological furrows that can swamp effects of shallow striations on conventional texture measurement (Ungar et al, 2021). Thus, combining these two approaches can improve the characterization of microwear on canine surfaces, especially those lacking flattened facets.…”

Section: Dental Microwear Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Stubby versus stabby: A preliminary analysis of canine microwear in primates: Implication for inferring ingestive behaviors

Pujiantari,

Delezene,

Michael Plavcan

et al. 2024

American J Primatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molar and incisor microwear reflect aspects of food choice and ingestive behaviors in living primates and have both been used to infer the same for fossil samples. Canine microwear, however, has received less attention, perhaps because of the prominent role canines play in social display and because they are used as weapons–while outside of a few specialized cases, their involvement in diet related behaviors has not been obvious. Here, we posit that microwear can also provide glimpses into canine tooth use in ingestion. Canines of Sumatran long‐tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis), agile gibbons (Hylobates agilis), lar gibbons (Hylobates lar), Thomas' leaf monkeys (Presbytis thomasi), and orangutans (Pongo abelii), and two African great apes, bonobos (Pan paniscus) and common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii), were considered. The labial tips of maxillary canine replicas were scanned using a white‐light confocal profiler, and both feature and texture analyses were used to characterize microwear surface patterning. The taxa exhibited significant differences in canine microwear. In some cases, these were consistent with variation in reported anterior tooth use such that, for example, the orangutans, known to use their front teeth extensively in ingestion, had the highest median number of microwear features on their canines, whereas the gibbons, reported to use their front teeth infrequently in food acquisition, had the lowest.

show abstract