Quantitative microstructural studies of the armor of the marine threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

The armored carapace of the boxfish

“…The dimensions of these sutures (k = 65.9 lm and 2h = 50.6°) are significantly different from those reported for the triangular sutures of the red-eared slider turtle (k = 230-400 lm, 2h = 9.4-22°) [42], three spine stickleback fish (k = 85-360 lm, 2h = 6-20°) [43], and white tailed deer cranial sutures (k = 640-2500 lm, 2h = 9-25°) [44]; all of which have larger wavelengths and much smaller angles. In addition, these latter organisms have Sharpey's fibers that bridge the gap directly between the mineralized sutures.…”

Stochastic Interdigitation as a Toughening Mechanism at the Interface between Tendon and Bone

“…Interdigitations are present throughout nature at interfaces such as those found in nacre (22,23), armored fish (24), algae (25), and sutures within the skull (26) and jaw (27). Interdigitations are believed to improve load transmission and increase energy absorption of the interfaces between bones in the skull (28).…”

Threat-protection mechanics of an armored fish

“…Here, we have focused on a single common type of threat, in particular for armored fish, a localized penetration approximating a toothed biting attack. We present a general methodology that can be expanded to other types of predatory attacks which exhibit different types of mechanical loading situations, such as peeling, drilling, hammering, and fatigue loading (Vermeij, 1987), as well as threats and natural armor systems with varied geometric characteristics (internal porosity, corrugations, buttresses, (Vermeij, 1993) tooth and claw morphologies (Seed and Hughes, 1995)) and active offensive components (Reimchen, 1983;Song et al, 2010). While the predator and prey under investigation in this study (both P. senegalus) are comparable, parametric simulations enabled assessment of asymmetric situations (inequality, where the armor or threat are significantly weaker or stronger relative to each other) and specifically, the determination of under what conditions and how the offensive threat or defensive protection would dominate in the interaction.…”

“…Evidence for predator-related exoskeletal damage and repair has been reported extensively in the literature Wang et al, 2009). Biological armor systems utilize many protective structural design principles to resist penetrating attacks including, for example, local energy-dissipating inorganic-organic composite nano-and microstructures (Currey and Taylor, 1974;Wang et al, 2001), multilayering and grading (Bruet et al, 2008), crystallographic and shape-based anisotropy (Wang et al, 2009), fibrous reinforcement at joints (Gemballa and Bartsch, 2002), and active offensive components (Reimchen, 1983;Song et al, 2010). Mechanical strategies for resisting penetration include;…”