Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

The energetic cost of bipedal hopping in small mammals

Abstract

Recent studies of locomotion in red kangaroos (Megaleia rufa, 18–28 kg)1 and Australian hopping mice (Notomys cervinus, 36.6 g)2 have indicated that over a certain range of speeds the energetic cost of bipedal hopping locomotion may become independent of speed. As much as 70% of the decrement in kinetic energy which takes place when the kangaroo lands may be stored in elastic elements and used to propel the kangaroo upwards and forwards as it takes off (leaving only 30% to be added by the muscles)3,4. Presumably, this same phenomenon could be exploited by all bipedal hopping mammals and it seems possible that at high speeds this specialized mode of locomotion could result in large energetic savings when compared with the costs incurred by a similarly sized quadruped running at the same speed. This hypothetical lower cost of locomotion has been invoked as an explanation for the rather common occurrence of bipedal hoppers among desert and plains dwelling mammals, as it might substantially reduce the energetic cost of foraging, or travelling, for animals utilizing widely dispersed resources5–7. The purpose of the present study was to extend the assessment of the metabolic expense of bipedal hopping to a broader range of body sizes and mammalian taxa. Using indirect calorimetry we measured the cost of locomotion for three bipedal hopping eutherians (0.03–3.0 kg) and one bipedal hopping marsupial (1.1 kg). When properly trained for sustained running, none of the three species deviated from the expected quadrupedal pattern relating cost of locomotion to running speed, even while running fully bipedally. Bipedality must therefore be associated with benefits other than those related to the energetic costs of locomotion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dawson, T. J. & Taylor, C. R. Nature 246, 313 (1973).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dawson, T. J. Nature 259, 305 (1976).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cavagna, G. A., Heglund, N. C. & Taylor, C. R. Am. J. Physiol. 233, R243–R261 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alexander, R. McN. & Vernon, A. J. zool. Res. 177, 265 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Reichman, O. J. & Oberstein, D. Ecology 58, 636–643 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reichman, O. J. in Mechanisms of Optimal Foraging (Garland, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Price, M. V. J. Mammal. 59, 624 (1978).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tucker, V. A. J. exp. Biol. 48, 55 (1968).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson, S. D. thesis, Univ. Calif., Irvine (1980).

  10. Baudinette, R. V., Nagle, K. A. & Scott, R. A. D. Experientia 32, 583 (1976).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eisenberg, J. F. Univ. Calif. Publs Zool. 63, 1 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bartholomew, G. A. Jr & Caswell, H. H. Jr J. Mammal. 32, 155 (1951).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Webster, D. B. Physiol. Zool. 35, 248 (1962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eisenberg, J. F. in Rodents in Desert Environments, 189–224 (Junk, The Hague, 1975).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Taylor, C. R., Schmidt-Nielsen, K. & Raab, J. L. Am. J. Physiol. 219, 1104–1107 (1970).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, S., MacMillen, R., Burke, E. et al. The energetic cost of bipedal hopping in small mammals. Nature 287, 223–224 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1038/287223a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/287223a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing