Why being big like an elephant puts a spring in your step

Sep 07, 2009
elephant
African Bush Elephant in Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. Taken by Oliver Wright, via Wikipedia.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Large, lumbering animals such as elephants move much more efficiently than small, agile ones such as mice, University of Manchester scientists have shown.

Large, lumbering animals such as elephants move much more efficiently than small, agile ones such as , University of Manchester scientists have shown.

Dr Robert Nudds and colleagues Drs Jonathan Codd and Bill Sellers at the Faculty of Life Sciences have found that bigger animals move three and a half times more efficiently than smaller ones.

"The difference is down to having a more upright ," says Dr Nudds.

"We believe the tendons in the legs of larger animals have better elastic storage than those in smaller ones. Tendons act as a spring. In larger animals such as an elephant, the tendons may be springier returning more energy into the next step, by pinging the leg off the floor.

"In addition efficiency doesn't increase continuously with body size. There is a step change between large animals such as elephants and small animals such as mice. This is down to their posture - are 'uprights', while mice are 'crouchers'.

"Standing up straight does have an impact."

He and the team, whose results are published in today (Monday 7th September), analysed existing data to contribute to a larger study on . They compared efficiency values (the amount of movement achieved compared to consumed) across a range of body sizes. Instead of finding a steady increase in efficiency as animals got larger, they found a step-change, whereby all small animals are 7% efficient and all larger animals 26% efficient.

Humans, which are also upright walkers, also have an efficiency rating of around 26%.

While it was known that large animals moved more efficiently than smaller ones, the step change and the impact of posture was a revelation.

"The big difference is that posture rather than body size determines the efficiency of locomotion," says Dr Nudds, whose study was funded by the Leverhulme Trust. "So your mother was right when she told you to stand up straight and stop slouching!"

More information: 'Evidence for a mass dependent step-change in the scaling of efficiency in terrestrial locomotion'; Robert L. Nudds, Jonathan R. Codd and William I. Sellers; PLoS ONE.

Provided by University of Manchester (news : web)

Explore further: Physics determined ammonite shell shape

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Have you ever seen an elephant... run?

Aug 18, 2006

If an elephant is thundering towards you at 15mph you are probably not too concerned with the finer points of biomechanics or the thorny question about whether they are truly running or not. But for researchers, ...

Dogs chase efficiently, but cats skulk counterintuitively

Dec 03, 2008

A Duke University study suggests that evolution can behave as differently as dogs and cats. While the dogs depend on an energy-efficient style of four-footed running over long distances to catch their prey, cats seem to have ...

Why are lions not as big as elephants?

Jan 16, 2007

Carnivores are some of the widest ranging terrestrial mammals for their size, and this affects their energy intake and needs. This difference is also played out in the different hunting strategies of small and large carnivores. ...

Recommended for you

Scientists see how plants optimize their repair

6 hours ago

Researchers led by a Washington State University biologist have found the optimal mechanism by which plants heal the botanical equivalent of a bad sunburn. Their work, published in the Proceedings of the Na ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

zevkirsh
not rated yet Sep 07, 2009
this is dumb. animals are not cars.
acarrilho
not rated yet Sep 07, 2009
this is dumb. animals are not cars.


I must've missed the part where this comparison was made... but such an analogy, as far as energy efficiency goes, would be perfectly valid.