spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online November 30, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 4272-4278 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.007054
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, J. R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kier, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, J. R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kier, W. M.

Mechanical properties of the rigid and hydrostatic skeletons of molting blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun

Jennifer R. A. Taylor1,*, Jack Hebrank2 and William M. Kier1

1 Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
2 Embrex, Inc., Box 13989, RTP, NC 27709-3989, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Diagram of the 3-point bending apparatus used for soft- and paper-shell cuticle samples. The arrow indicates the direction of movement of the loading probe, which was attached to the force transducer and contacted the sample at the midpoint between the two insect pins.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Diagram of the 3-point bending apparatus used for hard-shell cuticle samples. The arrow indicates the direction of movement of the force transducer with the attached bar used to load the sample at the midpoint between the two fixed bars.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (4K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Mean flexural stiffness, EI, of soft, paper and hard cuticle (N=10, 10 and 12, respectively). Note that EI is plotted on a logarithmic scale: EI of the hard cuticle samples is four orders of magnitude higher than that of the soft or paper cuticle samples. Error bars show s.e.m.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. A typical stress–strain plot for the soft, paper and hard cuticle samples. Note the similarity in modulus (slope) of the paper and hard cuticle samples, which were significantly stiffer than the soft cuticle samples. The tensile strength (stress at failure) of the soft, paper and hard cuticles were not significantly different.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Mean Young's moduli, E, of soft, paper and hard cuticle (N=15, 18 and 12, respectively). The Young's moduli of the hard and paper cuticle samples were similar and significantly greater than that of the soft cuticle samples. Error bars show s.e.m.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (4K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Mean tensile strength of soft, paper and hard cuticle (N=15, 19 and 12, respectively). The tensile strengths of the three cuticle stages were similar. Error bars show s.e.m.

 




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007