Geometric morphometric investigation of craniofacial morphological change in domesticated silver foxes.

To test the effects of domestication on craniofacial skeletal morphology, we used three-dimensional geometric morphometrics (GM) along with linear and endocranial measurements to compare selected (domesticated) and unselected foxes from the Russian Farm-Fox Experiment to wild foxes from the progenitor population from which the farmed foxes are derived. Contrary to previous findings, we find that domesticated and unselected foxes show minimal differences in craniofacial shape and size compared to the more substantial differences between the wild foxes and both populations of farmed foxes. GM analyses and linear measurements demonstrate that wild foxes differ from farmed foxes largely in terms of less cranial base flexion, relatively expanded cranial vaults, and increased endocranial volumes. These results challenge the assumption that the unselected population of foxes kept as part of the Russian Farm-Fox experiment are an appropriate proxy for 'wild' foxes in terms of craniofacial morphology and highlight the need to include wild populations in further studies of domestication syndrome to disentangle the phenotypic effects of multiple selection pressures. These findings also suggest that marked increases in docility cannot be reliably diagnosed from shape differences in craniofacial skeletal morphology.

Impact of meat and Lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans.

The origins of the genus Homo are murky, but by H. erectus, bigger brains and bodies had evolved that, along with larger foraging ranges, would have increased the daily energetic requirements of hominins. Yet H. erectus differs from earlier hominins in having relatively smaller teeth, reduced chewing muscles, weaker maximum bite force capabilities, and a relatively smaller gut. This paradoxical combination of increased energy demands along with decreased masticatory and digestive capacities is hypothesized to have been made possible by adding meat to the diet, by mechanically processing food using stone tools, or by cooking. Cooking, however, was apparently uncommon until 500,000 years ago, and the effects of carnivory and Palaeolithic processing techniques on mastication are unknown. Here we report experiments that tested how Lower Palaeolithic processing technologies affect chewing force production and efficacy in humans consuming meat and underground storage organs (USOs). We find that if meat comprised one-third of the diet, the number of chewing cycles per year would have declined by nearly 2 million (a 13% reduction) and total masticatory force required would have declined by 15%. Furthermore, by simply slicing meat and pounding USOs, hominins would have improved their ability to chew meat into smaller particles by 41%, reduced the number of chews per year by another 5%, and decreased masticatory force requirements by an additional 12%. Although cooking has important benefits, it appears that selection for smaller masticatory features in Homo would have been initially made possible by the combination of using stone tools and eating meat.

Food material properties and early hominin processing techniques.

Although early Homo is hypothesized to have used tools more than australopiths to process foods prior to consumption, it is unknown how much the food processing techniques they used altered the material properties of foods, and therefore the masticatory forces they generated, and how well they were able to comminute foods. This study presents experimental data on changes to food material properties caused by mechanical tenderization (pounding with a stone tool) and cooking (dry roasting) of two foods likely to have been important components of the hominin diet: meat and tubers. Mechanical tenderization significantly decreased tuber toughness by 42%, but had no effect on meat toughness. Roasting significantly decreased several material properties of tubers correlated with masticatory effort including toughness (49%), fracture stress (28%) and elastic modulus (45%), but increased the toughness (77%), fracture stress (50%-222%), and elastic modulus of muscle fibers in meat (308%). Despite increasing many material properties of meat associated with higher masticatory forces, roasting also decreased measured energy loss by 28%, which likely makes it easier to chew. These results suggest that the use of food processing techniques by early Homo probably differed for meat and tubers, but together would have reduced masticatory effort, helping to relax selection to maintain large, robust faces and large, thickly enameled teeth.

Bite force and occlusal stress production in hominin evolution.

Maximum bite force affects craniofacial morphology and an organism's ability to break down foods with different material properties. Humans are generally believed to produce low bite forces and spend less time chewing compared with other apes because advances in mechanical and thermal food processing techniques alter food material properties in such a way as to reduce overall masticatory effort. However, when hominins began regularly consuming mechanically processed or cooked diets is not known. Here, we apply a model for estimating maximum bite forces and stresses at the second molar in modern human, nonhuman primate, and hominin skulls that incorporates skeletal data along with species-specific estimates of jaw muscle architecture. The model, which reliably estimates bite forces, shows a significant relationship between second molar bite force and second molar area across species but does not confirm our hypothesis of isometry. Specimens in the genus Homo fall below the regression line describing the relationship between bite force and molar area for nonhuman anthropoids and australopiths. These results suggest that Homo species generate maximum bite forces below those predicted based on scaling among australopiths and nonhuman primates. Because this decline occurred before evidence for cooking, we hypothesize that selection for lower bite force production was likely made possible by an increased reliance on nonthermal food processing. However, given substantial variability among in vivo bite force magnitudes measured in humans, environmental effects, especially variations in food mechanical properties, may also be a factor. The results also suggest that australopiths had ape-like bite force capabilities.