Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Defensive Adaptations and Paleoecology of Ankylosaurus: Insights into the Armor and Lifestyle of a Cretaceous Armored Dinosaur

Altmetrics

Downloads

138

Views

116

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

30 July 2024

Posted:

31 July 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Ankylosaurus stands as a quintessential example of Cretaceous armored dinosaurs, renowned for its formidable defensive adaptations. This study explores the defensive mechanisms and paleoecology of Ankylosaurus, focusing on its unique armor and lifestyle. Through detailed morphological analysis of fossil specimens, we examine the structure and function of the robust osteoderms and the prominent tail club, evaluating their roles in defense against predators. The distribution and arrangement of these defensive features suggest a sophisticated strategy to deter and survive attacks from contemporary theropods. Additionally, we investigate the paleoenvironmental context of Ankylosaurus, assessing how its habitat and ecological interactions influenced its evolutionary adaptations. Comparative analysis with other ankylosaurids and contemporaneous species provides insights into the evolutionary pressures shaping its armor. Our findings highlight the balance between offensive and defensive strategies in the Late Cretaceous ecosystem, underscoring the role of Ankylosaurus as both a well-protected herbivore and a critical component of its ecological niche. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the evolutionary dynamics of armored dinosaurs and their interaction with their environment, offering a comprehensive perspective on the adaptations that defined Ankylosaurus' survival strategy.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Life Sciences

Defensive Adaptations and Paleoecology of Ankylosaurus: Insights into the Armor and Lifestyle of a Cretaceous Armored Dinosaur

Ankylosaurus was a heavily armored dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Period, living about 70-66 million years ago. It was covered from head to tail with osteoderms, equipped with a large tail club capable of defending itself against carnivorous theropods of its time, such as Tyrannosaurus rex. This armor covered most of Ankylosaurus’ frame, present on much of the dorsal side but absent on the ventral side. The extent to which protective armor existed on Ankylosaurus may have proven detrimental, as more intelligent predators might have used this to their advantage, attempting to off-balance Ankylosaurus and exposing their underside. However, to fully analyze the defensive capabilities of Ankylosaurus, we must first obtain an in-depth understanding of its armor and lifestyle.
Having dimensions of 1.7 m height at the hips, 6-8 m in length, and a weight of 4.8-8 metric tons, Ankylosaurus was one of the largest and heavily armored dinosaurs of its time. Its broad, low-slung body was covered in thick, bony osteoderms, providing extensive protection from predators. The tail was equipped with a large, fused club of osteoderms that could deliver powerful defensive strikes. Its skull was similarly armored, with small, leaf-shaped teeth adapted for a herbivorous diet. Short but robust limbs supported its massive frame, and its eyes, positioned on the sides of its head, offered a broad field of view to detect approaching threats.
This literature review will investigate the defensive adaptations and morphological characteristics that allowed Ankylosaurus to be a successful organism, as well as potential environmental pressures that may have contributed to its unique features. I will analyze the role of osteoderms in Ankylosaurus, discussing concepts such as their extent and locations of greatest presence. Then, I will delve into the lifestyle of Ankylosaurus, examining its ecological role and Late Cretaceous ecosystem. Finally, I will determine the aspects of Ankylosaurus’s life, both morphological and environmental, that enabled it to develop its compact bony armor.

Role of Osteoderms in Ankylosaurus

In Ankylosaurus, there was an extensive presence of osteoderms and bony deposits that formed plates, scutes, and other structures in its skin. It is widely believed that these osteoderms would have provided significant protection against threats and predators in its ecosystem, providing a nearly impenetrable bony cover. Here we observe the various roles that osteoderms played in Ankylosaurus and their potential effects.
A study conducted by Arbour & Currie (2013) analyzed ankylosaurid dinosaur tail clubs. It was determined that these unique structures were the result of the stepwise acquisition of key morphological features. The study found that the distal caudal vertebrae progressively widened over time. Initially, these vertebrae were typical in shape but evolved to become transversely broad. A critical evolutionary step was the fusion of these widened vertebrae into a single, rigid unit referred to as a “handle,” involving the fusion of five to seven vertebrae, a characteristic unique to ankylosaurids with tail clubs. Simultaneously, large, keeled osteoderms developed on the tail, starting as separate elements that later fused to form the large, bulbous club at the end. Histological examinations revealed differences in the internal structure of the osteoderms, showing that the fusion process involved extensive remodeling of bone tissue, resulting in a solid mass capable of withstanding significant impact forces. Placing these morphological changes within a phylogenetic framework, it was found that early ankylosaurids had simple, unfused caudal vertebrae and small osteoderms, while more derived ankylosaurids exhibited the fully developed tail club, supporting a gradual, stepwise evolutionary process. The rigid, fused tail with large osteoderms at the end was interpreted as an adaptation for defense, suggesting that ankylosaurids could deliver powerful, lateral swings with their tails to fend off predators. Biomechanical analysis also proposes this as well, indicating that a fully developed tail club could generate a significant amount of force, providing an effective defense against theropod predators. Comparative analysis of various ankylosaurid species revealed that some, like Euoplocephalus, had more developed clubs, while others, like Gobisaurus, showed intermediate stages of tail club evolution. As Ankylosaurus was from the Late Cretaceous Period, it wielded a well-developed club, thus enabling it to fend off potential threats with a single swing of its osteoderm tail club.
Another study by Arbour & Currie (2013) examined how the morphology of an ankylosaurid tail club influenced its swinging ability. They identified significant variation in tail club morphology among different ankylosaurid species, including differences in the size, shape, and arrangement of the osteoderms that composed the tail club, also noted by Maryanska (1977), Carpenter (2001), Vickaryous et al. (2004), and Arbour et al. (2009). Analyzing the structure of the tail clubs, they noted that some were more bulbous while others were flatter and more elongated, affecting the overall mass and center of gravity. Through biomechanical modeling, the researchers determined that these morphological differences significantly impacted the force and speed at which the tail could be swung. Larger, more massive tail clubs could generate greater impact forces due to higher momentum, although they might have been swung more slowly compared to smaller clubs. The ability to swing the tail club with substantial force was deemed a critical defensive adaptation, particularly effective against large theropod predators. Detailed kinetic analysis revealed that the distribution of mass along the tail and the specific arrangement of the fused vertebrae were crucial for maximizing the effectiveness of the tail club as a weapon. This research highlights the intricate relationship between form and function in the evolution of ankylosaurid tail clubs, as different morphologies of tail clubs would have served certain purposes for their respective environments. For Ankylosaurus, its larger and more compact tail club would likely have been used to yield significant impact forces used primarily for defense.
Burns & Currie (2014) investigated the extent to which osteoderm armor provided coverage for Ankylosaurus, examining the armor covering the ribs of Ankylosaurus magniventris. It found that the rib armor consisted of large, interlocking osteoderms that provided extensive protection to the thoracic region. These osteoderms were arranged in a pattern that maximized coverage and protection while maintaining flexibility for breathing and movement. This was likely a mechanism of protection that arose from the evolutionary pressures of Ankylosaurus’ predators, since attacking the thoracic region has been a well-used technique observed in many predators, dealing maximum damage to prey items without risking their safety. Additionally, the low center of gravity of Ankylosaurus would have prevented carnivorous theropods of any size from flipping it over and exposing its underside.
A study conducted by Vickaryous & Russell (2003) provides an additional insight into the cranial morphology of Ankylosaurus through a comparative analysis between Euoplocephalus tutus and Ankylosaurus. They noted that while both Euoplocephalus tutus and Ankylosaurus possessed extensive cranial armor, there were significant differences in the arrangement and morphology of the osteoderms. Euoplocephalus tutus had a distinctive pattern of cranial osteoderms, with a more complex arrangement and a greater number of smaller, interlocking plates. In contrast, Ankylosaurus had fewer, larger, and more robust osteoderms on its skull. Additionally, the skull of Euoplocephalus tutus was described as having a more rounded and heavily armored appearance, with a pronounced cranial crest. On the other hand, Ankylosaurus had a more flattened skull with a different configuration of the bony plates, reflecting variations in defensive adaptations and evolutionary trajectories. Furthermore, the positioning and size of the orbits (eye sockets) were different between the two genera. Euoplocephalus tutus had relatively smaller orbits placed more laterally, while Ankylosaurus had larger orbits positioned more forward on the skull. Additionally, the fenestrae in Euoplocephalus were differently shaped and positioned compared to those in Ankylosaurus, contributing to differences in skull robustness and structural support. Finally, it was observed that the nasal openings and facial features also differed. The nasal openings in Euoplocephalus tutus were described as being more recessed into the skull. These openings were situated deeper within the facial region and were partially covered by the surrounding bony structures, giving them a less prominent appearance. This placement is thought to be related to the dinosaur’s facial armor and possibly its respiratory and sensory adaptations. In contrast, Ankylosaurus had more prominent and forward-projecting nasal openings. The nasal openings of Ankylosaurus were situated more towards the front of the skull, making them more visible. This protruding configuration is linked to the dinosaur’s broader facial structure and its role in defense and sensory perception. Overall, through this comparative analysis, we can determine the numerous roles of osteoderms in the cranial region, such as specific configurations of relatively large bony plates that provided ideal protection.
Overall, these applications of osteoderms on Ankylosaurus would have proved to be incredibly beneficial for defense purposes, enhancing protection coverage. Ankylosaurus wielded a well-developed club, allowing it to fend off potential threats with a single swing of its osteoderm tail club. Additionally, its larger and more compact tail club would likely have been used to yield significant impact forces used primarily for defense. Ankylosaurus’ osteoderms were arranged in a pattern that maximized coverage and protection while maintaining flexibility for breathing and movement.

Lifestyle of Ankylosaurus

As we now understand the role that osteoderms played in Ankylosaurus, we must now examine Ankylosaurus’s lifestyle and the defense adaptations that it employed to survive its Late Cretaceous environment. Such factors may have included competition for dominance, fending off potential predators, and the type of environment it lived in.
Carpenter (2004) discovered evidence of wear and damage on the tail club of Ankylosaurus magniventris, suggesting that it was used in defensive encounters. The study noted signs of impact-related trauma on the tail club’s surface, supporting the hypothesis that the tail was employed in combat scenarios. The evidence pointed to the tail club being used in a swinging motion, capable of inflicting serious injury to attacking predators.
A study conducted by Arbour & Currie (2013) suggested that tail clubs evolved not only for defense but possibly for intraspecific combat or display, as indicated by the variability in shape and size. By comparing the tail clubs of various ankylosaurid species, the researchers provided insights into the evolutionary pressures shaping these structures, suggesting that species with more pronounced tail clubs likely faced greater predation pressures or engaged in more frequent intraspecific combat. Considering Ankylosaurus’ large, compact tail club, it is likely that Ankylosaurus experienced many instances of intraspecific combat and developed stronger clubs to outcompete other Ankylosaurus. This is further investigated by Penkalski (2001), in which there was observed variation of osteoderms in specimens of Euoplocephalus tutus. Some specimens exhibited differences in the number and arrangement of cranial osteoderms, suggesting that Euoplocephalus might have had a range of cranial armor configurations. This likely applied to Ankylosaurus as well, since it was another ankylosaurid.
Weishampel et al. (2004) examined the distribution of ankylosaurids in the context of their paleoenvironmental settings. The scientists discussed how ankylosaurids were adapted to various environments, including floodplains, coastal plains, and river valleys. This context helped to explain their wide geographic range and diverse habitats. In North America, ankylosaurids like Ankylosaurus were primarily found in the western regions, particularly in what is now the western United States and Canada. Fossil evidence from formations such as the Hell Creek Formation and the Dinosaur Park Formation was investigated, showing how ankylosaurids were a common component of these ecosystems. Environments like these fostered a bounty of fauna, both carnivorous and herbivorous. This would have acted as another selective pressure, as Ankylosaurus had to defend itself against a variety of aggressive carnivores, while also competing with other herbivores for access to food and other resources.
A study by Barrett & Rayfield (2006) explored the feeding behavior of various dinosaurs, including ankylosaurs, to draw broader ecological and evolutionary conclusions. Specifically for Ankylosaurus, they determined that its feeding behavior was adapted to a low-browsing lifestyle, primarily consuming fibrous, low-lying vegetation. This conclusion was based on the morphology of the skull and teeth, which were suited for processing tough plant material. They highlighted the presence of a broad, shovel-like snout, which would have been effective for cropping vegetation close to the ground, and the arrangement of the teeth, which suggested an adaptation for grinding plant matter rather than shearing it, also noted by Mallon & Anderson (2013) and Weishampel & Norman (1989). The study also suggested that the evolution of such specialized feeding adaptations in ankylosaurs was a response to the availability of specific types of vegetation in their habitats during the Late Cretaceous period.
Overall, the lifestyle of Ankylosaurus required mechanisms to compete against other dinosaurs in its environment. It primarily consumed fibrous, low-level vegetation, using its specialized teeth to grind the plant material. Ankylosaurus’ presence in regions such as coastal plains and floodplains meant that it needed extensive protection against any potential threats, both carnivorous and herbivorous. Additionally, variations in size and shape among different Ankylosaurus individuals suggest that certain morphological characteristics, especially those regarding the tail club, would prove favorable in intraspecific combat and displays of dominance.

Conclusion

Limitations on Existing Research

While significant progress has been made in understanding the defensive adaptations and paleoecology of Ankylosaurus, several limitations still constrain our full comprehension of this heavily armored dinosaur. One major limitation is the incomplete fossil record, as many specimens are fragmentary and lack crucial anatomical parts, leading to gaps in our knowledge about the complete armor distribution and variability among individuals. Additionally, the biomechanical analyses of tail clubs and osteoderm function often rely on extrapolations from modern analogs and theoretical models, which may not entirely capture the dynamics of Ankylosaurus in its natural habitat. Moreover, interpretations of intraspecific combat and predator-prey interactions are largely inferential, based on indirect evidence such as wear patterns and the morphology of fossilized remains, which might not accurately reflect behavior. The paleoenvironmental reconstructions are also limited by the precision of dating methods and the availability of contextual data from the fossil sites, sometimes leading to uncertainties in understanding the specific ecological pressures Ankylosaurus faced. Future research that includes more comprehensive fossil discoveries, advanced imaging techniques, and refined ecological modeling is needed to overcome these limitations and provide a more detailed picture of Ankylosaurus’ lifestyle and defense strategies.

Takeaway

Ankylosaurus utilized its extensive osteoderms and formidable tail club to protect itself from predators like Tyrannosaurus rex in its Late Cretaceous ecosystems that included coastal plains and river valleys. The armor, covering its dorsal side, consisted of thick, bony plates that provided significant defense, while the tail club evolved through a stepwise process to become a powerful weapon capable of delivering impactful blows. Studies show that these osteoderms not only provided physical protection but also played a role in intraspecific combat and display, suggesting that Ankylosaurus faced substantial predation pressures and competition within its species. Its low-slung body, robust limbs, and specialized teeth for low-browsing vegetation indicate a lifestyle adapted to grazing and surviving in diverse habitats, such as coastal plains and floodplains. The comprehensive analysis of Ankylosaurus’ armor and ecological role underscores the evolutionary pressures that shaped its unique defensive and morphological traits, ensuring its survival in a predator-rich environment.

References

  1. Arbour, V. M., & Currie, P. J. (2013). Ankylosaurid dinosaur tail clubs evolved through stepwise acquisition of key features. Journal of Anatomy, 223(5), 521-541. [CrossRef]
  2. Arbour, V. M., & Currie, P. J. (2013). Tail weaponry in ankylosaurid dinosaurs and the influence of tail club morphology on swinging ability. Journal of Anatomy, 223(2), 183-196.
  3. Arbour, V. M., Burns, M. E., & Sissons, R. (2009). A new ankylosaurid from the Cenomanian of Texas and a revision of the phylogeny of the Ankylosauria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 29(3), 763-780.
  4. Barrett, P. M., & Rayfield, E. J. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary implications of dinosaur feeding behaviour. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(4), 217-224.
  5. Burns, M. E., & Currie, P. J. (2014). Armor of the ribs and tail club of Ankylosaurus magniventris (Ornithischia: Ankylosauridae): Implications for tail use and evolution of ankylosaur tail clubs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 34(4), 870-873.
  6. Carpenter, K. (2001). Phylogenetic analysis of the Ankylosauria. In K. Carpenter (Ed.), The Armored Dinosaurs (pp. 455-483). Indiana University Press.
  7. Carpenter, K. (2004). Redescription of Ankylosaurus magniventris Brown 1908 (Ornithischia, Ankylosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior of North America. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 41(8), 961-986.
  8. Mallon, J. C., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). Skull ecomorphology of megaherbivorous dinosaurs from the Dinosaur Park Formation (upper Campanian) of Alberta, Canada. PLOS ONE, 8(7), e67182.
  9. Maryanska, T. (1977). Ankylosauridae (Dinosauria) from Mongolia. Palaeontologia Polonica, 37, 85-151.
  10. Penkalski, P. (2001). Variation in specimens referred to Euoplocephalus tutus. In K. Carpenter (Ed.), The Armored Dinosaurs (pp. 261-298). Indiana University Press.
  11. Vickaryous, M. K., & Russell, A. P. (2003). A redescription of the skull of Euoplocephalus tutus (Ornithischia: Ankylosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada, and its implications for ankylosaurid taxonomy. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23(4), 835-857.
  12. Vickaryous, M. K., Maryańska, T., & Weishampel, D. B. (2004). Ankylosauria. In D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, & H. Osmólska (Eds.), The Dinosauria (2nd ed., pp. 363-392). University of California Press.
  13. Weishampel, D. B., Barrett, P. M., Coria, R. A., Le Loeuff, J., Xu, X., Zhao, X.,... & Currie, P. J. (2004). Dinosaur distribution. In D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, & H. Osmólska (Eds.), The Dinosauria (2nd ed., pp. 517-606). University of California Press.
  14. Weishampel, D. B., & Norman, D. B. (1989). Vertebrate herbivory in the Mesozoic; Jaws, plants, and evolutionary metrics. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 238, 87-101.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated