Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41128666›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2025

Kinematics of strikes in venomous snakes.

Silke G C Cleuren, James P Rule, Remi Ksas, Anthony Herrel, David P Hocking, Alistair R Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Silke G C CleurenSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7458-8925
James P RuleSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7256-2393
Remi KsasVenomworld, 77400 Saint-Thibault-des-Vignes, France.
Anthony HerrelMécanismes Adaptatifs et Evolution, UMR 7179, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle CNRS, 75231 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0991-4434
David P HockingTasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6848-1208
Alistair R EvansSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4078-4693

Funding

Australian Research Council DP180101797Australian Research Council DP230100613Ecological Society of AustraliaHolsworth Wildlife Research EndowmentMonash University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venomous snakes owe their evolutionary success in part to the effectiveness of their strike. The success of a strike depends on reaching the prey quickly before it startles and has the chance to escape. Here, we present the first ever large-scale experiment comparing strike performance across 36 venomous snake species from three families (31 Viperidae, 4 Elapidae and 1 Colubridae). We used two high-speed video cameras (1000 frames s-1) to capture strikes at a ballistics gel prey and tracked the strike trajectory in three dimensions. The 3D coordinates were used to measure strike kinematics and performance. Kinematic performance was compared within Viperidae across predation style, diel activity pattern, diet, habitat type, temperature and first jaw contact with prey. Kinematic variables (peak velocity, peak acceleration, gape angle, start distance, contact angle, head size) varied by the part of the jaw that first contacts the prey. Start distance to prey also varied by peak acceleration, jaw gape angle and contact angle with prey. Vipers typically reached higher peak velocities than elapids; however, some elapids such as Acanthophis rugosus reached equally high velocities. Peak velocities were found to be higher in ambush predators and in snakes that prey on mammalian prey. Prey was often reached within 100 ms, which falls within the mammalian startle response. Behavioural differences across the three families were also observed: Viperidae performed a smooth strike that was often followed by fang repositioning; Elapidae reached their prey quickly, bit and repeatedly squeezed prey with their jaws; and Colubridae used their rear-positioned fangs by alternate jaw movement to damage the prey's surface.

Indexed as

ColubridaeElapidaePredatory BehaviorSnakesViperidaeAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaJawVenomous SnakesVideo RecordingBiomechanicsColubridaeElapidaeHigh-speed video analysisKinematicsViperidae

Identifiers

PMID41128666
PMCPMC12582407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.