Diet of hadrosaurs as semi-aquatic animals that could only chew soft water plants, a popular idea at the time. While
studying the chewing methods of hadrosaurids in 2009, the paleontologists Vincent Williams, Paul Barrett, and
Mark Purnell found that hadrosaurs likely grazed on horsetails and vegetation close to the ground, rather than browsing higher-growing leaves and twigs. This conclusion was based on the evenness of scratches on hadrosaur teeth, which suggested the hadrosaur used the same series of jaw motions over and over again. As a result, the study determined that the hadrosaur diet was probably made of leaves and lacked the bulkier items, such as twigs or stems, that might have required a different chewing method and created different wear patterns. However, Purnell said these conclusions were less secure than the more conclusive evidence regarding the motion of teeth while chewing. The hypothesis that hadrosaurs were likely grazers rather than browsers appears to contradict previous findings from preserved stomach contents found in the fossilized guts in previous hadrosaur studies. As a result of that finding, Tweet concluded in September 2008 that the animal was likely a browser, not a grazer. dentary with teeth, typical of hadrosauridae Mallon et al. (2013) examined herbivore coexistence on the island continent of
Laramidia, during the Late Cretaceous. It was concluded that hadrosaurids could reach low-growing trees and shrubs that were out of the reach of ceratopsids, ankylosaurs, and other small herbivores. Hadrosaurids were capable of feeding up to a height of when standing quadrupedally, and up to a height of bipedally.
Coprolites (fossilized droppings) of some Late
Cretaceous hadrosaurs show that the animals sometimes deliberately ate rotting wood. Wood itself is not nutritious, but decomposing wood would have contained fungi, decomposed wood material and
detritus-eating
invertebrates, all of which would have been nutritious.
Neurology Hadrosaurs have been noted as having the most complex brains among ornithopods, and indeed among
ornithischian dinosaurs as a whole.
John Ostrom would give a more informed analysis and review in 1961, pulling on data from
Edmontosaurus regalis,
E. annectens, and
Gryposaurus notabilis (then considered a synonym of
Kritosaurus). Though still obviously small, Ostrom recognized that the brains may be more significantly developed than expected, but supported the view that dinosaur brains would have only filled some of the endocranial cavity, limiting possibility of analysis. In 1977
James Hopson introduced the use of estimated
encephalization quotients to the topic of dinosaur intelligence, finding
Edmontosaurus to have an EQ of 1.5, above that of other ornithischians including earlier relatives like
Camptosaurus and
Iguanodon and similar to that of
carnosaurian theropods and modern
crocodilians but below that of
coelurosaurian theropods. Reasonings suggested for their comparably high intelligence were the need for acute senses in the lack of defensive weapons, and more complex
intraspecific behaviours as indicated by their acoustic and visual display structures. The advent of
CT scanning for use in palaeontology has allowed for more widespread application of this without the need for specimen destruction. Modern research using these methods has focused largely on hadrosaurs. In a 2009 study by palaeontologist David C. Evans and colleagues, the brains of
lambeosaurine hadrosaur genera
Hypacrosaurus (adult specimen
ROM 702),
Corythosaurus (juvenile specimen ROM 759 and subadult specimen
CMN 34825), and
Lambeosaurus (juvenile specimen ROM 758) were scanned and compared to each other (on a
phylogenetic and
ontogenetic level), related taxa, and previous predictions, the first such large-scale look into the neurology of the subfamily. Contra the early works, Evans' studies indicate that only some regions of the hadrosaur brain (the dorsal portion and much of the hindbrain) were loosely correlated to the brain wall, like modern reptiles, with the ventral and lateral regions correlating fairly closely. Also unlike modern reptiles, the brains of the juveniles did not seem to correlate any closer to the brain wall than those of adults. It was cautioned, however, that very young individuals were not included in the study.
Amurosaurus, a close relative of the taxa from the 2009 study, was the subject of a 2013 paper once again looking into a cranial endocast. A nearly identical EQ range of 2.3 to 3.8 was found, and it was again noted this was higher than that of living reptiles,
sauropods and other ornithischians, but different EQ estimates for theropods were cited, placing the hadrosaur numbers significantly below even more basal theropods like
Ceratosaurus (with an EQ range of 3.31 to 5.07) and
Allosaurus (with a range of 2.4 to 5.24, compared to only 1.6 in the 2009 study);
Reproduction Neonate sized hadrosaur fossils have been documented in the
scientific literature. Tiny hadrosaur footprints have been discovered in the
Blackhawk Formation of
Utah. In contrast,
Edmontosaurus nestlings appear to have been capable of fully quadrupedal locomotion, and do not show much change in limb proportions through growth. Quadrupedal tracks of a small, presumably juvenile hadrosaur are known from the
Cantwell Formation in Alaska.
Pathology Spondyloarthropathy has been documented in the spine of a 78-million year old hadrosaurid. Other examples of pathologies in hadrosaurs include healed wounds from predators, such as those found in
Edmontosaurus annectens, and tumors such as Langerhans cell histiocytosis, hemangiomas, desmoplastic fibroma, metastatic cancer, and osteoblastomas, found in genera such as
Brachylophosaurus and
Edmontosaurus.
Osteochondrosis is also commonly found in hadrosaurs. ==References==