Oecologia

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 143–146 | Cite as

Cheek pouch capacity in heteromyid rodents

  • S. R. Morton
  • D. S. Hinds
  • R. E. MacMillen
Article

Summary

Cheek pouch volumes (V in cm3) were positively and significantly related to body mass (M in g) in 12 species and 14 populations of heteromyid rodents by the relationship V=0.065 M0.887. When genera were considered separately, Microdipodops, Perognathus, and Thomomys conformed closely to the relationship, but Dipodomys did not. All species could obtain sufficient energy to meet their daily requirements from one maximum cheek pouch load, but the larger Dipodomys and Thomomys can carry a greater amount of energy relative to their needs. It is postulated that Thomomys and herbivorous Dipodomys conform to the relationship because they must transport food of low density and nutritional value; other Dipodomys, which feed on seeds of high density and greater nutritional worth, appear to have passed a threshold in size beyond which conformance to an allometric relationship is unnecessary. Thus, the two most important factors governing cheek pouch capacity are body mass and the density of the preferred food.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Calder WA (1974) Consequences of body size for avian energetics. In: Paynter RA Jr (ed) Avian energetics Nuttal Ornithological Club. Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 86–152Google Scholar
  2. Csuti BA (1979) Patterns of adaptation and variation in the Great Basin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys microps). Univ Calif Berkeley Publ Zool 111:1–69Google Scholar
  3. Kenagy GJ (1973) Adaptations for leaf eating in the Great Basin kangaroo rat, Dipodomys microps. Oecologia 12:383–412Google Scholar
  4. Lindsay EH (1972) Small mammal fossils from the Barstow formation of California. Univ Calif Publ Geol Sci 93:1–104Google Scholar
  5. Mullen RK (1970) Respiratory metabolism and body water turnover rates of Perognathus formosus in its natural environment. Comp Biochem Physiol 32:259–265Google Scholar
  6. Mullen RK (1971) Energy metabolism and body water turnover rates of two species of free-living kangaroo rats, Dipodomys merriami and Dipodomys microps. Comp Biochem Physiol A: 39:379–390Google Scholar
  7. Price MV (1978a) Seed dispersal preferences of coexisting desert rodent species. J Mammal 59:624–626Google Scholar
  8. Price MV (1978b) The role of microhabitat in structuring desert rodent communities. Ecology 59:910–921Google Scholar
  9. Reichman OJ (1975a) Relation of desert rodent diets to available resources. J Mammal 56:731–751Google Scholar
  10. Reichman OJ (1975b) Relationships between dimensions, weights, volumes and calories of some Sonoran Desert seeds. Southwest Nat 20:573–575Google Scholar
  11. Reichman OJ (1977) Optimization of diets through food preferences by heteromyid rodents. Ecology 58:454–457Google Scholar
  12. Reichman OJ, Oberstein D (1977) Selection of seed distribution types by Dipodomys merriami and Perognathus amplus. Ecology 58:636–643Google Scholar
  13. Rosenzweig ML (1977) Coexistence and diversity in heteromyid rodents. In: Stonehouse B, Perrins C (eds) Evolutionary ecology. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 89–99Google Scholar
  14. Shotwell JA (1967) Late tertiary geomyoid rodents of Oregon. Univ Oregon Mus Nat Hist Bull 9:1–51Google Scholar
  15. Soholt LF (1973) Consumption of primary production by a population of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami) in the Mojave Desert. Ecol Monogr 43:357–376Google Scholar
  16. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Wondolleck JT (1978) Forage-area separation and overlap in heteromyid rodents. J Mammal 59:510–518Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. R. Morton
    • 1
  • D. S. Hinds
    • 1
  • R. E. MacMillen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations