Oecologia

, Volume 136, Issue 1, pp 14–27 | Cite as

The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters

  • M. Clauss
  • R. Frey
  • B. Kiefer
  • M. Lechner-Doll
  • W. Loehlein
  • C. Polster
  • G. E. Rössner
  • W. J. Streich
Ecophysiology

Abstract

An oft-cited nutritional advantage of large body size is that larger animals have lower relative energy requirements and that, due to their increased gastrointestinal tract (GIT) capacity, they achieve longer ingesta passage rates, which allows them to use forage of lower quality. However, the fermentation of plant material cannot be optimized endlessly; there is a time when plant fibre is totally fermented, and another when energy losses due to methanogenic bacteria become punitive. Therefore, very large herbivores would need to evolve adaptations for a comparative acceleration of ingesta passage. To our knowledge, this phenomenon has not been emphasized in the literature to date. We propose that, among the extant herbivores, elephants, with their comparatively fast passage rate and low digestibility coefficients, are indicators of a trend that allowed even larger hindgut fermenting mammals to exist. The limited existing anatomical data on large hindgut fermenters suggests that both a relative shortening of the GIT, an increase in GIT diameter, and a reduced caecum might contribute to relatively faster ingesta passage; however, more anatomical data is needed to verify these hypotheses. The digestive physiology of large foregut fermenters presents a unique problem: ruminant—and nonruminant—forestomachs were designed to delay ingesta passage, and they limit food intake as a side effect. Therefore, with increasing body size and increasing absolute energy requirements, their relative capacity has to increase in order to compensate for this intake limitation. It seems that the foregut fermenting ungulates did not evolve species in which the intake-limiting effect of the foregut could be reduced, e.g. by special bypass structures, and hence this digestive model imposed an intrinsic body size limit. This limit will be lower the more the natural diet enhances the ingesta retention and hence the intake-limiting effect. Therefore, due to the mechanical characteristics of grass, grazing ruminants cannot become as big as the largest browsing ruminant. Ruminants are not absent from the very large body size classes because their digestive physiology offers no particular advantage, but because their digestive physiology itself intrinsically imposes a body size limit. We suggest that the decreasing ability for colonic water absorption in large grazing ruminants and the largest extant foregut fermenter, the hippopotamus, are an indication of this limit, and are the outcome of the competition of organs for the available space within the abdominal cavity. Our hypotheses are supported by the fossil record on extinct ruminant/tylopod species which did not, with the possible exception of the Sivatheriinae, surpass extant species in maximum body size. In contrast to foregut fermentation, the GIT design of hindgut fermenters allows adaptations for relative passage acceleration, which explains why very large extinct mammalian herbivores are thought to have been hindgut fermenters.

Keywords

Ruminants Browsers Grazers Passage rate Fermentation 

References

  1. Alexander RM (1989) Dynamics of dinosaurs and other extinct giants. Columbia Univesity Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman SA (1987) The impact of locomotor energetics on mammalian foraging. J Zool (Lond) 211:215–225Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (1872) Bairds Tapir. Zool Garten 13:58–59Google Scholar
  4. Barboza PS, Bowyer RT (2000) Sexual segregation in dimorphic deer: a new gastrocentric hypothesis. J Mammal 81:473–489Google Scholar
  5. Bartocci S, Amici A, Verna M, Terramoccia S, Martillotti F (1997) Solid and fluid passage rate in buffalo, cattle and sheep fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios. Livestock Prod Sci 52:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beddard FE (1887) A note on the visceral histology of ceratotherium. J R Microsc Soc 78:120–122Google Scholar
  7. Behrend A (2000) Kinetik des Ingestaflusses bei Rehen und Mufflons im saisonalen Verlauf. Dissertation Thesis Biology, Humboldt-University of Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell RHV (1969) The use of herbaceous layers by grazing ungulates in the Serengeti. In: Watson A (ed) Animal populations in relation to their food resources. Symp Br Ecol Soc. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 111–124Google Scholar
  9. Bell RHV (1971) A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci Am 225:86–93Google Scholar
  10. Bourdelle E, Lavocat R (1955) Ordre des Périssodactyles. In: Grassé JP (ed) Traité de zoologie. Anatomie, systématique, biologie. Tome XVII vol I. Paris, pp 1002–1167Google Scholar
  11. Brashares JS, Garland T, Arcese P (2000) Phylogenetic analysis of coadaptation in behavior, diet, and body size in the African antelope. Behav Ecol 4:452–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Case TJ (1979) Optimal body size and an animal's diet. Acta Biotheor 28:54–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chivers DJ, Hladik CM (1980) Morphology of the gastrointestinal tract in primates: comparisons with other mammals in relation to diet. J Morphol 166:337–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M (2001) Differences in selective reticulo-ruminal particle retention as a key factor in ruminant diversification. Oecologia 129:321–327Google Scholar
  15. Clauss M, Deutsch A, Lechner-Doll M, Flach EJ, Tack C (1998) Passage rate of fluid and particle phase in captive giraffe. Adv Ethol [Suppl Ethol] 33:98Google Scholar
  16. Clauss M, Fröschle T, Lechner-Doll M, Dierenfeld ES, Hatt JM (2002a) Fluid and particle passage rate in captive black rhinoceros. Abstract Book of the Joint Nutrition Conference, August 2002, Antwerp, p 88Google Scholar
  17. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Streich WJ (2002b) Ruminants: why browsers are non-grazers. Abstract Book of the Joint Nutrition Conference, August 2002, Antwerp, p 126Google Scholar
  18. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Streich WJ (2002c) Faecal dry matter content in captive wild ruminants: implications for the browser/grazer-dichotomy. Abstract Book of the Joint Nutrition Conference, August 2002, Antwerp, p 128Google Scholar
  19. Clauss M, Loehlein W, Kienzle E, Wiesner H (2003) Studies on feed digestibilities in captive Asian elephants. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 87:1-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clemens ET, Maloiy GMO (1982) Digestive physiology of three East African herbivores, the elephant, rhinoceros and hippopotamus. J Zool (Lond) 198:141–156Google Scholar
  21. Clemens ET, Maloiy GMO (1983) Digestive physiology of East African ruminants. Comp Biochem Physiol 76A:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clemens ET, Maloiy GMO (1984) Colonic absorption and secretion of fluids, electrolytes and organic acids in East African ruminants. Comp Biochem Physiol 77A:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coenen M, Meyer H, Stadermann B (1990) Amount and composition of the GIT content according to type of feed and exercise. In: Meyer H (ed) Contributions to water and mineral metabolism of the horse. Parey, Berlin; Adv Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 21:7-20Google Scholar
  24. Colbert EH (1993) Feeding strategies and metabolism in elephants and sauropod dinosaurs. Am J Sci 293A:1–19Google Scholar
  25. Damuth J, MacFadden BJ (eds) (1990) Body size in mammalian paleobiology: estimation and biological implications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. De Bouveignes O (1953) Sparrmann et les rhinoceros. Zooleo 21:85–97Google Scholar
  27. Demment MW (1983) Feeding ecology and the evolution of body size of baboons. Afr J Ecol 21:219–233Google Scholar
  28. Demment MW, Longhurst WH (1987) Browsers and grazers: constraints on feeding ecology imposed by gut morphology and body size. In: Santana OP, da Silva AG, Foote WC (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Goats, Departamento de Difusao de Tecnologia, Brazil, pp 989–1004Google Scholar
  29. Demment MW, Van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125:641–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Economos AC (1981) The largest land mammal. J Theor Biol 89:211–215Google Scholar
  31. Eloff AK, Van Hoven W (1980) Intestinal protozoa of the African elephant. S Afr J Zool 15:83–90Google Scholar
  32. Endo H, Morigaki T, Fujisawa M, Yamagiwa D, Sasaki M, Kimura J (1999) Morphology of the intestinal tract in the White rhinoceros. Anat Hist Embryol 28:303–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Farlow JO (1987) Speculations about the diet and digestive physiology of herbivorous dinosaurs. Paleobiology 13:60–72Google Scholar
  34. Field CE (1976) Palatability factors and nutritive value of the food of buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in Uganda. E Afr Wildl J 14:181–201Google Scholar
  35. Foose TJ (1982) Trophic strategies of ruminant versus nonruminant ungulates. PhD thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Fortelius M, Kappelman J (1993) The largest land mammal ever imagined. Zool J Linn Soc 107:85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frade F, Vanfrey R (1955) Ordre de Proboscidiens. In: Grassé JP (ed) Traité de zoologie. Anatomie, systématique, biologie. Tome 17, vol 1. Paris, pp 715–875Google Scholar
  38. Freeland WJ (1991) Plant secondary metabolites: biochemical coevolution with herbivores. In: Palo RT, Robbins CT (eds) Plant defenses against mammalian herbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 61–81Google Scholar
  39. Frewein J, Gasse H, Leiser R, Roos H, Thomé H, Vollmerhaus B, Waibl H (eds) (1999) Lehrbuch der Anatomie der Haustiere, vol 2. Eingeweide, 8th edn. Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. Fritz H, Duncan P, Gordon IJ, Illius AW (2002) Megaherbivores influence trophic guilds structure in African ungulate communities. Oecologia 131:620–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gagnon M, Chew AE (2000) Dietary preferences in extant African bovidae. J Mammal 81:490–511Google Scholar
  42. Garrod AH (1873) On the visceral anatomy of the Sumatran rhinoceros. Proc Zool Soc Lond, pp 92–104Google Scholar
  43. Garrod AH (1877) On some points in the visceral anatomy of the rhinoceros of the Sunderbunds (Rhinoceros sondaicus). Proc Zool Soc Lond, pp 707–711Google Scholar
  44. Gaulin SJC (1979) A Jarman/Ball model for primate feeding niches. Hum Ecol 7:1-20Google Scholar
  45. Geist V (1974) On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in ungulates. Am Zool 14:205–220Google Scholar
  46. Gentry AW (1967) Pelovoris oldowayensis Reck, an extinct bovid from East Africa. Bull Br Mus Nat Hist Geol Ser 14:243–299Google Scholar
  47. Gentry AW, Gentry A (1978) Fossil Bovidae of Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Bull Br Mus Nat Hist Geol Ser 29:289–446; 30:1-83Google Scholar
  48. Geraads D (1996) Le Sivatherium du Pliocène final d'Ahl al Oughlam et l'évolution du genre en Afrique. Paläont Z 70:623–629Google Scholar
  49. Giesecke D, Van Gylswyk NO (1975) A study of feeding types and certain rumen functions in six species of South African wild ruminants. J Agric Sci (Camb) 85:75–83Google Scholar
  50. Gordon IJ, Illius AW (1994) The functional significance of the browser-grazer dichotomy in African ruminants. Oecologia 98:167–175Google Scholar
  51. Guthrie RD (1984) Mosaics, allelochemics and nutrients. In: Martin PS, Klein RG (eds) Quaternary extinctions. A prehistoric evolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 259–298Google Scholar
  52. Gutmann WF (1989) Die Evolution hydraulischer Konstruktionen: Organismische Wandlung statt altdarwinistischer Anpassung. Kramer, Frankfurt/Main, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  53. Hackenberger MK (1987) Diet digestibilities and ingesta transit times of captive Asian and African elephants. MS thesis, University of Guelph, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  54. Harris JM (1991) Giraffidae. In: Harris JM (ed) Koobi Fora research project 3. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 93–138Google Scholar
  55. Hofmann RR (1988) Morphophysiological evolutionary adaptations of the ruminant digestive system. In: Dobson A, Dobson MJ (eds) Aspects of digestive physiology in ruminants. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., USA, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  56. Home E (1821) An account of the skeletons of the dugong, two-horned rhinoceros, and tapir of Sumatra. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 11:268–274Google Scholar
  57. Hoppe PP (1977) Rumen fermentation and body weight in African ruminants. In: Peterle TJ (ed) 13th Congress of Game Biology. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  58. Hume ID (1999) Marsupial nutrition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Illius AW, Gordon IJ (1992) Modelling the nutritional ecology of ungulate herbivores: evolution of body size and competitive interactions. Oecologia 89:428–434Google Scholar
  60. Janis CM (1990) Correlation of cranial and dental variables with body size in ungulates and macropodoids. In: Damuth J, MacFadden BJ (eds) Body size in mammalian paleobiology: estimation and biological implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 255–299Google Scholar
  61. Janis CM, Carrano M (1992) Scaling of reproductive turnover in archosaurs and mammals: why are large terrestrial mammals so rare? Ann Zool Fenn 28:201–216Google Scholar
  62. Janis CM, Gordon IJ, Illius AW (1994) Modelling equid/ruminant competition in the fossil record. Hist Biol 8:15–29Google Scholar
  63. Janis CM, Damuth J, Theodor JM (2000) Miocene ungulates and terrestrial primary productivity: where have all the browsers gone? Proc Natl Acad Sci 97:7899–7904Google Scholar
  64. Jarman PJ (1968) The effect of the creation of Lake Kariba upon the terrestrial ecology of the middle Zambezi valley. PhD thesis, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  65. Jarman PJ (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267Google Scholar
  66. Justice KE, Smith FA (1992) A model of dietary fiber utilization by small mammalian herbivores, with empirical results for Neotoma. Am Nat 139:398–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kiefer B (2002) Quality and digestibility of white rhinoceros food—a comparison of field and experimental studies. Diss thesis, University of Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  68. Kingdon J (1979) East African mammals, vol 3, part B. Large mammals. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Langer P (1976) Functional anatomy of the stomach of Hippopotamus amphibius. S Afr J Sci 72:12–16Google Scholar
  70. Langer P (1988) The mammalian herbivore stomach. Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  71. Langer P (1991) Evolution of the digestive tract in mammals. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 84:169–193Google Scholar
  72. Langer P (1994) Food and digestion of Cenozoic mammals in Europe. In: Chivers DJ, Langer P (eds) The digestive system of mammals: food, form, and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 9–24Google Scholar
  73. Loehlein W, Kienzle E, Wiesner H, Clauss M (2003) Investigations on the use of chromium oxide as an inert external marker in captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus): passage and recovery rates. In: Fidgett A, et al. (eds) Zoo animal nutrition, vol 2. Filander, Fürth, Germany (in press)Google Scholar
  74. MacFadden BJ, Hulbert, RC (1990) Body size estimates and size distribution of ungulate mammals from the Late Miocene Love Bone Bed of Florida. In: Damuth J, MacFadden BJ (eds) Body size in mammalian paleobiology: estimation and biological implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 337–363Google Scholar
  75. Maloiy GMO, Clemens CT (1980) Colonic absorption and secretion of electrolytes as seen in five species of East African herbivorous mammals. Comp Biochem Physiol 67A: 21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Maloiy GMO, Clemens ET, Kamau JMZ (1982) Aspects of digestion and in vitro rumen fermentation rate in six species of East African wild ruminants. J Zool (Lond) 197:345–353Google Scholar
  77. McNab B (1978) Energetics of arboreal folivores: physiological problems and ecological consequences of feeding on an ubiquitous food supply. In: Montgomery GG (ed) Ecology of arboreal folivores. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 153–162Google Scholar
  78. Meyer H, Stadermann B, Radicke S, Kienzle E, Nyari A (1993) Investigations on amount and composition of the gastrointestinal tract and postprandial parameters in blood and urine according to type of feed. Pferdeheilkunde 9:15–25Google Scholar
  79. Mitchell PC (1903/6) On the intestinal tract of mammals. Trans Zool Soc Lond 17:437–536Google Scholar
  80. Montgomery GG, Sunquist ME (1978) Habitat selection and use by two-toed and three-toed sloths. In: Montgomery GG (ed) Ecology of arboreal folivores. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 329–359Google Scholar
  81. Mullen A (1682) An anatomical account of the elephant accidentally burnt in Dublin on Fryday, June 17. in the year 1681. Smith, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. Nagy KA, Montgomery GG (1980) Field metabolic rate, water flux and food consumption in three-toed sloths. J Mammal 61:465–472Google Scholar
  83. Naples VL (1987) Reconstruction of cranial morphology and analysis of function in the Pleistocene ground sloth Nothrotheriops shastense. Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Cty Contrib Sci 389:1-21Google Scholar
  84. Naples VL (1989) The feeding mechanism in the Pleistocene ground sloth, Glossotherium. Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Cty Contrib Sci 415:1-23Google Scholar
  85. NOW (2002) Neogene of the Old World. http://www.helsinki.fi/science/now. Cited June 2002Google Scholar
  86. Owen TR (1862) On the anatomy of the Indian rhinoceros. Trans Zool Soc Lond 4:31–58Google Scholar
  87. Owen-Smith N (1982) Factors influencing the consumption of plant products by large herbivores. In: Huntley BJ, Walker BH (eds) Ecology of tropical savannas, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 359–404Google Scholar
  88. Owen-Smith N (1988) Megaherbivores. The influence of very large body size on ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  89. Parra R (1978) Comparison of foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In: Montgomery, GG (ed) The ecology of arboreal folivores. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 205–230Google Scholar
  90. Pérez-Barberìa FJ, Gordon IJ, Nores C (2001) Evolutionary transitions among feeding styles and habitats in ungulates. Evol Ecol Res 3:221–230Google Scholar
  91. Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266Google Scholar
  92. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge UniversityPress, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  93. Prins RA, Kreulen DA (1991) Comparative aspects of plant cell wall digestion in mammals. In: Hoshino S, Onodera R, Minoto H, Itabashi H (eds) The rumen ecosystem: the microbial metabolism and its regulation. Japan Scientific Soc Press, Tokyo, pp 109–121Google Scholar
  94. Renecker LA, Hudson RJ (1992) Thermoregulatory and behavioral response of moose: is large body size an adaptation or constraint? Alces [Suppl] 1:52–64Google Scholar
  95. Roux W (1881) Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus. Engelmann, Leipzig, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  96. Sachs L (1997) Angewandte Statistik, vol 8. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling. Why is animal size so important? Cambridge UniversityPress, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  98. Scott KM (1990) Postcranial dimensions of ungulates as predictors of body mass. In: Damuth J, MacFadden BJ (eds) Body size in mammalian paleobiology: estimation and biological implications. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp 301–335Google Scholar
  99. Sikes SK (1971) The natural history of the African elephant. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  100. Silva M, Downing JA (1995) CRC handbook of mammalian body masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.Google Scholar
  101. Sinclair ARE (1974) The natural regulation of buffalo population in East Africa. IV. The food supply as a regulating factor and competition. E Afr Wildl J 10:77–89Google Scholar
  102. Singer R, Boné E (1960) Modern giraffes and the fossil giraffids of Africa. Ann S Afr Mus 45:375–548Google Scholar
  103. Smith FA (1995) Scaling of digestive efficiency with body mass in Neotoma. Funct Ecol 9:299–305Google Scholar
  104. Solounias N, McGraw WS, Hayek LA, Werdelin L (2000) The paleodiet of the Giraffidae. In: Vrba ES, Schaller GB (eds) Antelopes, deer, and relatives. Fossil record, behavioral ecology, systematics, and conservation. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  105. Stevens CE, Hume ID (1995) Comparative physiology of the vertebrate digestive system. Cambridge UniversityPress, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  106. Van Hoven W (1978) Digestion physiology in the stomach complex and hindgut of the hippopotamus. S Afr J Wildl Res 8:59–64Google Scholar
  107. Van Hoven W, Prins RA, Lankhorst A (1981) Fermentative digestion in the African elephant. S Afr J Wildl Res 11:78–86Google Scholar
  108. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edn. Cornell UniversityPress, Ithaca Google Scholar
  109. Van Soest PJ (1996) Allometry and ecology of feeding behavior and digestive capacity in herbivores: a review. Zoo Biol 15:455–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Van Wieren SE (1996) Browsers and grazers: foraging strategies in ruminants. In: Van Wieren SE (ed) Digestive strategies in ruminants and nonruminants. Thesis, Landbouw Universiteit, Wageningen, pp 119–145Google Scholar
  111. Wilson VJ, Edwards PW (1965) Data from a female rhinoceros and foetus from the Fr. Jameson district. Puku 3:179–180Google Scholar
  112. Woodall PF, Skinner JD (1993) Dimensions of the intestine, diet and faecal water loss in some African antelope. J Zool (Lond) 229:457–471Google Scholar
  113. Woolnough AP, du Toit JT (2001) Vertical zonation of browse quality in tree canopies exposed to a size-structured guild of African browsing ungulates. Oecologia 129:585–590Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Clauss
    • 1
  • R. Frey
    • 2
  • B. Kiefer
    • 1
  • M. Lechner-Doll
    • 2
  • W. Loehlein
    • 1
  • C. Polster
    • 1
  • G. E. Rössner
    • 3
  • W. J. Streich
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Animal Physiology, Physiological Chemistry and Animal NutritionLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Palaeontology Munich, Department of Geo- and Environmental SciencesLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations