Advertisement

European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 100–111 | Cite as

Nutritional content of savanna plant foods: implications for browser/grazer models of ungulate diversification

  • Daryl CodronEmail author
  • Julia A. Lee-Thorp
  • Matt Sponheimer
  • Jacqui Codron
Original Paper

Abstract

Models of herbivore diversification rely heavily on adaptations that reflect the nutritional quality of foods consumed. In particular, browsers and grazers are expected to show dichotomous adaptations to deal with high quality (concentrate) browse-based and poor quality grass-based diets, respectively. In this study, we test the widespread assumption that browse represents a higher quality food source than grass. We analyzed plants from a South African savanna, collected over one dry and one wet season across several habitat types, for percent nitrogen (%N), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) to compare variations in nutritional value of different food types. Results show consistently higher %N and lower NDF and ADF of tree foliage and forbs compared to monocots, but the former have consistently higher ADL, implying a higher fiber digestibility in grass compared with browse. Some fruit species have a high NDF and ADL content, implying poorer nutritional value than is commonly assumed. Our findings are in agreement with several other studies depicting relatively poor digestibility of browse (tree foliage and fruit) compared to grass. Reference to browse as high quality foods is therefore misleading, and models of herbivory that rest on this assumption require revision. The more efficient fiber digestibility recorded in grazers compared to browsers cannot be treated as an adaptation to poor quality diets, but rather to maximize benefits of higher fiber digestibility of grass. Spatio-seasonal variations in plant nutritional seem to reflect seasonal and spatial diet changes expected for grazers and intermediate (mixed) feeders. We propose that future studies require further detail on variations in diet, diet quality, and digestive efficiency to properly understand mechanisms of adaptation.

Keywords

Browse Diet quality Fiber Grass Protein 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Darryl de Ruiter, Todd Robinson, James Brink, and Norman Owen-Smith for advice and comments on the study; Charles T. Robbins for commenting on an earlier draft of this manuscript; and Marcus Clauss and an anonymous reviewer for thorough efforts that greatly improved the clarity of the paper. We also thank Rina Grant, Angela Gaylard, Abri de Buys, and Wilson Dinda for facilitating and assisting with research in Kruger National Park; the Limpopo Tourism and Parks Board for access to Hans Merensky Nature Reserve; Carl Morrow and Jo Crane for facilitating fiber analyses; John Lanham and Ian Newton for assistance with mass spectrometry; and Nick Zambatis (Kruger Park) and the South African Weather Bureau for climate data. Funding was provided by the Palaeontological Scientific Trust (RSA), the National Research Foundation (RSA), the National Science Foundation (USA), and the University of Cape Town (RSA).

References

  1. Bodenstein V, Meissner HH, van Hoven W (2000) Food selection by Burchell’s zebra and blue wildebeest in the Timbavati area of the Northern Province Lowveld. S Afr J Wildl Res 30:63–72Google Scholar
  2. Bodmer RE (1990) Ungulate frugivores and the browser grazer continuum. Oikos 57:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chesselet P, Wolfson MM, Ellis RP (1992) A comparative histochemical study of plant polyphenols in southern African grasses. J Grassl Soc South Afr 9:119–125Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Streich W (2002) Faecal particle size distribution in captive and wild ruminants: an approach to the browser/grazer dichotomy from the other end. Oecologia 131:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Streich W (2003) Ruminant diversification as an adaptation to the physicomechanical characteristics of forage. A reevaluation of an old debate and a new hypothesis. Oikos 102:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clauss M, Hummel J, Streich W (2006) The dissociation of the fluid and particle phase in the forestomach as a physiological characteristic of large grazing ruminants: an evaluation of available, comparable ruminant passage data. Eur J Wildl Res 52:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Codron D, Codron J, Lee-Thorp JA, Sponheimer M, de Ruiter D, Brink JS (2006) High-resolution dietary variation in impala Aepyceros melampus reorded by carbon isotope composition of feces. Acta Zool Sin (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Cooper SM, Owen-Smith N (1985) Condensed tannins deter feeding by browsing ruminants in a South African savanna. Oecologia 67:142–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demment MW, Van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125:641–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ditchkoff SS (2000) A decade since ‘diversification of ruminants’: has our knowledge improved? Oecologia 125:82–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. du Toit JT (2003) Large herbivores and savanna heterogeneity. In: du Toit JT, Rogers KH, Biggs HC (eds) The Kruger experience. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 292–309Google Scholar
  13. Ellery WN, Scholes RJ, Scholes MC (1995) The distribution of sweetveld and sourveld in South Africa’s grassland biome in relation to environmental factors. Afr J Range Forage Sci 12:38–45Google Scholar
  14. Gagnon M, Chew AE (2000) Dietary preferences in extant African bovidae. J Mammal 81:490–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Georgiadis NJ, McNaughton SJ (1988) Interactions between grazers and a cyanogenic grass, Cynodon plectostachyus. Oikos 51:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon IJ, Illius AW (1994) The functional significance of the browser–grazer dichotomy in African ruminants. Oecologia 98:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hay L, van Hoven W (1988) Tannins and digestibility in the steenbok (Raphicerus campestris). Comp Biochem Physiol 91:509–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofmann RR (1989) Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78:443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofmann RR, Stewart DRM (1972) Grazer or browser: a classification based on the stomach structure and feeding habits of East African ruminants. Mammalia 36:226–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hummel J, Südekum KH, Streich WJ, Clauss M (2006) Forage fermentation patterns and their implications for herbivore ingesta retention times. Funct Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Illius AW (1997) Physiological adaptation in savanna ungulates. Proc Nutr Soc 56:1041–1048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janis CM (1995) Correlations between craniodental morphology and feeding behavior in ungulates: reciprocal illumination between living and fossil taxa. In: Thomason JJ (ed) Functional morphology in vertebrate paleontology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 76–98Google Scholar
  23. Jarman PJ (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–266Google Scholar
  24. Jung HG, Deetz DA (1993) Cell wall lignification and degradability. In: Jung HG, Buxton DR, Hatfield RD, Ralph J (eds) Forage cell wall structure and digestibility. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison WI, p 315Google Scholar
  25. Jung HG, Mertens DR, Payne AJ (1997) Nutrition, feeding, and calves. Correlation of acid detergent lignin and Klason lignin with digestibility of forage dry matter and neutral detergent fiber. J Dairy Sci 80:1622–1628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNaughton SJ, Georgiadis NJ (1986) Ecology of African grazing and browsing mammals. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 17:39–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meissner HH, Pieterse E, Potgieter JHJ (1996) Seasonal food selection by male impala Aepyceros melampus in two habitats. S Afr J Wildl Res 26:56–63Google Scholar
  28. Meissner HH, Zacharias PJK, O’Reagain PJ (1999) Forage quality (feed value). In: Tainton NM (ed) Veld management in South Africa. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, pp 139–168Google Scholar
  29. Milton K, Dintzis FR (1981) Nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors for tropical plant samples. Biotropica 13:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Minson DJ (1990) Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic, San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  31. Molloy L, Hart JA (2002) Duiker food selection: palatability trials using natural foods in the Ituri Forest, Democratic Republic of Congo. Zoo Biol 21:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moore JE, Coleman SW (2001) Forage intake, digestibility, NDF and ADF: how well are they related? In: Terrill TM (ed) Proceedings of the American Forage and Grassland Council Conference, Springdale, AR AFGC, Georgetown, TX, 20 May 2001, pp 238–242Google Scholar
  33. Mould ED, Robbins CT (1982) Digestive capabilities in elk compared to white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 46:22–29Google Scholar
  34. Owen-Smith RN (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
  35. Owen-Smith RN (1988) Megaherbivores—the influence of very large body size on ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Owen-Smith N (1997) Distinctive features of the nutritional ecology of browsing versus grazing ruminants. Z. Säugetierkd-Int J Mamm Biol 62:176–191Google Scholar
  37. Owen-Smith N, Cooper SM (1989) Nutritional ecology of a browsing ruminant, the kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), through the seasonal cycle. J Zool Lond 219:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perez-Barberia FJ, Elston DA, Gordon IJ, Illius AW (2004) The evolution of phylogenetic differences in the efficiency of digestion in ruminants. Proc R Soc Lond 271B:1081–1090Google Scholar
  39. Robbins CT (1993) Wildlife feeding and nutrition, 2nd edn. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Robbins CT, Hanley TA, Hagerman AE, Hjejord O, Baker DL, Schwartz CC, Mautz WW (1987) Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in protein availability. Ecology 68:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robbins CT, Spalinger DE, van Hoven W (1995) Adaptation of ruminants to browse and grass diets: are anatomical-based browser–grazer interpretations valid? Oecologia 103:208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shipley LA, Felicetti L (2002) Fiber digestibility and nitrogen requirements of blue duikers (Cephalophus monticola). Zoo Biol 21:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skinner JD, Smithers RHN (1990) The mammals of the southern African subregion, 2nd edn. University of Pretoria Press, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  44. Sponheimer M, Lee-Thorp JA, de Ruiter D, Smith JM, Van der Merwe NJ, Reed K, Grant CC, Ayliffe LK, Robinson TF, Heidelberger C, Marcus W (2003) Diets of Southern African bovidae: stable isotope evidence. J Mammal 84:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edn. Comstock, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Soest PJ, Wine RH (1967) Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. J Assoc Anal Chem 50:50–55Google Scholar
  47. Van Wieren SE (1996) Browsers and grazers: foraging strategies in ruminants. In: Van Wieren SE (ed) Digestive strategies in ruminants and nonruminants. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp 119–146Google Scholar
  48. van Wyk B, van Wyk P, van Wyk B-E (2000) Photographic guide to trees of southern Africa. Briza Publications, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  49. Venter FJ, Scholes RJ, Eckhardt HC (2003) The abiotic template and its associated vegetation pattern. In: du Toit JT, Rogers KH, Biggs HC (eds) The Kruger experience. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 83–129Google Scholar
  50. Watson LH, Owen-Smith N (2002) Phenological influences on the utilization of woody plants by eland in semi-arid shrubland. Afr J Ecol 40:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wenninger PS, Shipley LA (2000) Harvesting, rumination, digestion, and passage of fruit and leaf diets by a small ruminant, the blue duiker. Oecologia 123:466–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daryl Codron
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Julia A. Lee-Thorp
    • 1
    • 3
  • Matt Sponheimer
    • 4
  • Jacqui Codron
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of Cape TownRondeboschRepublic of South Africa
  2. 2.Florisbad Quaternary Research, National MuseumBloemfonteinRepublic of South Africa
  3. 3.Department of Archaeological SciencesUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK
  4. 4.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations