Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 123–138 | Cite as

FORAGING IN CHEMICALLY DIVERSE ENVIRONMENTS: ENERGY, PROTEIN, AND ALTERNATIVE FOODS INFLUENCE INGESTION OF PLANT SECONDARY METABOLITES BY LAMBS

Article

Abstract

Interactions among nutrients and plant secondary metabolites (PSM) may influence how herbivores mix their diets and use food resources. We determined intake of a food containing a mix of terpenoids identified in sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) when present in isoenergetic diets of increasing concentrations of protein (6, 9, 15, or 21% CP) or in isonitrogenous diets of increasing concentrations of energy (2.17, 2.55, 3.30, or 3.53 Mcal/kg). Lambs were offered choices between those diets with or without terpenes or between diets with terpenes and alfalfa hay. Intake of the diets with terpenes was lowest with the lowest concentrations of protein (6%) and energy (2.17 Mcal/kg) in the diets, and highest with diets of 15% CP and 3.53~Mcal/kg. In contrast, when terpenes were absent from the diets, lambs consumed similar amounts of all four diets with different concentrations of protein, and more of the diets with intermediate amounts of energy. When given a choice between the diet with or without terpenes, lambs preferred the diet without terpenes. When lambs were offered choices between terpene-containing diets and alfalfa, energy and protein concentrations influenced the amount of terpenes animals ingested. Energy densities higher than alfalfa, and protein concentrations higher than 6%, increased intake of the terpene-containing diet. Thus, the nutritional environment interacted with terpenes to influence preference such that lambs offered diets of higher energy or protein concentration ate more terpenes when forced, but not when offered alternative food without terpenes. The nutrients supplied by a plant and its neighbors likely influence how much PSM an animal can ingest, which in turn may affect the dynamics of plant communities, and the distribution of herbivores in a landscape. We discuss implications of these findings for traditional views of grazing refuges and varied diets in herbivores.

Key Words

Terpenes refuges nutrient–toxin interactions choice preference foraging energy protein sagebrush 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoac. (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 1975. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 12th ed. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Atsatt, P. R. and O’Dowd, D. J. 1976. Plant defense guilds. Science 193:24–29.Google Scholar
  3. Augner, M. 1995. Low nutritive quality as a plant defense: Effects of herbivore mediated interactions. Evol. Ecol. 9:605–616.Google Scholar
  4. Banner, R. E., Rogosic, J., Burritt, E. A., and Provenza, F. D. 2000. Supplemental barley and activated charcoal increase intake of sagebrush by lambs. J. Range Manag. 53:415–420.Google Scholar
  5. Baraza, E., Villalba, J. J., and Provenza, F. D. 2005. Nutritional context influences preferences of lambs for foods with plant secondary metabolites. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.Google Scholar
  6. Belovsky, G. E. and Schmitz, O. J. 1991. Mammalian herbivore optimal foraging and the role of plant defenses, pp. 1–28, R. T. Palo and C. T. Robbins (eds.). Plant Defenses Against Mammalian Herbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Behmer, S. T., Simpson, S. J., and Raubenheimer, D. 2002. Herbivore foraging in chemically heterogeneous environments: Nutrients and secondary metabolites. Ecology 83:2489–2501.Google Scholar
  8. Berec, L. and Krivan, V. 2000. A mechanistic model for partial preferences. Theor. Pop. Biol. 58:279–289.Google Scholar
  9. Bray, R. O., Wambolt, C. L., and Kelsey, R. G. 1991. Influence of sagebrush terpenoids on mule deer preference. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:2053–2062.Google Scholar
  10. Cheeke, P. and Shull, L. R. 1985. Natural Toxicants in Feeds and Poisonous Plants. Avi Publishing Co. CT, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Connolly, G. E., Ellison, B. O., Fleming, J. W., G eng, S., Kepner, R. E., Longhurst, W. M., Oh, J. H., and Russell, G. F. 1980. Deer browsing of Douglas-fir trees in relation to volatile terpene composition and in vitro fermentability. Forest Sci. 26:179–193.Google Scholar
  12. Crouch, G. L. and Radwan, M. A. 1981. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on deer browsing and growth of young Douglas-fir. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-368, 15 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Station., Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Dearing, M. D., Mangione, A. M., and Karasov, W. H. 2000. Diet breadth of mammalian herbivores: Nutrient versus detoxification constraints. Oecologia 123:397–405.Google Scholar
  14. Engel, C. 2002. Wild Health: How Animals Keep Themselves Well and What We Can Learn from Them. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Foley, W. J., Mclean, S., and Cork, S. J. 1995. Consequences of biotransformation of plant secondary metabolites on acid–base metabolism in mammals–A final common pathway? J. Chem. Ecol. 21:721–743.Google Scholar
  16. Forbes, J. M. 1995. Voluntary Food Intake and Diet Selection in Farm Animals. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Freeland, W. J. and Janzen, D. H. 1974. Strategies in herbivory by mammals: The role of plant secondary compounds. Am. Nat. 108:269–289.Google Scholar
  18. Garcia, J. 1989. Food for Tolman: Cognition and cathexis in concert, pp. 45–85, T. Archer and L. Nilsson (eds.). Aversion, Avoidance and Anxiety. Erlbaum, Hillside, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Harper, A. E. 1974. Amino acid excess, P. L. White and D. C. Fletcher (eds.). Nutrients in Processed Foods—Proteins. Acton, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Haukioja, E., Ruohomaki, K., Suomela, J., and Vuorisalo, T. 1991. Nutritional quality as a defense against herbivores. Forest Ecol. Manag. 39:237–245.Google Scholar
  21. Hay, M. E. 1986. Associational plant defenses and the maintenance of species diversity: Turning competitors into accomplices. Am. Nat. 128:617–641.Google Scholar
  22. Hjalten, J., Dannell, K., and Lundberg, P. 1993. Herbivore avoidance by association: Vole and hare utilization of woody plants. Oikos 68:125–131.Google Scholar
  23. Hobbs, N. T. 1996. Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J. Wild. Manag. 60:695–713.Google Scholar
  24. Illius, A. W. and Jessop N. S. 1995. Modeling metabolic costs of allelochemical ingestion by foraging herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 21:693–719.Google Scholar
  25. Illius, A. W. and Jessop, N. S. 1996. Metabolic constraints on voluntary intake in ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 74:3052–3062.Google Scholar
  26. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. A., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. Statistical Analysis Systems for Mixed Models. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  27. Mcnamara, J. M. and Houston, A. I. 1987. Partial preferences and foraging. Anim. Behav. 35:1084–1099.Google Scholar
  28. Milchunas, D. G. and Noy-meir, I. 2002. Grazing refuges, external avoidance of herbivory and plant diversity. Oikos 99:113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nrc. 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, 6th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  30. Oh, J. H., Jones, M. B., Longhurst, W. M., and Connolly, G. E. 1970. Deer browsing and rumen microbial fermentation of Douglas-fir as affected by fertilization and growth stage. Forest Sci. 16:21–27.Google Scholar
  31. Owens, F. N. 1988. Protein metabolism of ruminant animals. pp. 227–249. D. C. Church (ed.). The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  32. Personius, T. L., Wambolt, C. L., Stephens, J. R., and Kelsey, R. G. 1987. Crude terpenoid influence on mule deer preference for sagebrush. J. Range Manag. 40:84–88.Google Scholar
  33. Pfister, C. A. and Hay, M. E. 1988. Associational plant refuges: convergent patterns in marine and terrestrial communities result from differing mechanisms. Oecologia 77:118–129.Google Scholar
  34. Provenza, F. D. 1996. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on rangelands. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2010–2020.Google Scholar
  35. Provenza, F. D., Villalba, J. J., and Bryant, J. P. 2003. Foraging by herbivores: Linking the biochemical diversity of plants to herbivore culture and landscape diversity, pp. 387–421, J. A. Bissonette and I. Storch (eds.). Landscape Ecology and Resource Management: Linking Theory with Practice. Island Press, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Raubenheimer, D. 1992. Tannic acid, protein and digestible carbohydrates: Dietary imbalances and nutritional compensation in locusts. Ecology 73:1012–1027.Google Scholar
  37. Rhoades, D. F. 1979. Evolution of chemical defense against herbivores, pp. 3–54, G. A. Rosenthal and D. H. Janzen (eds.). Herbivores: Their Interaction with Secondary Plant Metabolites. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, S. J. and Raubenheimer, D. 2001. The geometric analysis of nutrient–allelochemical interactions: A case study using locusts. Ecology 82:422–439.Google Scholar
  39. Singer, M. S., Bernays, E. A., and Carriere, Y. 2002. The interplay between nutrient balancing and toxin dilution in foraging by a generalist insect herbivore. Anim. Behav. 64:629–643.Google Scholar
  40. Tuomi, J. and Augner, M. 1993. Synergistic selection of unpalatability in plants. Evolution 47:668–672.Google Scholar
  41. Villalba, J. J. and Provenza, F. D. 1999. Nutrient-specific preferences by lambs conditioned with intraruminal infusions of starch, casein, and water. J. Anim. Sci. 77:378–387.Google Scholar
  42. Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Bryant, J. P. 2002a. Consequences of the interaction between nutrients and plant secondary metabolites on herbivore selectivity: Benefits or detriments for plants? Oikos 97:282–292.Google Scholar
  43. Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Banner, R. E. 2002b. Influence of macronutrients and activated charcoal on intake of sagebrush by sheep and goats. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2099–2109.Google Scholar
  44. Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Banner, R. E. 2002c. Influence of macronutrients and polyethylene glycol on intake of a quebracho tannin diet by sheep and goats. J. Anim. Sci. 80:3154–3164.Google Scholar
  45. Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Goudong, H. 2004. Experience influences diet mixing by herbivores: Implications for plant biochemical diversity. Oikos. 107:100–109.Google Scholar
  46. Wang, J. and Provenza, F. D. 1996. Food deprivation affects preference of sheep for foods varying in nutrients and a toxin. J. Chem. Ecol. 22:2011–2021.Google Scholar
  47. Westoby, M. 1978. What are the biological bases of varied diets? Am. Nat. 112:627–631.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest, Range and Wildlife Sciences Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations