, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp 510–517 | Cite as

Defining “high quality” food resources of herbivores: the case for meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus)

  • J. M. Bergeron
  • L. Jodoin
Original Papers


Food availability, food utilization patterns and levels of some nutritional factors in plants were studied in 1984–85 in an old-field community supporting low to moderate densities of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Food choice and preference indices were positively related to levels of proteins, and negatively related to levels of total phenolics and ADL fibers in plants. High quality resources for voles were resources that had the highest amount of proteins, and the lowest level of total phenolics and ADL fibers among available plant species. There were only two plants species among the available ones that possessed these characteristics, Festuca rubra and Vicia cracca and they represented 25 to 50% of the available biomass during summer. Vole densities of up to 64 animals/ha were therefore not limited by the availability of high quality resources. Fecal analyses performed on 267 animals in 1984 and 269 voles in 1985 showed that all voles ate high quality resources. Meadow voles appear to choose foods with high protein content and low levels of digestion inhibitors, and not on the basis of caloric content or availability. These observations contradict predictions arising from current antiherbivore hypotheses and lead us to reconsider these models in light of this new evidence.

Key words

Food choice Proteins Total phenolics Preterence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batzli GO (1983) Responses of arctic rodent populations to nutritional factors. Oikos 40:396–406Google Scholar
  2. Belovsky GE (1984) Herbivore optimal foraging: a comparative test for three models. Am Nat 124:97–115Google Scholar
  3. Bergeron JM, Jodoin L (1985) Fiabilité des mesures de poids et d'examens histopathologiques dans les études d'intoxication du campagnol des champs (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Can J Zool 63:804–810Google Scholar
  4. Bergeron JM, Jodoin L, Jean Y (1987) Pathology of voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) fed with plant extracts. J Mammal In pressGoogle Scholar
  5. Boonstra R, Krebs CJ (1979) Viability of large-and small-sized adults in fluctuating vole populations. Ecology 60:567–573Google Scholar
  6. Burns RE (1971) Method for estimation of tannin in grain sorghum. Agron J 63:511–512Google Scholar
  7. Caron L, Garant Y, Bergeron JM (1985) The effect of digestibility values of resources on the reliability of food habit studies from fecal analyses. Can J Zool 63:2183–2186Google Scholar
  8. Cole FR, Batzli GO (1979) Nutrition and population dynamics of the prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster, in central Illinois. J Anim Ecol 48:455–470Google Scholar
  9. Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preferences. Am Nat 100:611–617Google Scholar
  10. Feeny P (1975) Biochemical coevolution between plants and their insect herbivores. In: Gilbert LE, Raven RH (eds) Coevolution of animals and plants. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  11. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defenses. Rec Adv Phytochem 10:1–40Google Scholar
  12. Freeland WJ (1974) Vole cycles: another hypothesis. Am Nat 108:238–245Google Scholar
  13. Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Stategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289Google Scholar
  14. Gartlan JS, McKey DB, Waterman PG, Mbi CN, Struhsaker TT (1980) A comparative study of the phytochemistry of two African rain forests. Biochem Syst Ecol 8:401–422Google Scholar
  15. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture Handbook 379, Department of Agriculture, ARS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg M, Tabroff NR, Tamarin RH (1980) Nutrient variation in beechgrass in relation to beach vole feeding. Ecology 61:1029–1033Google Scholar
  17. Golley FB (1961) Energy values of ecological materias. Ecology 42:581–583Google Scholar
  18. Haukioja E (1980) On the role of plant defenses in the fluctuation of herbivore populations. Oikos 35:202–213Google Scholar
  19. Haukioja E, Hakala T (1975) Herbivore cycles and periodic outbreaks. Formulation of a general hypothesis. Report of the Kevo Subarctic Research Station 12:1–9Google Scholar
  20. Hilborn R, Redfield JA, Krebs CJ (1976) On the reliability of enumeration for mark and recapture census of voles. Can J Zool 54:1019–1024Google Scholar
  21. Horwitz W (ed) (1984) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Hugues RN (1979) Optimal diets under the energy maximization premise: the effects of recognition time and learning. Am Nat 113:209–221Google Scholar
  23. Jung HJG, Batzli GO (1981) Nutritional ecology of microtine rodents: effects of plant extracts on the growth of arctic microtines. J Mammal 62:286–292Google Scholar
  24. Krebs CJ, Keller BL, Tamarin RH (1969) Microtus population biology: demographic changes in fluctuating populations of M. ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in southern Indiana. Ecology 50:587–607Google Scholar
  25. Lacker TE, Willig V, Mares MR (1982) Food preference as a function of resource abundance with multiple prey types: an experimental analysis of optimal foraging theory. Am Nat 120:297–316Google Scholar
  26. Lindroth RL, Batzli GO (1984) Plant phenolics as chemical defenses: effects of natural phenolics on survival and growth of priarie voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Chem Ecol 10:229–244Google Scholar
  27. Lindroth RL, Batzli GO, Guntenspergen GR (1984) Artificial diets for use in nutritional studies with microtine rodents. J Mammal 65:139–143Google Scholar
  28. Lucas JR (1983) The role of foraging time constraints and variable prey encounter in optimal diet choice. Am Nat 122:191–209Google Scholar
  29. McKey DB, Gartlan JS, Waterman PG, Choo GM (1981) Food selection by black colobus monkeys (Colobus satanas) in relation to plant chemistry. Biol J Linn Soc 16:115–146Google Scholar
  30. Milton K (1979) Factors influencing leaf choice by howler monkey: a test of some hypotheses of food selection by generalist herbivores. Am Nat 114:362–378Google Scholar
  31. Milton JS, Tsokos JO (1983) Statistical methods in the biological and health sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Comany, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Neal BR, Pulkinen DA, Owen DB (1973) A comparison of fecal and stomach contents analysis in the meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Can J Zool 51:715–721Google Scholar
  33. Price ML, Van Seoyoc S, Butier LG (1978) A critical evaluation of the Vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in Sorghum grain. J Agron Food Chem 26:1214–1218Google Scholar
  34. Pulliam RH (1975) Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. Am Nat 109:765–768Google Scholar
  35. Pulliam RH (1980) Learning to forage optimally. In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological and physiological approaches, Garland, New York, pp 379–388Google Scholar
  36. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. The Quaterly Review of Biology 52:138–154Google Scholar
  37. Rapport DJ (1971) An optimization model of food selection. Am Nat 105:575–587Google Scholar
  38. Rapport DJ (1980) Optimal foraging for complementary resources. Am Nat 116:324–346Google Scholar
  39. Renzulli CB, Flowers JF, Tamarin RH (1980) The effects of trapping design on demographic estimates in the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Am Nat 104:397–401Google Scholar
  40. Rhoades DF (1979) Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: Their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, New York, pp 3–54Google Scholar
  41. Rhoades DF, Cates RG (1976) Toward a general theory fo plant antiherbivore chemistry. Rec Adv Phytochem 10:168–213Google Scholar
  42. Schlesinger WH (1975) Toxic foods and vole cycles: additional data. Am Nat 110:315–317Google Scholar
  43. Schluter D (1980) Does the theory of optimal diets apply in complex environments. Am Nat 118:139–147Google Scholar
  44. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding stategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404Google Scholar
  45. Singleton VL, Rossi JA Jr (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Viticult 16:144–158Google Scholar
  46. Tamarin RH, Reich LM, Moyer CA (1980) Meadow vole cycle within fences. Can J Zool 62:1796–1804Google Scholar
  47. Voth EV, Black HC (1973) A histological technique for determining feeding habits of small herbivores. J Wildl Manage 37:223–221Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Bergeron
    • 1
  • L. Jodoin
    • 1
  1. 1.Départment de Biologie, Faculté des SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations