Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 1267–1278 | Cite as

Resource Availability and Quality Influence Patterns of Diet Mixing by Sheep

  • Ryan A. Shaw
  • Juan J. Villalba
  • Fredrick D. Provenza
Article

Abstract

In grazing systems, forage availability is a function of herbivore density, which can influence an animal's ability to be selective. In turn, the influence of food availability on selectivity has the potential to influence plant biodiversity. We hypothesized that the ability of herbivores to mix toxin-containing foods in their diets is a function of the availability of nontoxic foods and the nutritional characteristics of the toxin-containing foods. We evaluated this hypothesis in two trials simulating different diet qualities (high-quality foods in trial 1, low-quality foods in trial 2). Within each trial, the four treatment groups were offered with different amounts of nutritious, familiar foods—10, 30, 50, and 70% of ad libitum intake—but were offered with ad libitum access to toxin-containing foods. Each lamb was presented with five foods, including three toxin-containing unfamiliar foods (terpenes, tannins, and oxalates) and two nutritious familiar foods (alfalfa and barley). In trial 1, as the availability of nutritious familiar foods decreased, animals ate more of all three toxin-containing foods. As the availability of nutritious alternatives increased, the pattern of selection shifted from terpenes to tannins and oxalates. In trial 2, animals also ate more toxins as the availability of nutritious alternatives decreased, but their pattern of diet mixing changed. Low availability of nutritious alternatives resulted in the animals eating more oxalates. During preference tests when all five foods were offered ad libitum, animals fed with 10, 30, 50, and 70% of ad libitum intake from trial 1 ate 49, 47, 41, and 38% of the three toxin-containing foods, respectively. The lower diet quality in trial 2 affected intake of the toxin-containing foods such that animals fed with 10, 30, 50, and 70% of ad libitum intake ate 37, 36, 29, and 27%, respectively, of the three toxin-containing foods. Thus, the quality of toxin-containing foods and the availability of nutritious alternatives interacted to modify the pattern of diet mixing by lambs.

Keywords

Toxins Biodiversity Foraging Behavior Sheep Diet mixing 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baraza, E., Villalba, J. J., and Provenza, F. D. 2004. Nutritional context influences preferences of lambs for foods with different plant secondary metabolites. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92:293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belovsky, G. E. and Schmitz, O. J. 1991. Mammalian herbivore foraging and the role of plant defenses, pp. 1–28, in R. T. Palo and C. T. Robbins (eds.). Plant Defenses against Mammalian Herbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  4. Belovsky, G. E., Fryxell, J., and Schmitz, O. J. 1999. Natural selection and herbivore nutrition: optimal foraging theory and what it tells us about the structure of ecological communities, pp. 1–70, in H. G. Jung and G. C. Fahey Jr. (eds.). Nutritional Ecology of Herbivores. Proc. V Int. Symp. Nutr. Herb. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. Savoy, IL.Google Scholar
  5. Burritt, E. A. and Provenza, F. D. 2000. Role of toxins in intake of varied diets by sheep. J. Chem. Ecol. 26:1991–2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheeke, P. and Schull, L. R. 1985. Natural Toxicants in Feeds and Poisonous Plants. Avi Publishing Co, Connecticut, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, J. M. and Stamps, J. A. 2004. The effects of natural experience on habitat preferences. TREE 19(8):411–416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dearing, M. D. and Cook, S. 1999. Role of detoxification of plant secondary compounds on diet breadth in a mammalian herbivore, Trichosurus vulpecula. J. Chem. Ecol. 25:1205–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Distel, R. A. and Provenza, F. D. 1991. Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of blackbrush by goats. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dziba, L. E., Hall, J. O., and Provenza, F. D. 2006. Feeding behavior of lambs in relation to kinetics of 1,8-cineole dosed intravenously and into the rumen. J. Chem. Ecol. (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Duffy, A. M., Clobert, J., and Moller, A. P. 2002. Hormones, developmental plasticity and adaptation. TREE 17:190–194.Google Scholar
  12. Foley, W. J., Iason, G. R., and McArthur, C. 1999. Role of plant secondary metabolites in the nutritional ecology of mammalian herbivores: how far have we come in 25 years? pp. 130–209, in H. G. Jung and G. C. Fahey Jr. (eds.). Nutritional Ecology of Herbivores. Proc. V Int. Symp. Nutr. Herb. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci., Illinois.Google Scholar
  13. Freeland, W. J. and Janzen, D. H. 1974. Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am. Nat. 108:269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green, G. C., Elwin, R. L., Mottershead, B. E., and Lynch, J. J. 1984. Long-term effects of early experience to supplementary feeding in sheep. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 15:373–375.Google Scholar
  15. Hanley, T. A. 1997. A nutritional view of understanding and complexity in the problem of diet selection by deer (Cervidae). Oikos 79:209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Illius, A. W. and Jessop, N. S. 1995. Modeling metabolic costs of allelochemical ingestion by foraging herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 21:693–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Illius, A. W. and Jessop, N. S. 1996. Metabolic constraints on voluntary intake in ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 74:3052–3062.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Illius, A. W., Gordon, I. J., Elston, D. A., and Milne, J. D. 1999. Diet selection in goats: a test of intake-rate maximization. Ecology 80:1008–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. A., and Wolfingerr, R. D. 1996. Statistical Analysis Systems for Mixed Models. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  20. Marsh, K. J., Wallis, I. R., and. Foley, W. J. 2005. Detoxification rates constrain feeding in common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). Ecology 86:2946–2954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCormick, J. A., Lyons, V., Jacobsen, M. D., Noble, J., Dorrio, J., Nyirenda, M., Weaver, S., Ester, W., Yua, J. L., Meaney, M. J., Seckl, J. R., and Chapman, K. E. 2000. 5′-Heterogeneity of glucocorticoid receptor messenger RNA is tissue specific: differential regulation of variant transcripts by early life events. Mol. Endocrinol. 14:506–517.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McNamara, J. M. and Houston, A. I. 1987. Partial preferences and foraging. Anim. Behav. 35:1084–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NRC 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep (6th ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Palo, R. T. and Robbins, C. T. 1991. Plant Defenses against Mammalian Herbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  25. Piersma, T. and Lindstrom, A. 1997. Rapid reversible changes in organ size as a component of adaptive behaviour. TREE 12:134–138.Google Scholar
  26. Provenza, F. D., Villalba, J. J., and Bryant, J. P. 2003a. Foraging by herbivores: linking the biochemical diversity of plants with herbivore culture and landscape diversity, pp. 387–421, in J. A. Bissonette and I. Storch (eds.). Landscape Ecology and Resource Management: Making the Match. Island Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Provenza, F. D., Villalba, J. J., Dziba, L. E., Atwood, S. B., and Banner, R. E. 2003b. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small Rumin. Res. 49:257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robbins, C. T., Hanley, T. A., Hagerman, A. E., Hjeljord, O., Baker, D. L., Schwartz, C. C., and Mautz, W. W. 1987a. Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in protein availability. Ecology 68:98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robbins, C. T., Mole, S., Hagerman, A. E., and Hanley, T. A. 1987b. Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in dry matter digestion. Ecology 68:1606–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robbins, C. T., Hagerman, A. E., Austin, P. J., McArthur, C., and Hanley, T. A. 1991. Variation in mammalian physiological responses to a condensed tannin and its ecological implications. J. Mammal. 72:480–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schlichting, C. D. and Pigliucci, M. 1998. Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective. Sinauer Publication, Sinauer, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, K. S., Brown, J. S., and Morgan, R. A. 1998. Plant defenses as complementary resources: a test with squirrels. Oikos 81:130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephens, D. W. and Krebs, J. R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  35. Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Banner, R. E. 2002a. Influence of macronutrients and polyethylene glycol on intake of a quebracho tannin diet by sheep and goats. J. Anim. Sci. 80:3154–3164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Bryant, J. P. 2002b. Consequences of nutrient–toxin interactions for herbivore selectivity: benefits or detriments for plants? Oikos 97:282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Han, G. 2004. Experience influences diet mixing by herbivores: Implications for plant biochemical diversity. Oikos 107:100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westoby, M. 1978. What are the biological bases of varied diets? Am. Nat. 112:627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiedmeier, R. D., Provenza, F. D., and Burritt, E. A. 2002. Performance of mature beef cows wintered on low-quality forages is affected by short-term exposure to the forages as suckling heifer calves. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2340–2348.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan A. Shaw
    • 1
  • Juan J. Villalba
    • 1
  • Fredrick D. Provenza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest, Range and Wildlife SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations