Advertisement

The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing II

  • Iain J. GordonEmail author
  • Herbert H. T. Prins
Chapter
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 239)

Abstract

Globally, many terrestrial ecosystems have been and are being heavily influenced by human activity, both directly and indirectly. Humanity and our domestic animals (1.4 billion cattle, 1.2 billion sheep and 0.5 billion goats, but only some 120 million horses and 13 million camels; Encyclopedia.com) have now so much impact on global ecosystems that we have entered the Anthropocene (Lewis and Maslin 2015). Wild ruminants number at least 75 million (Hackmann and Spain 2010), and are native to all continents except Antarctica. In such ecosystems extensive grazing and browsing by domestic and wild large mammalian herbivores (hereafter called large herbivores) and, in places, burning have shaped vegetation composition, structure and dynamics. Through their grazing, browsing, trampling and defecation large herbivores not only shape the structure and distribution of the vegetation but also affect nutrient flows and the responses of associated fauna. Consequently, it is the interactions between management or population dynamics of large herbivores and the vegetation they consume that shape the biodiversity, structure and dynamics of these ecosystems, covering vast parts of the globe. Therefore, a knowledge of the determinants of the distribution, movements and activities of herbivores, and how these interact with vegetation composition and dynamics, is required in order to predict the broader impact of these animals, now and into the future.

References

  1. Caughley G, Krebs CJ (1983) Are big mammals simply little mammals writ large? Oecologia 59:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gordon IJ, Prins HHT (eds) (2008) The ecology of grazing and browsing. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Hackmann TJ, Spain JN (2010) Invited review: ruminant ecology and evolution: perspectives useful to ruminant livestock research and production. J Dairy Sci 93:1320–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hansen DM (2015) Non-native megaherbivores: the case for novel function to manage plant invasions on islands. AoB Plants 7:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mallon JC, Anderson JS (2015) Jaw mechanics and evolutionary paleoecology of the megaherbivorous dinosaurs from the Dinosaur Park formation (upper Campanian) of Alberta, Canada. J Vertebr Paleontol 35:e904323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Martin PS (1966) Africa and Pleistocene overkill. Nature 212:339–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Martin PS (1967) Prehistoric overkill. In: Martin PS, Wright HE (eds) Pleistocene extinctions. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  9. Owen-Smith RN (1988) Megaherbivores: the influence of very large body size on ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.James Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Animal Sciences GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations