Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Batzli GO (1983) Responses of arctic rodent populations to nutritional factors. Oikos 40:396–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1984) Herbivore optimal foraging: a comparative test for three models. Am Nat 124:97–115

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 63:804–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergeron JM, Jodoin L, Jean Y (1987) Pathology of voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) fed with plant extracts. J Mammal In press

  • Boonstra R, Krebs CJ (1979) Viability of large-and small-sized adults in fluctuating vole populations. Ecology 60:567–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns RE (1971) Method for estimation of tannin in grain sorghum. Agron J 63:511–512

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 63:2183–2186

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole FR, Batzli GO (1979) Nutrition and population dynamics of the prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster, in central Illinois. J Anim Ecol 48:455–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preferences. Am Nat 100:611–617

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defenses. Rec Adv Phytochem 10:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeland WJ (1974) Vole cycles: another hypothesis. Am Nat 108:238–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Stategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:401–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture Handbook 379, Department of Agriculture, ARS, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg M, Tabroff NR, Tamarin RH (1980) Nutrient variation in beechgrass in relation to beach vole feeding. Ecology 61:1029–1033

    Google Scholar 

  • Golley FB (1961) Energy values of ecological materias. Ecology 42:581–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Haukioja E (1980) On the role of plant defenses in the fluctuation of herbivore populations. Oikos 35:202–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Haukioja E, Hakala T (1975) Herbivore cycles and periodic outbreaks. Formulation of a general hypothesis. Report of the Kevo Subarctic Research Station 12:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilborn R, Redfield JA, Krebs CJ (1976) On the reliability of enumeration for mark and recapture census of voles. Can J Zool 54:1019–1024

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz W (ed) (1984) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugues RN (1979) Optimal diets under the energy maximization premise: the effects of recognition time and learning. Am Nat 113:209–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung HJG, Batzli GO (1981) Nutritional ecology of microtine rodents: effects of plant extracts on the growth of arctic microtines. J Mammal 62:286–292

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 50:587–607

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 120:297–316

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:229–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth RL, Batzli GO, Guntenspergen GR (1984) Artificial diets for use in nutritional studies with microtine rodents. J Mammal 65:139–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas JR (1983) The role of foraging time constraints and variable prey encounter in optimal diet choice. Am Nat 122:191–209

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:115–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Milton K (1979) Factors influencing leaf choice by howler monkey: a test of some hypotheses of food selection by generalist herbivores. Am Nat 114:362–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Milton JS, Tsokos JO (1983) Statistical methods in the biological and health sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Comany, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal BR, Pulkinen DA, Owen DB (1973) A comparison of fecal and stomach contents analysis in the meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Can J Zool 51:715–721

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:1214–1218

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam RH (1975) Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. Am Nat 109:765–768

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam RH (1980) Learning to forage optimally. In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological and physiological approaches, Garland, New York, pp 379–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. The Quaterly Review of Biology 52:138–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport DJ (1971) An optimization model of food selection. Am Nat 105:575–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport DJ (1980) Optimal foraging for complementary resources. Am Nat 116:324–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli CB, Flowers JF, Tamarin RH (1980) The effects of trapping design on demographic estimates in the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Am Nat 104:397–401

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 3–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades DF, Cates RG (1976) Toward a general theory fo plant antiherbivore chemistry. Rec Adv Phytochem 10:168–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger WH (1975) Toxic foods and vole cycles: additional data. Am Nat 110:315–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Schluter D (1980) Does the theory of optimal diets apply in complex environments. Am Nat 118:139–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding stategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton VL, Rossi JA Jr (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Viticult 16:144–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamarin RH, Reich LM, Moyer CA (1980) Meadow vole cycle within fences. Can J Zool 62:1796–1804

    Google Scholar 

  • Voth EV, Black HC (1973) A histological technique for determining feeding habits of small herbivores. J Wildl Manage 37:223–221

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Départment de Biologie, Faculté des Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    J. M. Bergeron & L. Jodoin

Authors
  1. J. M. Bergeron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Jodoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergeron, J.M., Jodoin, L. Defining “high quality” food resources of herbivores: the case for meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Oecologia 71, 510–517 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379289

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379289

Key words

Search

Navigation