Skip to main content
Log in

Limits to food intake and fiber utilization in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster: effects of food quality and energy need

  • Published:
Journal of Comparative Physiology B Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We fed prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) rat chow diluted with variable amounts of α-cellulose to determine 1) how much fiber the voles could tolerate in their diet; 2) changes in food intake and digestibility of dry matter and of fiber; 3) the extent to which voles utilized fiber as an energy source; and 4) whether any of these variables differed between groups of animals maintained at 5 or 22°C. Fiber content of the diets ranged from 20 to 84%. Animals held at 5°C maintained body mass through a diet containing 69% fiber, while animals held at 22°C maintained body mass through the 84% fiber diet. Dry matter intake increased with fiber level from 9.3 to 15.0 g·day-1 for animals at 5°C and from 5.6 to 14.0 g·day-1 for animals at 22°C; intake on the highest fiber diet eaten by either group was not different. Dry matter digestibility decreased significantly as the fiber in the diets increased, but was not affected by temperature treatments. Digestible dry matter intake for each group remained constant regardless of diet quality, but on each diet digestible dry matter intake for animals at 5°C was significantly higher than that of the animals held at 22°C. Digestibility of the fiber portion of the experimental diets remained constant as food quality decreased, so the percent of daily energy need met by fiber utilization increased with higher food intake. On the lowest quality diet each group tolerated, fiber digestion provided approximately 42 and 68% of the energy needs of voles at 5 and 22°C, respectively.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BM:

body mass

BMR:

basal metabolic rate

DE:

digestible energy

DM:

dry matter

DMD:

dry matter digestibility

DDMI:

digestible dry matter intake

MR:

metabolic rate

NDF:

neutral detergent fiber (=cell walls)

NDS:

neutral detergent solubles (=cell solubles)

SEM:

standard error of mean

T a :

ambient temperature

References

  • Allen MS, Mertens DR (1988) Evaluating constraints on fiber digestion by rumen microbes. J Nutr 118: 261–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker DL, Hobbs NT (1987) Strategies of digestion: digestive efficiency and retention time of forage diets in montane ungulates. Can J Zool 65: 1978–1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Batzli GO (1985) Nutrition. In: Tamarin RH (ed) Biology of new world Microtus. Am Soc Mammal, pp 779–811

  • Batzli GO, Cole FR (1979) Nutritional ecology of microtine rodents: digestibility of forage. J Mammal 60: 740–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorndal KA, Bolton AB, Moore JE (1990) Digestive fermentation in herbivores: effect of food particle size. Physiol Zool 63: 710–721

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjornhag G (1972) Separation and delay of contents in the rabbit colon. Swed J Agricult Res 2: 125–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilcott MJ, Hume ID (1985) Coprophagy and selective retention of fluid digesta: their role in the nutrition of the ringtail possum, Pseudocheirus peregrinus. Aust J Zool 33: 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Demment MW, Van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminants and noruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125: 641–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley WJ, Cork SJ (1992) Use of fibrous diets by small herbivores: how far can the rules be ‘bent’? Trends Ecol Evol 7: 159–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryxell JM (1991) Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. Am Nat 138: 478–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Green DA, Millar SJ (1987) Changes in gut dimensions and capacity of Peromyscus maniculatus relative to diet quality and energy needs. Can J Zool 65: 2159–2162

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross JE, Wang Z, Wunder BA (1985) Effects of food quality and energy needs: changes in gut morphology and capacity of Microtus ochrogaster. J Mammal 664: 661–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond KA (1989) The role of diet quality and energy need in the nutritional ecology of a small herbivore. Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond KA, Wunder BA (1991) The role of diet quality and energy need in the nutritional ecology of a small herbivore, Microtus ochrogaster. Physiol Zool 64: 541–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond KA, Diamond JM (1992) An experimental test for a ceiling on sustained metabolic rate in lactating mice. Physiol Zool 65: 952–977

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtenius K, Bjornhag G (1985) The colonic separation mechanism in the guinea-pig (Cavia porcellus) and the chinchilla (Chinchilla laniger). Comp Biochem Physiol 82A: 537–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoover WH, Clark SD (1972) Fiber digestion in the beaver. J Nutr 102: 9–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoover WH, Heitmann RN (1972) Effects of dietary fiber levels on weight gain, cecal volume and volatile fatty acid production in rabbits. J Nutr 102: 375–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnicke H, Bjornhag G (1980) Coprophagy and related strategies for digesta utilization. In: Ruckenbush Y, Thivend P (eds) Digestive physiology and metabolism in ruminants. MTP Press, Lancaster, pp 707–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume ID, Morgan KR, Kenagy GJ (1993) Digesta retention and digestive performance in Sciurid and Microtine rodents: effects of hindgut morphology and body size. Physiol Zool 66: 396–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis C (1976) The evolutionary strategy of the Equidae and the origins of rumen and cecal digestion. Evolution 30: 757–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice KE, Smith FA (1992) A model of dietary fiber utilization by small mammalian herbivores, with empirical results for Neotoma. Am Nat 139: 398–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenagy GJ, Hoyt DF (1980) Reingestion of faeces in rodents and its daily rhythmicity. Oecologia 44: 403–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys JE, Van Soest (1970) Digestibility of forages by the meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Dairy Sci 53: 1502–1508

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber M (1961) The fire of life. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee WB, Houston DC (1993) The effect of diet quality on gut anatomy in British voles (Microtinae). J Comp Physiol B 163: 337–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeb SC, Sehwab RG, Demment MW (1991) Responses of pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) to changes in diet quality. Oecologia 86: 542–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken GA, Johnson DE (1984) Analysis of messy data. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery MJ, Baumgardt BR (1965a) Regulation of food intake in ruminants. 1. Pelleted rations varying in energy concentration. J Dairy Sci 48: 569–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery MJ, Baumgardt BR (1965b) Regulation of food intake in ruminants. 2. Rations varying in energy concentration and physical form. J Dairy Sci 48: 1623–1628

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy TR, Negus NC (1993) Energy acquisition and allocation in male collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus): effects of photoperiod, temperature, and diet quality. Physiol Zool 66: 537–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Parra R (1978) Comparison of foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In: Montgomery GG (ed) The ecology of arboreal folivores. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp 205–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Penry DL, Jumars PA (1987) Modeling animal guts as chemical reactors. Am Nat 129: 69–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins CT (1983) Wildlife feeding and nutrition. Academic Press, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Robles AY, Belyea FA, Martz FA, Weiss MF (1980) Effect of particle size upon digestible cell wall and rate of in vitro digestion of alfalfa and orchard-grass forages. J Anim Sci 51: 783–790

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakaguchi E, Kaizu K, Nakamichi M (1992) Fibre digestion and digesta retention from different physical forms of the feed in the rabbit. Comp Biochem Physiol 102A: 559–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Short HL, Blair RM, Segelquist CA (1974) Fiber composition and forage digestibility by small ruminants. J Wildl Manage 38: 197–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibly RM (1981) Strategies of digestion and defecation. In: Townsend CR, Calow PA (eds) Physiological ecology: an evolutionary approach to resource use. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 109–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Toloza EM, Lam M, Diamond JM (1991) Nutrient extraction by cold-exposed mice: a test of digestive safety margins. Am J Physiol 261: G608–G620

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Soest PJ (1982) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O & B Books, Corvallis

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston RH, Poppi DP (1987) Comparative aspects of food intake. In: Hacker JB, Ternouth JH (eds) The nutrition of herbivores. Academic Press, Sydney, pp 133–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodall PF (1989) The effects of increased dietary cellulose on the anatomy physiology, and behavior of captive water voles, Arvicola terrestris L. (Rodentia: Microtinae). Comp Biochem Physiol 94A: 615–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder BA (1985) Energetics and thermoregulation. In: Tamarin RH (ed) Biology of New World Microtus. Am Soc Mammal, pp 812–844

  • Yahav S, Choshniak I (1990) Response of the digestive tract to low quality dry food in the fat jird Meriones crassus and the levant vole Microtus guentheri. J Arid Environ 19: 209–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang MG, Manoharan K, Young AK (1969) Influence and degradation of dietary cellulose in cecum of rats. J Nutr 97: 260–264

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Castle, K.T., Wunder, B.A. Limits to food intake and fiber utilization in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster: effects of food quality and energy need. J Comp Physiol B 164, 609–617 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389801

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389801

Key words

Navigation