The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters
- PMID: 12712314
- DOI: 10.1007/s00442-003-1254-z
The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters
Abstract
An oft-cited nutritional advantage of large body size is that larger animals have lower relative energy requirements and that, due to their increased gastrointestinal tract (GIT) capacity, they achieve longer ingesta passage rates, which allows them to use forage of lower quality. However, the fermentation of plant material cannot be optimized endlessly; there is a time when plant fibre is totally fermented, and another when energy losses due to methanogenic bacteria become punitive. Therefore, very large herbivores would need to evolve adaptations for a comparative acceleration of ingesta passage. To our knowledge, this phenomenon has not been emphasized in the literature to date. We propose that, among the extant herbivores, elephants, with their comparatively fast passage rate and low digestibility coefficients, are indicators of a trend that allowed even larger hindgut fermenting mammals to exist. The limited existing anatomical data on large hindgut fermenters suggests that both a relative shortening of the GIT, an increase in GIT diameter, and a reduced caecum might contribute to relatively faster ingesta passage; however, more anatomical data is needed to verify these hypotheses. The digestive physiology of large foregut fermenters presents a unique problem: ruminant-and nonruminant-forestomachs were designed to delay ingesta passage, and they limit food intake as a side effect. Therefore, with increasing body size and increasing absolute energy requirements, their relative capacity has to increase in order to compensate for this intake limitation. It seems that the foregut fermenting ungulates did not evolve species in which the intake-limiting effect of the foregut could be reduced, e.g. by special bypass structures, and hence this digestive model imposed an intrinsic body size limit. This limit will be lower the more the natural diet enhances the ingesta retention and hence the intake-limiting effect. Therefore, due to the mechanical characteristics of grass, grazing ruminants cannot become as big as the largest browsing ruminant. Ruminants are not absent from the very large body size classes because their digestive physiology offers no particular advantage, but because their digestive physiology itself intrinsically imposes a body size limit. We suggest that the decreasing ability for colonic water absorption in large grazing ruminants and the largest extant foregut fermenter, the hippopotamus, are an indication of this limit, and are the outcome of the competition of organs for the available space within the abdominal cavity. Our hypotheses are supported by the fossil record on extinct ruminant/tylopod species which did not, with the possible exception of the Sivatheriinae, surpass extant species in maximum body size. In contrast to foregut fermentation, the GIT design of hindgut fermenters allows adaptations for relative passage acceleration, which explains why very large extinct mammalian herbivores are thought to have been hindgut fermenters.
Similar articles
-
A case of non-scaling in mammalian physiology? Body size, digestive capacity, food intake, and ingesta passage in mammalian herbivores.Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2007 Oct;148(2):249-65. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.05.024. Epub 2007 Jun 7. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2007. PMID: 17643330 Review.
-
Modelling digestive constraints in non-ruminant and ruminant foregut-fermenting mammals.Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2008 Sep;151(1):78-84. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.06.001. Epub 2008 Jun 10. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2008. PMID: 18586113
-
Intake, ingesta retention, particle size distribution and digestibility in the hippopotamidae.Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2004 Dec;139(4):449-59. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpb.2004.10.002. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2004. PMID: 15596390
-
Modelling the nutritional ecology of ungulate herbivores: evolution of body size and competitive interactions.Oecologia. 1992 Mar;89(3):428-434. doi: 10.1007/BF00317422. Oecologia. 1992. PMID: 28313093
-
Review: Comparative methane production in mammalian herbivores.Animal. 2020 Mar;14(S1):s113-s123. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119003161. Animal. 2020. PMID: 32024568 Review.
Cited by
-
Deep metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses of microbial communities affiliated with an industrial biogas fermenter, a cow rumen, and elephant feces reveal major differences in carbohydrate hydrolysis strategies.Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016 Jun 7;9:121. doi: 10.1186/s13068-016-0534-x. eCollection 2016. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016. PMID: 27279900 Free PMC article.
-
Contrasting selection pressure on body and weapon size in a polygynous megaherbivore.Biol Lett. 2021 Oct;17(10):20210368. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2021.0368. Epub 2021 Oct 6. Biol Lett. 2021. PMID: 34610251 Free PMC article.
-
The spatial distribution of African savannah herbivores: species associations and habitat occupancy in a landscape context.Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Sep 19;371(1703):20150314. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0314. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016. PMID: 27502379 Free PMC article.
-
Trophic rewilding as a climate change mitigation strategy?Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Oct 22;373(1761):20170440. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0440. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018. PMID: 30348867 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Conservation Implications of Shifting Gut Microbiomes in Captive-Reared Endangered Voles Intended for Reintroduction into the Wild.Microorganisms. 2018 Sep 12;6(3):94. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms6030094. Microorganisms. 2018. PMID: 30213049 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources