Does digestion rate affect diet selection ? A study in Octodon degus, a generalist herbivorous rodent

• Autorzy: Bizinovic F. , Torres-Contreras H.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Dietary chemistry and an animal digestive physiology should be considered in any explanation of behavioral patterns of food use, as both influence dietary pre­ference. In the degu Octodon degus (Molina, 1782), a generalist herbivorous rodent inhabiting central Chile, we determine the profitablity of natural food-plant items by measuring digestive characteristics, such as retention time and assimilation rate while also considering the effects of food chemistry. Under our experimental conditions, degus seem to select food based on at least two complementary factors, plant nutri­tional value (water content and the nitrogen:fiber ratio) and digestive function. We found that dry-matter intake was negatively and significantly correlated with mean retention time, that is O. degus ate more food when mean retention time was shorter and vice versa. A higher food intake concomitant with a shorter mean retention time, allow degus to process more food per unit time resulting in a higher assimilation rate than alternative food sources. We conclude that both food quality and the digestive physiology of animals should be considered in explaining the underlying processes of foraging ecology.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

processing; Octodon degus; herbivorous rodent; food intake; food selection; rodent; dietary preference; diet quality

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 1998
• Tom: 43
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.205-212,fig.

Twórcy

autor

Bizinovic F.

• Universidad Catolica de Chile, Casilla 114-D, Santiago, Chile

autor

Torres-Contreras H.

Bibliografia

• Afik D. and Karasov W. H. 1995. The tradeoffs between digestion and efficiency in warblers and their ecological implications. Ecology 76: 2247-2257.
• AOAC. 1980. Official methods of analytical chemist. 13th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washinghton, DC.: 1-899.
• Bjorndal K. A. and Bolten A. B. 1993. Digestive efficiencies in herbivorous and omnivorous freshwater turtles on plant diets: do herbivores have a nutritional advantage? Physiological Zoology 66: 384-395.
• Bozinovic F. 1995. Nutritional energetics and digestive responses of an herbivorous rodent {Octodon degus) to different levels of dietary fiber. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 622-637.
• Bozinovic F. and Martinez del Rio C. 1996. Animals eat what they should not: why do they reject our foraging models? Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 69: 15-20.
• Foley W. J. and Cork S. J. 1992. Use of fibrous diets by small herbivores: how far can the rules be "bent"? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 159-162.
• Kaiser M. J. Westhead A. P., Hughes R. N. and Gibson R. 1992. Are digestive characteristics important contributors to the profitability of prey? A study of diet selection in the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia (L.). Oecologia 90: 61-69.
• Kerley G. Y. H. and Erasmus T. 1991. What do mice select for in seeds? Oecologia 86: 261-267.
• Lagos V. O., Bozinovic F. and Contreras L. C. 1995. Microhabitat use by a diurnal rodent (Octodon degus) in a semiarid environment: thermoregulatory constraints or predation risk? Journal of Mammalogy 76: 900-905.
• Martinez de! Rio C. and Karasov W. H. 1990. Digestion strategies in nectar-and fruit-eating birds and the sugar composition of plant rewards. American Naturalist 136: 618-637.
• Meserve P. L. 1981. Trophic relationship among small mammals in a Chilean semiarid thorn scrub community. Journal of Mammlogy 62: 304-314.
• Milton K. 1979. Factors influencing leaf choice by howler monkeys: a test of some hypotheses of food selection by generalist herbivores. American Naturalist 114: 362-278.
• Palo R. T, and Robbins C. T. 1991. Plant defenses against mammalian herbivo-y. CRC Press, Boca Ratón, Florida: 1-192.
• Penry D. L. 1993. Digestive constraints on diet selection. |In: Diet selection: an interdisciplinary approach to foraging behaviour. R. N. Hughes, ed¡. Blackwell Scientific lublications, Oxford: 32-55.
• Steel R G. D. and Torrie J. H. 1985. Bioestadística: principios y procedimientos. McGraw-Hill, Colombia, Bogotá: 1-622.
• Stephens D. W. and Krebs J. R. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, Princeton: 1-247.
• Torres-Contreras H. and Bozinovic F. 1997. Diet selection in an herbivorous rodent: balancing nutrition with thermoregulation. Ecology 78: 2230-2237.
• Warner A. C. Y. 1981. Rate of pasage of digesta through the gut of mammals atd birds. Nutritional Abstract Review 51B: 789-820.