Body and Digestive Tract Sizes in Small Phytophagous Mammals: Influence of Ecological and Physiological Factors

E. I. Naumova; Наумова Е. И.; T. Yu. Chistova; Чистова Т. Ю.; G. K. Zharova; Жарова Г. К.

doi:10.31857/S1026347022600832

Body and Digestive Tract Sizes in Small Phytophagous Mammals: Influence of Ecological and Physiological Factors

Autores: Naumova E.I.¹, Chistova T.Y.¹, Zharova G.K.¹
Afiliações:
1. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences
Edição: Nº 3 (2023)
Páginas: 297-307
Seção: ФИЗИОЛОГИЯ ЖИВОТНЫХ И ЧЕЛОВЕКА
URL: https://ogarev-online.ru/1026-3470/article/view/135526
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S1026347022600832
EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MJZEFJ
ID: 135526

Citar

Resumo

The question of the size ratio of the body and the digestive tract (DT) in small phytophagous mammals is considered on the example of gerbils (Gerbillidae), a group of rodents that is exceptionally convenient for studying such relationships due to significant differences in body weight and morphological homogeneity of the DT. We analyzed the weight ratios of body size and DT, wet weight of contents and tissues of DT in 6 species of gerbils with a 10-fold body weight range (average 18 to 175 g) coexisting in the Negev desert – Psammomys obesus, Meriones crassus, Gerbillus pyramidum, Gerbillus allenbyi, Gerbillus dasyurus Gerbillus henleyi. In a number of studied species of small mammals weighing less than 0.5 kg, no linear relationship was found between body size and DT. The allometry of the considered indicators is mainly due to environmental and physiological factors.

Palavras-chave

small phytophagous mammals, digestive tract, body weight, allometry, gerbils

Bibliografia

Варшавский Ал.А., Наумова Е.И., Жарова Г.К., Чистова Т.Ю., Варшавский Ан.А. Взаимосвязь размеров тела и органов пищеварительного тракта у некоторых Myomorpha: изометрия, или аллометрия? // Изв. РАН. Сер. биол. 2017. № 4. С. 534–540.
Наумова Е.И., Чистoва Т.Ю., Варшавский А.А., Жарова Г.К. Функциональная диверсификация морфологически сходных органов пищеварительного тракта у представителей Muroidea // Изв. РАН. Сер биол. 2021. № 3. С. 270–279.
Bell R.H.V. A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti // Sci. Amer. 1971. V. 225. № 1. P. 86–93.
Calder W.A. Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. MA. 1984. 431 p.
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. Comparative Physiology B. 1995. V. 164. № 8. P. 609–617.
Clauss M., Hummel J. The digestive performance of mammalian herbivores: why big may not be that much better // Mammal Rev. 2005. V. 35. № 2. P. 174–187.
Clauss M., Schwarm A., Ortmann S., Streich W.J., Hummel J. A case of non-scaling in mammalian physiology? Body size, digestive capacity, food intake, and ingesta passage in mammalian herbivores // Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A. 2007. V. 148. № 2. P. 249–265.
Clauss M., Steuer P., Müller D.W.H, Codron D., Hummel J. Herbivory and body size: Allometries of diet quality and gastrointestinal physiology, and implications for herbivore ecology and dinosaur gigantism // PLoS ONE. 2013. V. 8(10): e68714.
Degen A.A., Khokhlova I.S., Kam M., Nagy K.A. Body size, granivory and seasonal dietary shifts in desert gerbilline rodents. Funct. Ecology. 1997. V. 11. P. 53–59.
Degen A.A., Kam M., Khokhlova I.S., Krasnov B.R., Barraclough T.G. Average daily metabolic rate of rodents: habitat and dietary comparisons // Funct. Ecol. 1998.V. 12. P. 63–73.
Degen A.A., Kam M., Khokhlova I.S. Fiber digestion and energy utilization of fat sand rats (Psammomys obesus) consuming the chenopod Anabasis articulate // Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2000. V. 73. № 5. P. 574–580.
Demment M.W. The scaling of ruminoreticulum size with body weight in East African ungulates // Afr. J. Ecol. 1982. V. 20. № 1. P. 43–47.
Demment M.W., Van Soest P.J. A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores // Amer. Natur. 1985. V. 125. № 5. P. 641–672.
Foley W.J., Cork S.G. Use of fibrous diets by small herbivores: how far the rule be “bent”? // Trends Ecol. Evol. 1992. V. 7. № 5. P. 159–162.
Gross J.E., Wang Z., Wunder B.A. Effect of food quality and energy needs: changes in gut morphology and capacity of Microtus ochrogaster // J. Mammal. 1985. V. 66. P. 661–667.
Hammond K.A., Wunder B.A. The role of diet quality and energy need in the nutritional ecology of a small herbivore, Microtus ochrogaster // Physiol. Zool. 1991. V. 64. P. 541–567.
Hume I.D. Digestive strategies of mammals // Acta Zoologica Sinica. 2002. V. 48. № 1. P. 1–19.
Hofmann R.R. Evolutionary steps ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system // Oecologia. 1989. V. 78. P. 443–457.
Janis C. The evolutionary strategy of the Equidae and the origins of rumen and caecal digestion. // Evolution. 1976. V. 30. № 4. P. 757–774.
Jarman P.J. The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology // Behaviour. 1974. V. 48. № 1. P. 215–267.
Justice K.E., Smith F.A. A model a dietary fiber utilization by small mam malian herbivores, with empirical results for Neotoma // The Amer. Naturalist. 1992. V. 139. № 2. P. 398–416.
Kam M., Khokhlova I.S., Degen A. Granivory and plant selection by desert gerbils of different body size // Ecology. 1997. V. 78. № 7. P. 22–29.
Khokhlova I.S., Krasnov B.R., Kuznetsov V., Sartor C.E., Zan M., Salek L., Ghazaryan L., Kam M., Degen A.A. Dietary intake and time budget in two desert rodents: a diurnal herbivore, Psammomys obesus, and a nocturnal granivore, Meriones crassus // Mammalia. 2005. V. 69. № 1. P. 1–11.
Kleiber M. The Fire of Life: An Introduction to Animal Energetics. N.Y. Wiley. 1961. 454 p.
Langer P. The digestive tract and life history of small mammals // Mammal Rev. 2002. V. 32. № 2 P. 107–131.
Lee W.B., Houston D.C. The effect of diet quality on gut anatomy in British voles (Microtinae) // J. Comp. Physiol. B. 1993. V. 163. P. 337–339.
McArthur C. Do we ditch digestive physiology in explaining the classic relationship between herbivore body size diet and diet quality? // Funct. Ecol. 2014. V. 28. № 5. P. 1059–1060.
Muller D.W., Codron D., Meloro C., Munn A., Schwarm A., Hummel J., Clauss M. Assessing the Jarman–Bell principle: scaling of intake, digestibility, retention time and gut fill with body mass in mammalian Herbivores // Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A. 2013. V. 164. № 1. P. 129–140.
Naumova E.I., Chistova T.Yu., Zharova G.K., Kam M., Khokhlova I.S., Krasnov B.R., Degen A.A. Energy requirements, length of digestive tract compartments and body mass in six gerbilline rodents of the Negev Desert // Zoology. 2019. V. 137. P. 1–8.
Naumova E.I., Chistova T.Yu., Zharova G.K., Kam M., Khokhlova I.S., Krasnov B.R., Clauss M., Degen A.A. Particle size reduction along the digestive tract of fat sand rats (Psammomys obesus) fed four chenopods // J. Comp. Physiol. B. 2021. V. 191. P. 831–841.
Parra R. Comparison of foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In: Montgomery, G.G (Ed.). The ecology of Aboreal Folivores. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington DC. 1978. P. 205–229.
Pei Y.-X., Wang D.-H., Hume I. Effect of Dietary Fibre on Digesta Passage, Nutrient Digestibility and Gastrointestinal Morphology in the Granivorous Mongolian Gerbil (Meriones unguiculates) // Physiol. Biochem Zoology. 2001a. V. 74. № 5. P. 742–749.
Pei Y.-X., Wang D.-H., Hume I. Selective digesta retention and coprophagy in Brandt’s vole (Microtus brandti) // J. Comp. Physiol. B. 2001b. V. 171. P. 457–464.
Penry D.L., Jumars D.A. Chemical reactor analysis and optimal digestion // Bioscience. 1986. V. 36. P. 310–315.
Stevens C.E. Comparative physiology of the vertebrate digestive system. Cambridge: Cambr. Univ. Press. 1988. 300 p.
Steuer P., Sudekum K.-H., Tutken T., Muller D.W.H., Kaandorp J., Bucher M., Clauss M., Hummel J. Does body mass convey a digestive advantage for large herbivores? // Funct. Ecol. 2014. V. 28. № 5. P. 1127–1134.