4.7 Article

3D dental microwear texture analysis of feeding habits of sympatric ruminants in the Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 328, 期 -, 页码 262-269

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.041

关键词

Bison bonasus; Cervus elaphus; Capreolus capreolus; Alces alces; Diet; Food niche overlap

类别

资金

  1. Polish National Science Centre [N N304 301940]
  2. Project ANR TRIDENT [ANR-13-JSV7-0008-01]
  3. Mammal Research Institute PAS in Bialowieza
  4. iPHEP (UMR 7262, CNRS & University of Poitiers)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With four species of ruminants, including red deer, roe deer, moose, and European bison, the Bialowieia Primeval Forest is unique on the European continent, where only one to three ungulate species are usually found. The present study is the first effort to explore the dietary overlap of a European community of sympatric ruminants using 3D dental microwear texture analysis. Results obtained for ungulates from the Bialowieza Forest were compared with those of four species with well known differences in diet (semi-wild Heck cattle, African buffaloes, giraffes, and yellow-backed duikers). These ruminants frame the spectrum of expected 3D dental microwear textures among ruminants: C3 and C4 grazers share high anisotropy and low to intermediate complexity while browsers display intermediate to high complexity associated with low anisotropy. No significant differences between browsers (moose and roe deer) and mixed feeders (red deer) were detected by this analysis supporting a significant overlap in diet found in Bialowieia. The results on the fourth ruminant are unequivocal: the European bison is not grazer but instead is highly engaged in browsing. Furthermore, through 3D dental microwear texture analysis, the high plasticity in feeding behavior of the European bison can be tracked depending on the seasons and on available access to feeding supplements during the winter. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据