The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna
Open accessAbstract
A major challenge in biology is to understand how phylogeny, diet, and environment shape the mammalian gut microbiome. Yet most studies of nonhuman microbiomes have relied on relatively coarse dietary categorizations and have focused either on individual wild populations or on captive animals that are sheltered from environmental pressures, which may obscure the effects of dietary and environmental variation on microbiome composition in diverse natural communities. We analyzed plant and bacterial DNA in fecal samples from an assemblage of 33 sympatric large-herbivore species (27 native, 6 domesticated) in a semiarid East African savanna, which enabled high-resolution assessment of seasonal variation in both diet and microbiome composition. Phylogenetic relatedness strongly predicted microbiome composition ( r = 0.91) and was weakly but significantly correlated with diet composition ( r = 0.20). Dietary diversity did not significantly predict microbiome diversity across species or within any species except kudu; however, diet composition was significantly correlated with microbiome composition both across and within most species. We found a spectrum of seasonal sensitivity at the diet−microbiome nexus: Seasonal changes in diet composition explained 25% of seasonal variation in microbiome composition across species. Species’ positions on (and deviations from) this spectrum were not obviously driven by phylogeny, body size, digestive strategy, or diet composition; however, domesticated species tended to exhibit greater diet−microbiome turnover than wildlife. Our results reveal marked differences in the influence of environment on the degree of diet−microbiome covariation in free-ranging African megafauna, and this variation is not well explained by canonical predictors of nutritional ecology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB
DeSantis, T. Z., Hugenholtz, P., Larsen, N., Rojas, M., Brodie, E. L., Keller, K., Huber, T., Dalevi, D., Hu, P., & Andersen, G. L. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.03006-05 · Cited by 10,891
Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome
David, L. A., Maurice, C. F., Carmody, R. N., Gootenberg, D. B., Button, J. E., Wolfe, B. E., Ling, A. V., Devlin, A. S., Varma, Y., Fischbach, M. A., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12820 · Cited by 10,100
Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity
Paine, R. T. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282400 · Cited by 5,361 · cited 1×
“A (11, 11) Papio anubis (7, 9) Oryx gazella (22, 20) Alcelaphus buselaphus (27, 13) Ovis aries (48, 24) Capra hircus (19, 19) Aepyceros melampus (129, 25) Nanger granti (46, 17) Litocranius walleri (10, 10) Sylvicapra grimmia (2, 2) Kobus ellipsiprymnus (6, 6) Madoqua guentheri (120, 21) Oreotragus oreotragus (13, 12)…”
Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes
Ley, R. E., Hamady, M., Lozupone, C., Turnbaugh, P. J., Ramey, R. R., Bircher, J. S., Schlegel, M. L., Tucker, T. A., Schrenzel, M. D., Knight, R., et al. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1155725 · Cited by 3,747
Diet Drives Convergence in Gut Microbiome Functions Across Mammalian Phylogeny and Within Humans
Muegge, B. D., Kuczynski, J., Knights, D., Clemente, J. C., González, A., Fontana, L., Henrissat, B., Knight, R., & Gordon, J. I. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1198719 · Cited by 1,988
Fritz, S. A., Bininda‐Emonds, O. R. P., & Purvis, A. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01307.x · Cited by 585
Climatic warming and the future of bison as grazers.
Craine, J. M., Towne, E. G., Miller, M., & Fierer, N. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep16738 · Cited by 98
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- K. L. Arnolds, C. A. Lozupone, Striking a balance with help from our little friends—How the gut microbiota contributes to immune homeostasis. Yale J. Biol. Med. 89, 389–395 (2016).
- C. Duvallet, S. M. Gibbons, T. Gurry, R. A. Irizarry, E. J. Alm, Meta-analysis of gut microbiome studies identifies disease-specific and shared responses. Nat. Commun. 8, 1784 (2017). · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01973-8
- M. D. Dearing, K. D. Kohl, Beyond fermentation: Other important services provided to endothermic herbivores by their gut microbiota. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 723–731 (2017). · DOI
- E. A. McKenney, K. Koelle, R. R. Dunn, A. D. Yoder, The ecosystem services of animal microbiomes. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2164–2172 (2018). · DOI
- A. W. Brooks, K. D. Kohl, R. M. Brucker, E. J. van Opstal, S. R. Bordenstein, Phylosymbiosis: Relationships and functional effects of microbial communities across host evolutionary history. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000225 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
- K. D. Kohl, M. D. Dearing, The woodrat gut microbiota as an experimental system for understanding microbial metabolism of dietary toxins. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1165 (2016).
- V. J. McKenzie ., The effects of captivity on the mammalian gut microbiome. Integr. Comp. Biol., 57, 690–704 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
- A. T. Reese, R. R. Dunn, Drivers of microbiome diversity: A review of general rules, feces, and ignorance. MBio 9, e01294-18 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
- M. Groussin ., Unraveling the processes shaping mammalian gut microbiomes over evolutionary time. Nat. Commun. 8, 14319 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
- K. R. Amato ., Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J. 13, 576–587 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
- A. Gomez ., Temporal variation selects for diet-microbe co-metabolic traits in the gut of Gorilla spp. ISME J. 10, 514–526 (2016). · DOI
- J. Tung ., Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons. eLife 4, e05224 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
- R. M. Pringle ., Predator-induced collapse of niche structure and species coexistence. Nature 570, 58–64 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
- N. G. Hairston, F. E. Smith, L. B. Slobodkin, Community structure, population control, and competition. Am. Nat. 94, 421–425 (1960). · DOI · Paper page
- J. L. Metcalf ., Evaluating the impact of domestication and captivity on the horse gut microbiome. Sci. Rep. 7, 15497 (2017). · DOI
- G. T. Bergmann, J. M. Craine, M. S. I. Robeson2nd, N. Fierer, Seasonal shifts in diet and gut microbiota of the American Bison (Bison bison). PLoS One 10, e0142409 (2015). · DOI
- D. Codron, J. S. Brink, L. Rossouw, M. Clauss, The evolution of ecological specialization in southern African ungulates: Competition- or physical environmental turnover. Oikos 117, 344–353 (2008). · DOI
- J. S. Brashares, T. Garland, P. Arcese, Phylogenetic analysis of coadaptation in behavior, diet, and body size in the African antelope. Behav. Ecol. 11, 452–463 (2000). · DOI
- D. I. Bolnick ., The ecology of individuals: Incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am. Nat. 161, 1–28 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
- P. Taberlet ., Power and limitations of the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, e14 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
- J. G. Caporaso ., QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
- B. A. Gill ., Plant DNA-barcode library and community phylogeny for a semi-arid East African savanna. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 838–846 (2019). · DOI
- P. J. Jarman, The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48, 215–266 (1974). · DOI · Paper page
- B. T. Moyers, P. L. Morrell, J. K. McKay, Genetic costs of domestication and improvement. J. Hered. 109, 103–116 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
- A. H. Moeller, T. A. Suzuki, M. Phifer-Rixey, M. W. Nachman, Transmission modes of the mammalian gut microbiota. Science 362, 453–457 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
- J. R. Goheen ., Conservation lessons from large-mammal manipulations in East African savannas: The KLEE, UHURU, and GLADE experiments. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1429, 31–49 (2018). · DOI
- G. E. Belovsky, Optimal foraging and community structure: The allometry of herbivore food selection and competition. Evol. Ecol. 11, 641–672 (1997). · DOI
- E. O. Price, Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q. Rev. Biol. 59, 1–32 (1984). · DOI · Paper page
- M. Gustafsson, P. Jensen, F. H. de Jonge, T. Schuurman, Domestication effects on foraging strategies in pigs (Sus scrofa). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 305–317 (1999). · DOI
- J. G. Kie, Optimal foraging and risk of predation: Effects on behavior and social structure in ungulates. J. Mammal. 80, 1114–1129 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
- A. D. Letten, P.-J. Ke, T. Fukami, Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 161–177 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
- K. S. McCann, The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405, 228–233 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
- T. R. Kartzinel ., DNA metabarcoding illuminates dietary niche partitioning by African large herbivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 8019–8024 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
- B. E. Deagle ., Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: How should we convert sequence reads to dietary data? Mol. Ecol. 28, 391–406 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
- E. Willerslev ., Fifty thousand years of Arctic vegetation and megafaunal diet. Nature 506, 47–51 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Multiple dimensions of dietary diversity in large mammalian herbivores
Kartzinel, T. R., & Pringle, R. M. (2020) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13206 · Cited by 63
Self-citationBiles, T. L., Beck, H., & Masters, B. S. (2021) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.8449 · Cited by 4
Dietary DNA Metabarcoding From Animal Fecal Samples
McConnell, R. D., Jarrett, C., Ferreira, D. F., Powell, L. L., Quiñones, A. L. S., Dominoni, D. M., & Welch, A. J. (2026) · Current Protocols · doi:10.1002/cpz1.70226 · Cited by 2
“Alternatively, feces can be collected non-invasively from habitats, commonly used sites, or by tracking animals until defecation (Andriollo et al., 2021; Kartzinel et al., 2019; Lefort et al., 2020; Shutt et al., 2021; Thuo et al., 2020).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Kartzinel, T. R., Hsing, J. C., Musili, P. M., Brown, B. R. P., & Pringle, R. M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2019-11-04
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 47
- Pages
- 23588-23593
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2988845115
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 9.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DEB-1355122, DEB-1457697, IOS-1656527)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1905666116
- The paper
- Kartzinel, T. R., Hsing, J. C., Musili, P. M., Brown, B. R. P., & Pringle, R. M. (2019). Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905666116
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.