The allometry of patch selection in ruminants
Open accessAbstract
An axiomatic feature of food consumption by animals is that intake rate and prey abundance are positively related. While this has been demonstrated rigorously for large herbivores, it is apparent from patch selection trials that grazers paradoxically tend to prefer short, sparse swards to tall, dense swards. Indeed, migratory herbivores often shift from areas of high to low sward biomass during the growing season. As nutritional quality is an inverse function of grass abundance, herbivores appear to sacrifice short-term intake for nutritional gains obtainable by eating sparse forage of higher quality. Explicit models of this trade-off suggest that individual ruminants maximize daily rates of energy gain by choosing immature swards of intermediate biomass. As body mass is related positively to both ruminant cropping rates and digestibility, there should be an allometric link between grass abundance and energy maximization, providing a tool for predicting patterns of herbivore habitat selection. We used previously published studies to develop a synthetic model of trade-offs between forage abundance and quality predicting that optimal sward biomass should scale allometrically with body size. The model predicts size-related variation in habitat selection observed in a guild of grazing ungulates in the Serengeti ecosystem.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Annual consumption for an average wildebeest is 1.79 Mg DM.
“where 1.79 (in Mg DM) is our estimate of annual consumption for an average wildebeest based on empirically derived functions relating daily voluntary intake to body mass [69].”
From A Disease-Mediated Trophic Cascade in the Serengeti and its Implications for Ecosystem C (2009) · cites this paper as [69]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Disease-Mediated Trophic Cascade in the Serengeti and its Implications for Ecosystem C
Holdo, R. M., Sinclair, A. R. E., Dobson, A. P., Metzger, K. L., Bolker, B. M., Ritchie, M. E., & Holt, R. D. (2009) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000210 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
“79 (in Mg DM) is our estimate of annual consumption for an average wildebeest based on empirically derived functions relating daily voluntary intake to body mass [69].”
BackgroundHOLDO, R. M., HOLT, R. D., COUGHENOUR, M. B., & RITCHIE, M. E. (2007) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01192.x · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Functional conservation areas and the future of Africa’s wildlife
Fynn, R. W. S., & Bonyongo, M. C. (2011) · African Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2010.01245.x · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Food-web structure and ecosystem services: insights from the Serengeti
Dobson, A. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0287 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wilmshurst, J. F., Fryxell, J. M., & Bergman, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Guelph (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Wilmshurst, John F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2000-02-22
- Volume
- 267
- Issue
- 1441
- Pages
- 345-349
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- PMC
- PMC1690547
- OpenAlex
- W1975440005
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 13.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Pretoria
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
- Keywords
- patch selection, allometry, ruminants, forage availability, forage quality, energy gain, body size, habitat selection, Serengeti
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Body Weight, Cattle, Eating, Models, Biological, Ruminants, Species Specificity, Biomass
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