Wam Hilde K, Felton Annika M, Stolter Caroline, Nybakken Line, Hjeljord Olav
Division of Forestry and Forest Resources NIBIO Ås Norway.
Faculty of Forest Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Science Alnarp Sweden.
Ecol Evol. 2017 Dec 20;8(2):1117-1130. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3715. eCollection 2018 Jan.
Despite decades of intense research, it remains largely unsolved which nutritional factors underpin food selection by large herbivores in the wild. We measured nutritional composition of birch foliage () available to, and used by, moose () in natural settings in two neighboring regions with contrasting animal body mass. This readily available food source is a staple food item in the diet of moose in the high-fitness region, but apparently underutilized by moose in the low-fitness region. Available birch foliage in the two regions had similar concentrations of macronutrients (crude protein [CP], fiber fractions, and water-soluble carbohydrates [WSC]), although a notably lower variation of WSC in the low-fitness region. For minerals, there were several area differences: available birch foliage in the low-fitness region had less Mg (depending on year) and P, but more Ca, Zn, Cu, and Mn. It also had higher concentrations of some plant secondary metabolites: chlorogenic acids, quercetins, and especially MeOH-soluble condensed tannins. Despite the area differences in available foliage, we found the same nutritional composition of birch foliage used in the two regions. Compared to available birch foliage, moose consistently used birch foliage with more CP, more structural fiber (mainly hemicellulose), less WSC, higher concentrations of several minerals (Ca, Zn, K, Mn, Cu), and lower concentrations of some secondary metabolites (most importantly, MeOH-soluble condensed tannins). Our study conceptually supports the nutrient-balancing hypothesis for a large herbivore: within a given temporal frame, moose select for plant material that matches a specific nutritional composition. As our data illustrate, different moose populations may select for the same composition even when the nutritional composition available in a given food source varies between their living areas. Such fastidiousness limits the proportion of available food that is acceptable to the animal and has bearings on our understanding and application of the concept of carrying capacity.
尽管经过了数十年的深入研究,但在野外大型食草动物选择食物的过程中,究竟哪些营养因素起支撑作用,这一问题在很大程度上仍未得到解决。我们测量了两个相邻地区自然环境中驼鹿可获取并食用的桦树叶的营养成分,这两个地区的动物体重形成对比。这种容易获取的食物来源在高健康度地区是驼鹿饮食中的主食,但在低健康度地区显然未被驼鹿充分利用。两个地区可获取的桦树叶的常量营养素(粗蛋白[CP]、纤维组分和水溶性碳水化合物[WSC])浓度相似,不过低健康度地区WSC的变化明显较小。对于矿物质,存在一些地区差异:低健康度地区可获取的桦树叶含镁量较少(取决于年份)和磷,但钙、锌、铜和锰含量较高。它还含有较高浓度的一些植物次生代谢产物:绿原酸、槲皮素,尤其是甲醇溶性缩合单宁。尽管可获取的树叶存在地区差异,但我们发现两个地区驼鹿食用的桦树叶营养成分相同。与可获取的桦树叶相比,驼鹿始终选择食用含更多CP、更多结构性纤维(主要是半纤维素)、更少WSC、几种矿物质(钙、锌、钾、锰、铜)浓度更高以及一些次生代谢产物(最重要的是甲醇溶性缩合单宁)浓度更低的桦树叶。我们的研究在概念上支持大型食草动物的营养平衡假说:在给定的时间框架内,驼鹿会选择与特定营养成分相匹配的植物材料。正如我们的数据所示,即使给定食物来源中可获取的营养成分在不同生活区域有所不同,不同的驼鹿种群仍可能选择相同的成分。这种挑剔限制了动物可接受的可用食物比例,并对我们理解和应用承载力概念产生影响。