Back to Search
Start Over
Are there phylogenetic differences in salivary tannin‐binding proteins between browsers and grazers, and ruminants and hindgut fermenters?
- Source :
- Ecology and Evolution, Ecology and Evolution, Vol 10, Iss 19, Pp 10426-10439 (2020)
- Publication Year :
- 2020
- Publisher :
- Wiley, 2020.
-
Abstract
- While feeding, mammalian browsers (primarily eat woody plants) encounter secondary metabolites such as tannins. Browsers may bind these tannins using salivary proteins, whereas mammalian grazers (primarily eat grasses that generally lack tannins) likely would not. Ruminant browsers rechew their food (ruminate) to increase the effectiveness of digestion, which may make them more effective at binding tannins than nonruminants. Few studies have included a sufficient number of species to consider possible scaling with body mass or phylogenetic effects on salivary proteins. Controlling for phylogeny, we ran inhibition radial diffusion assays of the saliva of 28 species of African herbivores that varied in size, feeding strategy, and digestive system. We could not detect the presence of salivary proline‐rich proteins that bind tannins in any of these species. However, using the inhibition radial diffusion assay, we found considerable abilities to cope with tannins in all species, albeit to varying degrees. We found no differences between browsers and grazers in the effectiveness of their salivary proteins to bind to and precipitate tannins, nor between ruminants and nonruminants, or scaling with body mass. Three species bound all tannins, but their feeding niches included one browser (gray duiker), one mixed feeder (bush pig), and one grazer (red hartebeest). Five closely related species of small ruminant browsers were very effective in binding tannins. Megaherbivores, considered generalists on account of their large body size, were capable of binding tannins. However, the grazing white rhinoceros was almost as effective at binding tannins as the megaherbivore browsers. We conclude, contrary to earlier predictions, that there were no differences in the relative salivary tannin‐binding capability that was related to common ancestry (phylogeny) or to differences in body size.<br />Mammalian browsers frequently encounter secondary metabolites such as tannins. Browsers may bind these tannins using salivary proteins, while mammalian grazers likely would not. Controlling for phylogeny, we ran inhibition radial diffusion assays of the saliva of 28 species of African herbivores (browsers, grazers, ruminants, and nonruminants) that differed considerably in size. We conclude, contrary to earlier predictions, that there were no differences in the relative salivary tannin‐binding capability of browsers and grazers, nor ruminants versus nonruminants, that were related to common ancestry (phylogeny) or to differences in body size.
- Subjects :
- 0106 biological sciences
hindgut fermenters
Saliva
African megaherbivores
salivary proteins
Zoology
Generalist and specialist species
010603 evolutionary biology
01 natural sciences
03 medical and health sciences
tannins
Phylogenetics
Ruminant
lcsh:QH540-549.5
Tannin
Afrotheria
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Original Research
030304 developmental biology
Nature and Landscape Conservation
chemistry.chemical_classification
0303 health sciences
Herbivore
Ecology
biology
biology.organism_classification
chemistry
ruminants
Duiker
Hindgut fermentation
lcsh:Ecology
Subjects
Details
- ISSN :
- 20457758
- Volume :
- 10
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Ecology and Evolution
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....c4040c6fd6b4e78af96c8613e8ee5171