Differences in allometric scaling of physiological characters have the appeal to explain species diversification and niche differentiation along a body mass (BM) gradient -because they lead to different combinations of physiological properties, and thus may facilitate different adaptive strategies. An important argument in physiological ecology is built on the allometries of gut fill (assumed to scale to BM1.0) and energy requirements/intake (assumed to scale to BM0.75) in mammalian herbivores. From the difference in exponents, it has been postulated that the mean retention time (MRT) of digesta should scale to BM1.0-0.75 = BM0.25. This has been used to argue that larger animals have an advantage in digestive efficiency and hence can tolerate lower-quality diets. However, empirical data does not support the BM0.25 scaling of MRT, and the deduction of MRT scaling implies, according to physical principles, no scaling of digestibility; basing assumptions on digestive efficiency on the thus-derived MRT scaling amounts to circular reasoning. An alternative explanation considers a higher scaling exponent for food intake than for metabolism, allowing larger animals to eat more of a lower quality food without having to increase digestive efficiency; to date, this concept has only been explored in ruminants. Here, using data for 77 species in which intake, digestibility and MRT were measured (allowing the calculation of the dry matter gut contents DMC), we show that the unexpected shallow scaling of MRT is common in herbivores and may result from deviations of other scaling exponents from expectations. Notably, DMC have a lower scaling exponent than 1.0, and the 95% confidence intervals of the scaling exponents for intake and DMC generally overlap. Differences in the scaling of wet gut contents and dry matter gut contents confirm a previous finding that the dry matter concentration of gut contents decreases with body mass, possibly compensating for the less favourable volume-surface ratio in the guts of larger organisms. These findings suggest that traditional explanations for herbivore niche differentiation along a BM gradient should not be based on allometries of digestive physiology. In contrast, they support the recent interpretation that larger species can tolerate lower-quality diets because their intake has a higher allometric scaling than their basal metabolism, allowing them to eat relatively more of a lower quality food without having to increase digestive efficiency. MRT scaling amounts to circular reasoning. An alternative explanation considers a higher 38 scaling exponent for food intake than for metabolism, allowing larger animals to eat more of a 39 lower quality food without having to increase digestive efficiency; to date, this concept has 40 only been explored in ruminants. Here, using data for 77 species in which intake, digestibility 41 and MRT were measured (allowing the calculation of the dry matter gut contents DMC), we 42show that the unexpected shallow scaling of MRT is common in herbi...

No abstract

Translocations (reintroductions) are prominent in conservation, but successful outcomes remain few, despite advances in the field. Physiology is a hitherto underutilised, but could markedly improve successes. More importantly, increased application of physiological tools actively promotes at least two of the three Rs of animal welfare – Refinement of methods and Reduction of animals used.

Sustainable management of pastures requires detailed knowledge of total grazing pressure, but this information is critically lacking in Australia’s rangelands where livestock co-occur with large herbivorous marsupials. We present the first comparative measure of the field metabolic rate (an index of food requirement) of Australia’s largest marsupial, the red kangaroo (Macropus rufus), with that of domestic sheep (Ovis aries; merino breed). We tested the assumption that the grazing pressure of red kangaroos is equivalent to 0.7 sheep, and show this to be a two-fold overestimation of their contribution to total grazing. Moreover, kangaroos had extraordinarily lower rates of water turnover, being only 13% that of sheep. Consequently, our data support arguments that the removal of kangaroos may not markedly improve rangeland capacity for domestic stock. Furthermore, given the low resource requirements of kangaroos, their use in consumptive and non-consumptive enterprises can provide additional benefits for Australia’s rangelands than may occur under traditional rangeland practices.

What is the most humane way to kill amphibians and small reptiles that are used in research? Historically, such animals were often killed by cooling followed by freezing, but this method was outlawed by ethics committees because of concerns that ice-crystals may form in peripheral tissues while the animal is still conscious, putatively causing intense pain. This argument relies on assumptions about the capacity of such animals to feel pain, the thermal thresholds for tissue freezing, the temperature-dependence of nerve-impulse transmission and brain activity, and the magnitude of thermal differentials within the bodies of rapidly-cooling animals. A review of published studies casts doubt on those assumptions, and our laboratory experiments on cane toads (Rhinella marina) show that brain activity declines smoothly during freezing, with no indication of pain perception. Thus, cooling followed by freezing can offer a humane method of killing cane toads, and may be widely applicable to other ectotherms (especially, small species that are rarely active at low body temperatures). More generally, many animal-ethics regulations have little empirical basis, and research on this topic is urgently required in order to reduce animal suffering.