Hypotheses to explain diversity among African ungulates focus largely on niche separation along a browser/grazer continuum. However, a number of studies advocate that the browser/grazer distinction insufficiently describes the full extent of dietary variation that occurs within and between taxa. Disparate classification schemes exist because of a lack of uniform and reliable data for many taxa, and failure to incorporate spatio-temporal variations into broader assessments of diet.In this study, we tested predictions for diet and dietary niche separation of African savanna ungulates using stable carbon isotope evidence from faeces for proportions of C 3 (browse) to C 4 (grass) intake among 19 species from the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Dietary predictions from the literature are confirmed in the case of browsers (black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis, giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis, bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus, kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros), mixed-feeders (impala Aepyceros melampus, nyala Tragelaphus angasii), and most grazers (white rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum, Burchell's zebra Equus burchellii, warthog Phacochoerus africanus, hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius, blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus, tsessebe Damaliscus lunatus, waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus). In contrast, several species showed results differing from most expectations derived from the available literature, including eland Taurotragus oryx, steenbok Raphicerus campestris, grey duiker Sylvicapra grimmia, buffalo Syncerus caffer, roan antelope Hippotragus equinus and sable antelope Hippotragus niger. Many of these discrepancies can be accounted for by seasonal and/or regional dietary differences. Cluster analysis based on a data matrix that incorporates the extent of spatio-temporal dietary variation among Kruger Park ungulates reveals several distinct categories of feeding preferences that extend beyond a two-edged browser/grazer dichotomy, such as mixed-feeders with a preference for either forage class, and spatial/seasonal shifts between uniform and mixed-feeding styles among variable browsers (e.g. grey duiker) and variable grazers (e.g. buffalo). These results highlight the need for approaches that are sensitive to spatio-temporal variations and the continuity of diet.

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...

Digestive physiology has played a prominent role in explanations for terrestrial herbivore body size evolution and size-driven diversification and niche differentiation. This is based on the association of increasing body mass (BM) with diets of lower quality, and with putative mechanisms by which a higher BM could translate into a higher digestive efficiency. Such concepts, however, often do not match empirical data. Here, we review concepts and data on terrestrial herbivore BM, diet quality, digestive physiology and metabolism, and in doing so give examples for problems in using allometric analyses and extrapolations. A digestive advantage of larger BM is not corroborated by conceptual or empirical approaches. We suggest that explanatory models should shift from physiological to ecological scenarios based on the association of forage quality and biomass availability, and the association between BM and feeding selectivity. These associations mostly (but not exclusively) allow large herbivores to use low quality forage only, whereas they allow small herbivores the use of any forage they can physically manage. Examples of small herbivores able to subsist on lower quality diets are rare but exist. We speculate that this could be explained by evolutionary adaptations to the ecological opportunity of selective feeding in smaller animals, rather than by a physiologic or metabolic necessity linked to BM. For gigantic herbivores such as sauropod dinosaurs, other factors than digestive physiology appear more promising candidates to explain evolutionary drives towards extreme BM.