Substrate utilization and feeding strategies of mammals: description and classification

Miljutin, Andrei

doi:10.3176/eco.2009.1.07

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Level 1 represents the broadest categories of feeding strategy: animalivorous, frugivorous 225 and herbivorous (Miljutin, 2009). Diet Level 2 follows that of Eisenberg (1981) with some 226 modifications: mixed-feeders are added to the herbivore group, and aerial insectivores and 227 foliage-gleaning insectivores are combined into one category: insectivores.…”

Section: Diet 222 223mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We divided the species into six locomotor groups which describe the substrate(s) in which 216 the species moves (Reed, 1998;Miljutin, 2009): arboreal (A), arboreal-terrestrial (AT), 217 subterranean (S), subterranean-terrestrial (ST), terrestrial (T) and terrestrial-aquatic (TA). If 218 a species was found in several different references, the most common locomotion group 219 among these was used (Appendix S2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diet and locomotion, but not body size, differentiate mammal communities in worldwide tropical ecosystems

Lintulaakso

Kovarovic

2016

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. To test whether tropical habitat groups across the world can be differentiated by using 25 taxon-free mammalian community structures and to discuss the implications of this 26 analysis for palaeoecological community studies. 27 28 Materials and Methods 29We used mammalian community data for 169 localities, which were assigned a priori to 30 hierarchical Olson (1983) vegetation categories. Species over 500 g were classified into 31 dietary, locomotion, and body mass groups and the resulting group structures were 32 analysed using community structure analyses (NPMANOVA, CAP, SIMPER). 33 34 Results 35The test results show that the mammalian community structures are significantly different 36 between all of Olson's categories. These differences are highest at Olson's major and 37 minor ecosystem levels, and require the least number of variable categories. At the 38 vegetation level, the number of variable categories required to distinguish between them 39 becomes higher. Of the dietary groups, the number of frugivore-granivores, frugivore-40 omnivores, grazers and mixed feeders contribute most to these differences, while the 41 number of arboreal, arboreal-terrestrial and subterranean-terrestrial species are the key 42 locomotor groups. Body mass was not a good discriminator. 43 44 Main conclusions 45As general ecosystem categories are broken down into more precisely defined habitats, it 46 3 requires more detailed knowledge of the species adaptations to distinguish between them. 47Many of Olson's vegetation groups represent a continuum of cover that are, at least at the 48 worldwide comparison, too detailed to differentiate when broad generalities are sought. We 49 suggest using three worldwide tropical major ecosystems in mammalian community 50 structure analyses: "Humid, closed forests", "Seasonal or interrupted forests and 51 grasslands", and "Seasonal, open drylands". Our results also demonstrate that community 52 structures defined by both dietary and locomotor adaptations are powerful discriminators 53 of tropical ecosystems and habitats across the continents we examined, but body mass 54 should be interpreted with caution when the research question pertains to multiple 55 continents.

show abstract

Section: Diet 222 223mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diet and locomotion, but not body size, differentiate mammal communities in worldwide tropical ecosystems

Lintulaakso

Kovarovic

2016

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is much controversy about the category, or categories, in which an animal should be classified; generally because the terms used do not always describe strictly locomotion, but rather other aspects of the relation of the animal with the substrate. Miljutin (2009) claimed that, frequently, the typology of ecological strategies used is logically incorrect, sometimes mixing essentially different terms; for instance, using 'aquatic' and 'fossorial' instead of 'aquatic and subterranean' (habitat) or 'natatorial and fossorial' (locomotion) in the same classification. Furthermore, in relation to the correlation between form and function, Toledo et al (2012) highlighted the difference between substrate preference (arboreal, terrestrial, etc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ulnar articular surface 3-D landmarks and ecomorphology of small mammals: a case study of two early Miocene typotheres (Notoungulata) from Patagonia

Muñoz

Cassini

Candela

et al. 2015

Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Socie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Articular surfaces reflect the relative movements between adjacent bones, and the ones involved in the elbow joint provide information about forelimb movements and may be useful for making inferences about the substrate use. The proximal articular surface of the ulna was examined through 3-D geometric morphometrics, in order to assess its usefulness as a proxy for paleoecological interpretations; particularly for two small mammals from the early Miocene of Patagonia. The sample was composed of 22 extant small mammals (rodents, carnivorans and primates) and two extinct typotheres: Hegetotherium mirabile (Hegetotheriidae) and Interatherium robustum (Interatheriidae). Forty-five landmarks were taken and principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore the morphospace structure. The results of PCA for the whole surface were inconclusive; therefore, successive analyses were made, subdividing the surface into sub-units. The PCA for the proximal part of the trochlear notch was the most informative, allowing the recognition of morphospaces with functional value: one for digging rodents and another for most climbers. Neither typothere would have had a specialisation for climbing or digging in the features analysed. This study allows morphological patterns on different parts of a joint to be detected; interpreted, at least partially, as differential responses to different kinds of mechanical stress.

show abstract

“…The data for the brown rat are from Miljutin (1997). For more details on the choice of characters, terminology, and relevant statistical methods (not used here) see Miljutin (1997Miljutin ( , 2008Miljutin ( , 2009.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The universality of the muridoid construction in mammals is comparable with that of the lizard construction in reptiles. Among muridoid rodents there are semiaquatic (Nectomys, Cricetidae), subterranean (Nesokia, Muridae), subterranean-terrestrial (Hypogeomys, Nesomyidae), arboreal (Uromys, Muridae), animalivorous (Selevinia, Gliridae), frugivorous (Apodemus, Muridae), and herbivorous (Phloeomys, Muridae) species (see Miljutin, 2009 for an explanation of these terms). At the same time muridoids usually do not demonstrate extreme ecological specialization.…”

Section: Ecological Meaning Of Body Charactersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Notes on the external morphology, ecology, and origin ofMegalomys desmarestii(Sigmodontinae, Cricetidae, Rodentia), the extinct giant rat of Martinique Island, Lesser Antilles

Miljutin¹

2010

Estonian J. Ecol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The giant rat of Martinique Island, Megalomys desmarestii (Fischer, 1829) became extinct at the end of the 19th or the very beginning of the 20th century. Little is known about its habits. The goal of this research was to reconstruct its ecology using the external and craniodental morphological characters of available museum specimens. On the basis of ecomorphological analysis some suggestions are made about the locomotor abilities, ecological strategies, adaptive evolution, and origin of this rodent. It is proposed that M. desmarestii foraged mostly on the ground and sheltered in burrows. Its main food was seeds and fruits, including nuts. It was crepuscular rather than strictly nocturnal or diurnal. The general trends of its adaptive evolution were: (1) increasing body size, (2) transition from an arboreal to a terrestrial/subterranean way of life, and (3) adaptation to eating hard-covered fruits. Thus, the ancestor of M. desmarestii was probably smaller and had arboreal or semiarboreal habits. The granulated structure of the soles of M. desmarestii's feet supports a close relationship with Nectomys.

show abstract

Substrate utilization and feeding strategies of mammals: description and classification

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

Diet and locomotion, but not body size, differentiate mammal communities in worldwide tropical ecosystems

Diet and locomotion, but not body size, differentiate mammal communities in worldwide tropical ecosystems

Ulnar articular surface 3-D landmarks and ecomorphology of small mammals: a case study of two early Miocene typotheres (Notoungulata) from Patagonia

Notes on the external morphology, ecology, and origin ofMegalomys desmarestii(Sigmodontinae, Cricetidae, Rodentia), the extinct giant rat of Martinique Island, Lesser Antilles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About