Dental microwear texture analysis in mammalian ecology

Abstract

1. Neoecology and paleoecology both seek to answer the same questions, albeit using different material, at different time scales and with different limitations. Nevertheless, too often, neoecologists neglect paleoecology, and paleoecologists only use neoecology as a baseline for actualism. One reason for this is the lack of tools that can be applied to both fields. 2. This is a review of the contributions to both neoecology and paleoecology of three-dimensional (3D) dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA), a method that can act as a bridge between these fields. 3. DMTA studies can be grouped according to the type of ecological questions researchers seek to answer: specific ecology, intra-specific ecology, niche partitioning and dietary overlap, and ecology over time. The first question has been the main focus of research; the other three were only superficially studied. 4. In this review, selected examples will be presented to demonstrate that DMTA, as one of the few tools that can be applied to both modern and fossil samples, has been used to address key ecological questions in mammalian neoecology and paleoecology. 5. With the wide range of neoecological and paleoecological questions that DMTA can answer, it is clear that this methodology will be used increasingly in the future, possibly in combination with other ecological proxies.

Dental microwear of living Hadza foragers

“…Dental microwear texture analysis has proven to be a valuable tool for reconstructing the diets of bioarchaeological assemblages and fossil mammals (Calandra & Merceron, ; DeSantis, ; Schmidt, Beach, McKinley, & Eng, ; Ungar, ). With few exceptions, though, interpretation of texture patterns has relied on associations between diets reported in the literature for species or populations and specimens archived in museum collections.…”

Feeding Ecology in Oligocene Mylodontoid Sloths (Mammalia, Xenarthra) as Revealed by Orthodentine Microwear Analysis

“…These wear features are influenced by the properties of ingested food items (e.g., grass, leaves, fruits, insects, meat) or exogenous items (e.g., dust, grit), and have a rapid turnover of several days to one or two weeks (Teaford and Oyen 1989; Hoffmann et al 2015). Several microscopic techniques have been used for microwear analysis: scanning electron microscopy (e.g., Rensberger 1978; Walker et al 1978), stereomicroscopy (e.g., Solounias and Semprebon 2002; Semprebon et al 2004, 2016; Merceron et al 2005; Koenigswald et al 2010; Rivals et al 2010), and confocal microscopy (e.g., Scott et al 2005, 2006; Ungar et al 2008; Schulz et al 2010; Calandra and Merceron 2016). …”

Seeds, browse, and tooth wear: a sheep perspective

“…Tooth wear reflects individual senescence, availabilities of food resources, and niche partitioning among species of mammals (Janis 1990;Nussey et al 2007;Kaiser et al 2013;Calandra and Merceron 2016). From the scale of a whole tooth to the micrometric scars on dental facets, differences in dietary preferences are mirrored through tooth wear analysis.…”

“…Dental Microwear Textural Analysis (DMTA hereafter) has proved to be particularly useful in assessing diets of fossil as well as modern taxa (Calandra and Merceron 2016;Haupt et al, 2013;Merceron et al 2007Merceron et al , 2014Scott et al 2006;Souron et al 2015;Ungar et al 2007). Among modern ungulates, the only mammals that have been extensively studied are the African antelopes (Ungar et al 2007;Scott 2012).…”