2020
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.13206
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiple dimensions of dietary diversity in large mammalian herbivores

Abstract: 1. Theory predicts that trophic specialization (i.e. low dietary diversity) should make consumer populations sensitive to environmental disturbances. Yet diagnosing specialization is complicated both by the difficulty of precisely quantifying diet composition and by definitional ambiguity: what makes a diet 'diverse'? 2. We sought to characterize the relationship between taxonomic dietary diversity (TDD) and phylogenetic dietary diversity (PDD) in a species-rich community of large mammalian herbivores in a sem… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
50
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
(97 reference statements)
3
50
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, these studies were conducted with different procedures and in very different conditions so that we considered inappropriate to calculate species-specific indexes and use them as direct test predictors in the models (see below), as they were not strictly comparable. Dietary breadth, for instance, may be measured in terms of how many plant species are eaten (i.e., taxonomic dietary diversity) or how many plant lineages (i.e., phylogenetic dietary diversity), but these measures are not positively correlated (Kartzinel and Pringle 2020 ). Moreover, even if the same index is used, methodological differences in the way data are collected (e.g., observational effort, sampling areas) can importantly affect the results of these categorizations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these studies were conducted with different procedures and in very different conditions so that we considered inappropriate to calculate species-specific indexes and use them as direct test predictors in the models (see below), as they were not strictly comparable. Dietary breadth, for instance, may be measured in terms of how many plant species are eaten (i.e., taxonomic dietary diversity) or how many plant lineages (i.e., phylogenetic dietary diversity), but these measures are not positively correlated (Kartzinel and Pringle 2020 ). Moreover, even if the same index is used, methodological differences in the way data are collected (e.g., observational effort, sampling areas) can importantly affect the results of these categorizations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of samples from Kartizinel et al . [24] and from our study were collected during the wet seasons in their respective regions (Table S8), although, in general, Laikipia is more arid than the Masai Mara, with only 300-600mm precipitation annually [28, 106, 107]. For a list of all samples (N=305), and their associated meta data, see the Availability of data and materials section.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of our study are credible at the level of Genus classification and can explain the dietary characteristics of zokor under natural conditions. Many herbivorous animal feeding studies are also conducted at the level of Family [30]and Genus [26, 66]. In the study of feeding habits of DNA sequencing, there may be deviations/errors in every link, such as sample preservation, sample contamination, DNA extraction, PCR amplification, primer selection, library preparation, selection of sequencing platform, error removal, sequence taxonomic assignment, etc., which will affect the final result.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%