Skip Navigation


Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access originally published online on June 23, 2009
Integrative and Comparative Biology 2009 49(3):274-290; doi:10.1093/icb/icp051
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
49/3/274    most recent
icp051v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shipley, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Moore, B. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Revisiting the dietary niche: When is a mammalian herbivore a specialist?

Lisa A. Shipley1,*, Jennifer S. Forbey{dagger} and Ben D. Moore{ddagger}
*Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6410, USA; {dagger}Department of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725-1515, USA; {ddagger}Ecology Group, Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK

Correspondence: 1E-mail: Shipley{at}wsu.edu

Understanding dietary specialization in herbivores has theoretical and practical implications in ecology, yet defining niche breadth consistently has been problematic. To increase clarity and communication among ecologists and among disciplines (i.e., chemists, pharmacologists), we propose a specialization key for mammalian herbivores that assigns "obligatory" and "facultative" modifiers to the terms "specialist" and "generalist". These modifiers are assigned based on (1) relative breadth of the animal's realized niche and diet (what it eats), (2) relative breadth of the fundamental niche and available diet (what it could eat), (3) the extent of chemical or physical characteristics, termed "difficulty", that make food items either low in value or unpalatable to most herbivores, and (4) relevant temporal and spatial scales at which diets and niche breadth were measured. Obligatory specialists always have a narrow realized niche consisting of difficult food items, and morphological adaptations and/or the loss of redundant behavioral flexibility that effectively limit their fundamental niches, precluding them from expanding their diet under changed environmental conditions. Facultative specialists have a consistently narrow realized niche for difficult foods during at least one spatial or temporal scale, but have a broad enough fundamental niche to allow them to expand their diet to include less difficult foods when environmental conditions allow. Facultative generalists have the broadest fundamental niche, allowing them to consume a wide variety of foods. However, they may occasionally demonstrate a narrow realized niche, focused on less difficult plants than is the case with specialists. Finally, the obligatory generalists always have a wide realized niche because of a relatively narrow fundamental niche, precluding them from eating much of any difficult plant. We summarize hypothesized characteristics of mammalian herbivores in each of the four categories of specialization. We demonstrate the need for further work on defining the realized and fundamental niches, comparing among herbivores across categories conducted under similar conditions, and understanding the nature of trade-offs required for specialization and generalization for both community and phylogenetically based analyses.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.