How could sympatric megaherbivores coexist?: Example of niche partitioning within a proboscidean community from the Miocene of Europe
How could sympatric megaherbivores coexist?: Example of niche partitioning within a proboscidean community from the Miocene of Europe
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00114-008-0391-y
复制
发表时间：
2008-09-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Merceron, Gildas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Calandra, Ivan;Goehlich, Ursula B.;Merceron, Gildas
虽然多样性低，但大型食草动物（体重超过10（3）公斤的哺乳动物），特别是长鼻动物对当今生态系统的结构和动态具有强大的影响。在欧洲新近纪（23至2.6 Ma），这些巨型食草动物的多样性和地理分布要大得多。然而，它们在过去生态系统中的作用尚不清楚。营养是生物与环境之间的主要纽带之一。因此，生物的生态可以从它们的饮食习惯推断出来。本研究的目的是通过牙齿微磨损分析表征不同的大型食草动物的饮食习惯。这种方法被应用于颊齿的三个同域物种的长鼻类从中/晚中新世的Molasse盆地在南部德国：Gomphotherium subtapiroideum，Gomphotherium steinheimense，和Deinotherium pastiteum。这些类群之间的微磨损签名显着不同，这表明在林地环境中的食性和生态位的差异。D.可能是吃双子叶植物的叶子，而这两个物种的gomphotheres既不是严格的食草动物，也不是严格的浏览器，而是可能在一个大范围的植物资源喂养。牙齿微磨损模式支持了这两种楔兽咬合磨牙形态的差异。的确G subtapiroideum可能比G.施泰因海姆人因此，我们的研究结果表明，这些长鼻类没有竞争食物资源。
Although low in diversity, megaherbivores (mammals weighting over 10(3)kg) and especially proboscideans have a powerful impact on the structure and dynamics of present-day ecosystems. During the Neogene (23 to 2.6 Ma) of Europe, the diversity and geographic distribution of these megaherbivores was much greater. Nonetheless, their role in past ecosystems is unclear. Nutrition is one of the main bonds between organisms and their environment. Therefore, the ecology of organisms can be inferred from their dietary habits. The present study is aimed at characterizing the feeding habits of diverse megaherbivores through dental microwear analyses. This method was applied on cheek teeth of three sympatric species of proboscideans from the middle/late Miocene of the Molasse Basin in Southern Germany: Gomphotherium subtapiroideum, Gomphotherium steinheimense, and Deinotherium giganteum. The microwear signatures are significantly different between these taxa, suggesting differences in feeding habits and ecological niches within a woodland environment. D. giganteum probably browsed on dicotyledonous foliages whereas the two species of gomphotheres were neither strict grazers nor strict browsers and instead probably fed on a large spectrum of vegetal resources. The differences of occlusal molar morphology between the two gomphotheres are supported by the dental microwear pattern. Indeed, G. subtapiroideum probably ingested more abrasive material than G. steinheimense. Thus, our results suggest that these proboscideans did not compete for food resources.