Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The relationship between diet and body mass in terrestrial mammals

  • Silvia Pineda-Munoz (a1), Alistair R. Evans (a2) and John Alroy (a1)

Diet and body mass are highly important factors in mammalian ecology, and they have also proven to be powerful paleoecological indicators. Our previous research has proposed a new classification scheme for mammals with more dietary divisions that emphasizes the primary resource in a given diet. We analyzed a database summarizing the dietary preferences of 139 species of marsupial and placental terrestrial mammals (including 14 orders) and their average body masses in order to explore whether this new classification better highlights ecomorphological differences between species. Additionally, the dietary diversity of every species in the data set was quantified by applying the inverse Simpson index to stomach content percentages. We observed a decrease in maximum dietary diversity with increasing body mass. Having lower requirements for energy and nutrients per unit of body weight or ecological advantages such as larger home ranges allows larger mammals to feed on less nutritive feeding resources (i.e., structural plant material). Our results also suggest that body-size ranges are different across dietary specializations. Smaller mammals (<1 kg) are mainly insectivores, granivores, or mixed feeders, while bigger animals (>30 kg) are usually either carnivores or herbivores that feed specifically on grasses and leaves. The medium-size range (1–30 kg) is mostly composed of frugivorous species that inhabit tropical and subtropical rain forests. Thus, the near absence of medium-sized mammals in open environments such as savannas can be linked to the decreasing density of fruit trees needed to support a pure frugivorous diet year-round. In other words, seasonality of precipitation prevents species from specializing on a totally frugivorous diet. Our results suggest that this new classification scheme correlates well with body mass, one of the most studied morphological variables in paleoecology and ecomorphology. Therefore, the classification should serve as a useful basis for future paleoclimatological studies.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. Alroy , P. L. Koch , and J. C. Zachos . 2000. Global climate change and North American mammalian evolution. Paleobiology 26:259288.

G. P. Burness , J. Diamond , and T. Flannery . 2001. Dinosaurs, dragons, and dwarfs: the evolution of maximal body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:1451814523.

M. Clauss , P. Steuer , D. W. H. Müller , D. Codron , and J. Hummel . 2013. Herbivory and body size: allometries of diet quality and gastrointestinal physiology, and implications for herbivore ecology and dinosaur gigantism. PLoS ONE 8:e68714.

D. O. Fisher , and C. R. Dickman . 1993. Diets of insectivorous marsupials in arid Australia: selection for prey type, size or hardness? Journal of Arid Environments 25:397410.

J. E. Hawes , and C. A. Peres . 2014. Ecological correlates of trophic status and frugivory in neotropical primates. Oikos 123:365377.

P. Palmqvist , D. R. Gröcke , A. Arribas , and R. A. Fariña . 2003. Paleoecological reconstruction of a lower Pleistocene large mammal community using biogeochemical (δ13C, δ15N, δ18O, Sr:Zn) and ecomorphological approaches. Paleobiology 29:205229.

O. L. Petchey , A. P. Beckerman , J. O. Riede , and P. H. Warren . 2008. Size, foraging, and food web structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:41914196.

S. A. Price , and S. S. B. Hopkins . 2015. The macroevolutionary relationship between diet and body mass across mammals. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 115:173184.

J Rodríguez . 1999. Use of cenograms in mammalian palaeoecology. A critical review. Lethaia 32:331347.

C. C. Schwartz , and J. E. Ellis . 1981. Feeding ecology and niche separation in some native and domestic ungulates on the Shortgrass Prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 18:343353.

E. Siemann , and J. H. Brown . 1999. Gaps in mammalian body size distributions reexamined. Ecology 80:27882792.

F. A. Smith , and S. K. Lyons . 2011. How big should a mammal be? A macroecological look at mammalian body size over space and time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366:23642378.

K. J. Travouillon , and S. Legendre . 2009. Using cenograms to investigate gaps in mammalian body mass distributions in Australian mammals. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 272:6984.

P. S Ungar . 2010. Mammal teeth: origin, evolution, and diversity. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.

H. Wilman , J. Belmaker , J. Simpson , C. de la Rosa , M. M. Rivadeneira , and W. Jetz . 2014. EltonTraits 1.0: species-level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology 95:2027.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0094-8373
  • EISSN: 1938-5331
  • URL: /core/journals/paleobiology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 21
Total number of PDF views: 109 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 394 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.