↓ Skip to main content

The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, April 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
182 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
429 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters
Published in
Oecologia, April 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00442-003-1254-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Clauss, R. Frey, B. Kiefer, M. Lechner-Doll, W. Loehlein, C. Polster, G. E. Rössner, W. J. Streich

Abstract

An oft-cited nutritional advantage of large body size is that larger animals have lower relative energy requirements and that, due to their increased gastrointestinal tract (GIT) capacity, they achieve longer ingesta passage rates, which allows them to use forage of lower quality. However, the fermentation of plant material cannot be optimized endlessly; there is a time when plant fibre is totally fermented, and another when energy losses due to methanogenic bacteria become punitive. Therefore, very large herbivores would need to evolve adaptations for a comparative acceleration of ingesta passage. To our knowledge, this phenomenon has not been emphasized in the literature to date. We propose that, among the extant herbivores, elephants, with their comparatively fast passage rate and low digestibility coefficients, are indicators of a trend that allowed even larger hindgut fermenting mammals to exist. The limited existing anatomical data on large hindgut fermenters suggests that both a relative shortening of the GIT, an increase in GIT diameter, and a reduced caecum might contribute to relatively faster ingesta passage; however, more anatomical data is needed to verify these hypotheses. The digestive physiology of large foregut fermenters presents a unique problem: ruminant-and nonruminant-forestomachs were designed to delay ingesta passage, and they limit food intake as a side effect. Therefore, with increasing body size and increasing absolute energy requirements, their relative capacity has to increase in order to compensate for this intake limitation. It seems that the foregut fermenting ungulates did not evolve species in which the intake-limiting effect of the foregut could be reduced, e.g. by special bypass structures, and hence this digestive model imposed an intrinsic body size limit. This limit will be lower the more the natural diet enhances the ingesta retention and hence the intake-limiting effect. Therefore, due to the mechanical characteristics of grass, grazing ruminants cannot become as big as the largest browsing ruminant. Ruminants are not absent from the very large body size classes because their digestive physiology offers no particular advantage, but because their digestive physiology itself intrinsically imposes a body size limit. We suggest that the decreasing ability for colonic water absorption in large grazing ruminants and the largest extant foregut fermenter, the hippopotamus, are an indication of this limit, and are the outcome of the competition of organs for the available space within the abdominal cavity. Our hypotheses are supported by the fossil record on extinct ruminant/tylopod species which did not, with the possible exception of the Sivatheriinae, surpass extant species in maximum body size. In contrast to foregut fermentation, the GIT design of hindgut fermenters allows adaptations for relative passage acceleration, which explains why very large extinct mammalian herbivores are thought to have been hindgut fermenters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 429 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 3%
Brazil 6 1%
South Africa 4 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
India 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Moldova, Republic of 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 390 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 78 18%
Researcher 71 17%
Student > Master 56 13%
Student > Bachelor 49 11%
Professor 23 5%
Other 95 22%
Unknown 57 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 215 50%
Environmental Science 48 11%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 45 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 2%
Other 23 5%
Unknown 74 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2024.
All research outputs
#840,242
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#72
of 4,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#730
of 61,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 61,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.