Reconstruction of body cavity volume in terrestrial tetrapods

Teeth and the gastrointestinal tract in mammals: when 1 + 1 = 3

Both teeth and the digestive tract show adaptations that are commonly interpreted in the context of trophic guilds-faunivory, herbivory and omnivory. Teeth prepare food for the digestive tract, and dental evolution focuses on increasing durability and functionality; in particular, size reduction of plant particles is an important preparation for microbial fermentative digestion. In narratives of digestive adaptations, microbes are typically considered as service providers, facilitating digestion. That the majority of 'herbivorous' (and possibly 'omnivorous') mammals display adaptations to maximize microbes' use as prey-by harvesting the microbes multiplying in their guts-is less emphasized and not reflected in trophic labels. Harvesting of microbes occurs either via coprophagy after separation from indigestible material by a separation mechanism in the hindgut, or from a forestomach by a 'washing mechanism' that selectively removes fines, including microbes, to the lower digestive tract. The evolution of this washing mechanism as part of the microbe farming niche opened the opportunity for the evolution of another mechanism that links teeth and guts in an innovative way-the sorting and cleaning of not-yet-sufficiently-size-reduced food that is then re-submitted to repeated mastication (rumination), leading to unprecedented chewing and digestive efficiency. This article is part of the theme issue 'Food processing and nutritional assimilation in animals'.

Less need for differentiation? Intestinal length of reptiles as compared to mammals

Although relationships between intestinal morphology between trophic groups in reptiles are widely assumed and represent a cornerstone of ecomorphological narratives, few comparative approaches actually tested this hypothesis on a larger scale. We collected data on lengths of intestinal sections of 205 reptile species for which either body mass (BM), snout-vent-length (SVL) or carapax length (CL) was recorded, transforming SVL or CL into BM if the latter was not given, and analyzed scaling patterns with BM and SVL, accounting for phylogeny, comparing three trophic guilds (faunivores, omnivores, herbivores), and comparing with a mammal dataset. Length-BM relationships in reptiles were stronger for the small than the large intestine, suggesting that for the latter, additional factors might be relevant. Adding trophic level did not consistently improve model fit; only when controlling for phylogeny, models indicated a longer large intestine in herbivores, due to a corresponding pattern in lizards. Trophic level effects were highly susceptible to sample sizes, and not considered strong. Models that linked BM to intestine length had better support than models using SVL, due to the deviating body shape of snakes. At comparable BM, reptiles had shorter intestines than mammals. While the latter finding corresponds to findings of lower tissue masses for the digestive tract and other organs in reptiles as well as our understanding of differences in energetic requirements between the classes, they raise the hitherto unanswered question what it is that reptiles of similar BM have more than mammals. A lesser effect of trophic level on intestine lengths in reptiles compared to mammals may stem from lesser selective pressures on differentiation between trophic guilds, related to the generally lower food intake and different movement patterns of reptiles, which may not similarly escalate evolutionary arms races tuned to optimal agility as between mammalian predators and prey.

Mammalian intestinal allometry, phylogeny, trophic level and climate

An often-stated ecomorphological assumption that has the status of 'textbook knowledge' is that the dimensions of the digestive tract correlate with diet, where herbivores-consuming diets of lower digestibility-have longer intestinal tracts than faunivores-consuming diets of higher digestibility. However, statistical approaches have so far failed to demonstrate this link. Here, we collated data on the length of intestinal sections and body mass of 519 mammal species, and test for various relationships with trophic, climatic and other biological characteristics. All models showed a strong phylogenetic signal. Scaling relationships with body mass showed positive allometry at exponents greater than 0.33, except for the caecum, which is particularly large in smaller species. Body mass was more tightly linked to small intestine than to large intestine length. Adding a diet proxy to the relationships increased model fit for all intestinal sections, except for the small intestine when accounting for phylogeny. Thus, the diet has a main effect on the components of the large intestine, with longer measures in herbivores. Additionally, measures of habitat aridity had a positive relationship with large intestine length. The small intestine was longer in species from colder habitats at higher latitudes, possibly facilitating the processing of peak intake rates during the growing season. This study corroborates intuitive expectations on digestive tract anatomy, while the dependence of significant results on large sample sizes and inclusion of specific taxonomic groups indicates that the relationships cannot be considered fixed biological laws.

The accuracy and precision of body mass estimation in non-avian dinosaurs

Inferring the body mass of fossil taxa, such as non-avian dinosaurs, provides a powerful tool for interpreting physiological and ecological properties, as well as the ability to study these traits through deep time and within a macroevolutionary context. As a result, over the past 100 years a number of studies advanced methods for estimating mass in dinosaurs and other extinct taxa. These methods can be categorized into two major approaches: volumetric-density (VD) and extant-scaling (ES). The former receives the most attention in non-avian dinosaurs and advanced appreciably over the last century: from initial physical scale models to three-dimensional (3D) virtual techniques that utilize scanned data obtained from entire skeletons. The ES approach is most commonly applied to extinct members of crown clades but some equations are proposed and utilized in non-avian dinosaurs. Because both approaches share a common goal, they are often viewed in opposition to one another. However, current palaeobiological research problems are often approach specific and, therefore, the decision to utilize a VD or ES approach is largely question dependent. In general, biomechanical and physiological studies benefit from the full-body reconstruction provided through a VD approach, whereas large-scale evolutionary and ecological studies require the extensive data sets afforded by an ES approach. This study summarizes both approaches to body mass estimation in stem-group taxa, specifically non-avian dinosaurs, and provides a comparative quantitative framework to reciprocally illuminate and corroborate VD and ES approaches. The results indicate that mass estimates are largely consistent between approaches: 73% of VD reconstructions occur within the expected 95% prediction intervals of the ES relationship. However, almost three quarters of outliers occur below the lower 95% prediction interval, indicating that VD mass estimates are, on average, lower than would be expected given their stylopodial circumferences. Inconsistencies (high residual and per cent prediction deviation values) are recovered to a varying degree among all major dinosaurian clades along with an overall tendency for larger deviations between approaches among small-bodied taxa. Nonetheless, our results indicate a strong corroboration between recent iterations of the VD approach based on 3D specimen scans suggesting that our current understanding of size in dinosaurs, and hence its biological correlates, has improved over time. We advance that VD and ES approaches have fundamentally (metrically) different advantages and, hence, the comparative framework used and advocated here combines the accuracy afforded by ES with the precision provided by VD and permits the rapid identification of discrepancies with the potential to open new areas of discussion.

The uneven weight distribution between predators and prey: Comparing gut fill between terrestrial herbivores and carnivores

The general observation that secondary consumers ingest highly digestible food and have simple short guts and small abdominal cavities intuitively results in the assumption that mammalian carnivores carry less digesta in their gut compared to herbivores. Due to logistic constraints, this assumption has not been tested quantitatively so far. In this contribution, we estimated the dry matter gut contents (DMC) for 25 species of the order Carnivora (including two strictly herbivorous ones, the giant and the red panda) using the physical 'Occupancy Principle', based on a literature data collection on dry matter intake (DMI), apparent dry matter digestibility (aD DM) and retention time (RT), and compared the results to an existing collection for herbivores. Scaling exponents with body mass (BM) for both carnivores and herbivores were in the same range with DMI ~ BM^0.75; aD DM ~ BM⁰; RT ~ BM^0.11 and DMC ~ BM^0.88. The trophic level (carnivore vs herbivore) significantly affected all digestive physiology parameters except for RT. Numerically, the carnivore DMI level reached 77%, the RT 32% and DMC only 29% of the corresponding herbivore values, whereas the herbivore aD DM only reached 82% of that of carnivores. Thus, we quantitatively show that carnivores carry less inert mass or gut content compared to herbivores, which putatively benefits them in predator-prey interactions and might have contributed to the evolution towards unguligradism in herbivores. As expected, the two panda species appeared as outliers in the dataset with low aD DM and RT for a herbivore but extremely high DMI values, resulting in DMC in the lower part of the herbivore range. Whereas the difference in DMI and DMC scaling in herbivores might allow larger herbivores to compensate for lower diet quality by ingesting more, this difference may allow larger carnivores not to go for less digestible prey parts, but mainly to increase meal intervals, i.e. not having to hunt on a daily basis.