Cunningham, PL

Fraas, S

Ismail, K

Kaiser, TM

Schulz, E

Wronski, T

LJMU Research Online (Liverpool John Moores University)

Research Unit 771, German Research FoundationForaging behaviour and dietary adaptation of the Arabian Sand GazelleEllen Schulz, Sven Fraas, Thomas M. Kaiser, Peter L. Cunningham, Khairi Ismail, Torsten WronskiBiocentre Grindel and Zoological Museum - University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany email: ellen.schulz@uni-hamburg.deFigure 4 (A) Bar charts showing the mesowear signatures of the second upper molars in Gazella marica (nall = 53, nfemales = 23, nmales = 30); occlusal relief given as H = high or L =low, and cusp shape given as S = sharp, R = round or B = blunt. (B) Cluster analysis using 27 reference species according the consensus category by Fortelius & Solounias (2000).  Antilopinae obtained from Louys et al. (2011).SSS R BGazella maricaƂƃConnochaetes taurinusAlcelaphus buselaphusGazella maricaGazella marica0 20 40 60 80 100Occlusal relief [%]LHLHLHR BS R BLH R BLH S R BRedunca reduncaHippotragus nigerHippotragus equinusEudorcas thomsoniNanger granƟKobus ellipsiprymnusR BS RBS RS R BS R BRLHLHLHHGazella leptocerosEudorcas ruĮĨronsGazella dorcasNanger soemmeringi0 20 40 60 80 100Cusp shape [%]LHLHS RLHS RS RS RLHLHLH0 20 40 60 80 100Occlusal relief [%]0 20 40 60 80 100Cusp shape [%]LBGazella maricaAlces alcesDicerorhinus sumatraensisDiceros bicornisGiraīa camelopardalisOdocoileus hemionusOdocoileus virginianusOkapia johnstoniRhinoceros sondaicusAlcelaphus buselaphusBison bisonCeratotherium simumConnochaetes taurinusDamaliscus lunatusEquus quaggaEquus grevyiHippAragus equinusHippotragus nigerKobus ellipsiprymnusRedunca reduncaAepyceros melampusCapricornis sumatraensisCervus elaphusNanger granƟEudorcas thomsoniOvibos moschatusTaurotragus oryxTragelaphus scriptusGrazer-1Grazer-2Mixed feederBrowserGrazer-3Gazella dorcasGazella leptocerosNanger soemmeringiEudorcas ruĮĨronsEuclidean Distances0 20 40 60 80 10010 30 50 70 90A BFigure 1 (B) The distribution (grey area) of the Sand Gazelle in the Middle East.100200300400500600700AFA (seconds / 200 steps)feeding moving other100200300400500AFA (seconds / 200 steps)51.0 % 17.6 % 49.0 % 82.4 %FIRbrowsing grazingdrought (dry)non-drought (wet)A0* ** *BFigure 3. (A) The time spent grazing/browsing whilst taking 200 steps (Acceptable Food Abundance,  AFA) during drought and non-drought. (B) AFA and other activities: Box plots: me-dian (middle line), the interquartile range (box) and the 5th and 95th percentile values (whiskers). Food Ingestion Rate (FIR) as a proportion of total feeding time (* indicates p < 0.05). Figure 2 Absolute frequency of food plants given as per-centage in relation to the total amount of that specifi c plant.  %G = grasses, and B = forbs/trees/shrubs in the diet of two Gazella marica given per season and drought/non-drought according Cunningham (2009). NA 1%B 66%G33%SummerNA 6%B 47%G47%SpringNA 5%B 88%G7%WinterNA 0.4%B 39.6%G60%Autumndrought non-droughtSaudi Arabia YemenIraqOmanMahazat as-SaydUnited Arab Emirates  KuwaitJordanSyriaBlack Sea TurkeyN500 kmRed Sea Gulf of OmanArabian SeaQatar 1. Introducti on   The dietary adaptation of the extant Sand Gazelle Gazella marica THOMAS, 1897 from the Mahazat as-Sayd Protected Area (Saudi Arabia) (Figs. 1A, B) is evaluated using a behavioral method to determine food preferences (Fig. 2) in conjunction with an eco-morphological method examining the tooth wear. Figure 1 (A) Male Sand Gazelle in the pro-tected area of Mahazat as-Sayd (Saudi Arabia).  6. Acknowledgement  7. References  Dunham, K. M. (1982). The foraging behaviour of impala (Aepyceros melampus). S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 12, 36–40. / Fortelius, M. & Solounias, N. (2000). Functional characterization of ungulate molars using the abrasion-attrition wear gradient: A new method for reconstructing palaeo-diets. Novitates 3301, 1-36. / Louys, J. L., Meloro, C., Elton, S., Ditchfi eld, P. & Bishop, L. C. (2011). Mesowear as a means of determining diets in African antelopes. J. Arch. Sci. 38, 1485-1495. / Owen-Smith, N. (1979). Assessing the foraging effi ciency of a large herbivore, the Kudu. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 9, 102–110. /Piperno, D. R. (2006). Phytoliths - A comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Oxford: Altamira Press (Rowman & Littlefi eld). / Piperno, D. R., Holst, I., Wessel-Beaver, L. & Andres, T. C. (2002). Evidence for the control of phytolith formation in Cucurbita fruits by the hard rind (Hr) genetic locus: Archaeological and ecological implications. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99, 10923-10928.  2. Foraging Behaviour  4. Conclusion  5. Methods 3. Tooth wearComparison of the tooth wear with other ruminants reveals that mesowear signature represents the “grazing” spectrum with a tendency towards mixed feeding.  This is not congruent with the graze and browse components in its diet. Surprisingly the browsing components of the diet are less refl ected in the mesowear signature (Fig. 4).Behaviour: Sand Gazelles are considered mixed feeders (Fig. 3A and B),  switching to more grass in their diet during periods of higher productivity. Tooth wear:  the     mesowear signature (Figs. 4A, B) is not congruent with the mixed feeding style (be-haviour).  Since dicotyledonous browse plants rarely bear silica phytoliths (Piperno 2006, Piperno et al. 2002) grit or dust has to be the abrasive agent.   Foraging observations were conducted over a period of one year from April 2008 to March 2009.  AFA modifi ed according Owen-Smith (1979) and Dunham (1982).  A total of 192 males and 188 females were sampled.  Direct observations were made from a vehicle at distances ranging from 50 to 200m.  Mesowear analysis using skull and skull fragments of 53 individuals collected from mummifi ed carcasses (01-2006 to 03-2008), mesowear analysis according to Fortelius & Solounias (2000). Hierarchical cluster analysis (complete linkage/furthest neighbours) as well as Mann-Whitney Rank Sum tests (MWR) and Paired t-tests (P) calculated using SYSTAT 11.0 (SYSTAT Software Inc., Richmond, CA).   We would like to thank H.H. Prince Bandar bin Saud bin Mohammed al Saud (Secretary General, SWA, Saudi Arabia) for his permission and support to conduct scientifi c research on wildlife in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Special thanks we owe Ahmed Boug (director NWRC) and Ernest Robinson (former director KKWRC) for their support and encouragement rendered to our study.  This research was supported by the «Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft» (DFG, German Research Foundation, KA 1525 / 8-1).  During drought the gazelles spent signifi cantly more time browsing (51.0%) but less time grazing (49.0%, Figs. 3A, B) than under non-drought conditions (browsing: 17.6%; grazing: 82.4%, MWR-test, p<0.001).   Regardless season or sex,  Sand Gazelles consumed signifi cantly more grass (58.4%) than browse (41.6%, P-t-test, p<0.001). Moving is a measure of search activity, which increases if food availability is low. 

Foraging behaviour and dietary adaptation of the Arabian Sand Gazelle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LJMU Research Online (Liverpool John Moores University)