Macronutrient optimization and seasonal diet mixing in a large omnivore, the grizzly bear: a geometric analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)
Macronutrient optimization and seasonal diet mixing in a large omnivore, the grizzly bear: a geometric analysis
Sean C P Coogan et al. PLoS One. 2014.
Erratum in
- PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105719
Abstract
Nutrient balance is a strong determinant of animal fitness and demography. It is therefore important to understand how the compositions of available foods relate to required balance of nutrients and habitat suitability for animals in the wild. These relationships are, however, complex, particularly for omnivores that often need to compose balanced diets by combining their intake from diverse nutritionally complementary foods. Here we apply geometric models to understand how the nutritional compositions of foods available to an omnivorous member of the order Carnivora, the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos L.), relate to optimal macronutrient intake, and assess the seasonal nutritional constraints on the study population in west-central Alberta, Canada. The models examined the proportion of macronutrients that bears could consume by mixing their diet from food available in each season, and assessed the extent to which bears could consume the ratio of protein to non-protein energy previously demonstrated using captive bears to optimize mass gain. We found that non-selective feeding on ungulate carcasses provided a non-optimal macronutrient balance with surplus protein relative to fat and carbohydrate, reflecting adaptation to an omnivorous lifestyle, and that optimization through feeding selectively on different tissues of ungulate carcasses is unlikely. Bears were, however, able to dilute protein intake to an optimal ratio by mixing their otherwise high-protein diet with carbohydrate-rich fruit. Some individual food items were close to optimally balanced in protein to non-protein energy (e.g. Hedysarum alpinum roots), which may help explain their dietary prevalence. Ants may be consumed particularly as a source of lipids. Overall, our analysis showed that most food available to bears in the study area were high in protein relative to lipid or carbohydrate, suggesting the lack of non-protein energy limits the fitness (e.g. body size and reproduction) and population density of grizzly bears in this ecosystem.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
Figure 1. Right-angled mixture triangle (RMT) plots depicting the estimated macronutrient (lipid, available carbohydrate, and crude protein) content of seasonally available foods consumed by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta, given as a percentage of metabolizable energy.
Protein is represented by the third _z_-axis which varies inversely with distance from the origin. Seasons are defined based on major changes in grizzly bear diet, and include: a) pregreen-up; b) graminoid and forb season; c) berry season; and d) late fall. For reference, optimal diets self selected by captive grizzly bears are shown as black symbols and marked in the legend with an asterisk (*), while the 17% protein to 83% non-protein energy intake target is shown as a black line. The grey-shaded polygon indicates the estimated nutrient space available to grizzly bears consuming seasonal foods. Overlap between the nutrient space polygon and the intake target line indicates that an optimal diet may be achieved during a season. The food items plotted do not include variation and are meant to give a general perspective.
Similar articles
- Diet and Macronutrient Optimization in Wild Ursids: A Comparison of Grizzly Bears with Sympatric and Allopatric Black Bears.
Costello CM, Cain SL, Pils S, Frattaroli L, Haroldson MA, van Manen FT. Costello CM, et al. PLoS One. 2016 May 18;11(5):e0153702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153702. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27192407 Free PMC article. - Seasonal and individual variation in the use of rail-associated food attractants by grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in a national park.
Murray MH, Fassina S, Hopkins JB 3rd, Whittington J, St Clair CC. Murray MH, et al. PLoS One. 2017 May 24;12(5):e0175658. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175658. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28542218 Free PMC article. - Dietary protein content alters energy expenditure and composition of the mass gain in grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis).
Felicetti LA, Robbins CT, Shipley LA. Felicetti LA, et al. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2003 Mar-Apr;76(2):256-61. doi: 10.1086/374279. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2003. PMID: 12794679 - Functional macronutritional generalism in a large omnivore, the brown bear.
Coogan SCP, Raubenheimer D, Stenhouse GB, Coops NC, Nielsen SE. Coogan SCP, et al. Ecol Evol. 2018 Jan 29;8(4):2365-2376. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3867. eCollection 2018 Feb. Ecol Evol. 2018. PMID: 29468050 Free PMC article. Review. - New insights into dietary management of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and brown bears (U. arctos).
Robbins CT, Tollefson TN, Rode KD, Erlenbach JA, Ardente AJ. Robbins CT, et al. Zoo Biol. 2022 Mar;41(2):166-175. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21658. Epub 2021 Nov 18. Zoo Biol. 2022. PMID: 34793606 Review.
Cited by
- Spider web and silk performance landscapes across nutrient space.
Blamires SJ, Tseng YH, Wu CL, Toft S, Raubenheimer D, Tso IM. Blamires SJ, et al. Sci Rep. 2016 May 24;6:26383. doi: 10.1038/srep26383. Sci Rep. 2016. PMID: 27216252 Free PMC article. - The Effect of Diet Mixing on a Nonselective Herbivore.
Groendahl S, Fink P. Groendahl S, et al. PLoS One. 2016 Jul 8;11(7):e0158924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158924. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27391787 Free PMC article. - Assessing Nutritional Parameters of Brown Bear Diets among Ecosystems Gives Insight into Differences among Populations.
López-Alfaro C, Coogan SC, Robbins CT, Fortin JK, Nielsen SE. López-Alfaro C, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0128088. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128088. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26083536 Free PMC article. - Feeding preferences and nutritional niche of wild water buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal.
Shrestha TK, Hecker LJ, Aryal A, Coogan SCP. Shrestha TK, et al. Ecol Evol. 2020 Jun 23;10(14):6897-6905. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6183. eCollection 2020 Jul. Ecol Evol. 2020. PMID: 32760500 Free PMC article. - Nutrient intake and its possible drivers in free-ranging European brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos).
De Cuyper A, Strubbe D, Clauss M, Lens L, Zedrosser A, Steyaert S, Verbist L, Janssens GPJ. De Cuyper A, et al. Ecol Evol. 2023 May 30;13(5):e10156. doi: 10.1002/ece3.10156. eCollection 2023 May. Ecol Evol. 2023. PMID: 37261316 Free PMC article.
References
- Cotter SC, Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D, Wilson K (2010) Macronutrient balance mediates trade-offs between immune function and life history traits. Funct Ecol 25: 186–198.
- Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (2005) Obesity: the protein leverage hypothesis. Obes Rev 6: 133–142. - PubMed
- Maklakov AA, Simpson SJ, Zajitschek F, Hall MD, Dessmann J, et al. (2008) Sex-specific fitness effects of nutrient intake on reproduction and lifespan. Curr Biol 18: 1062–1066. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
Funding for S. C. P. Coogan was provided by the Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Program, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, Alberta Innovates – Bio Solutions, and the Applied Conservation Ecology lab (http://www.ace-lab.org/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources