ArticleEcology2025
Unraveling the drivers of forage quality variation in the Serengeti.
Article in Ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should elephants graze or browse? The nutritional and functional consequences of dietary variation in a mixed-feeding megaherbivore.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Variation in forage quality is a key dimension of herbivore resource partitioning, but the main determinants of such variation across environmental gradients remain poorly understood. It is especially unclear how much variation in plant nutrient contents and stoichiometry is driven by plant species turnover versus by intraspecific variation across sites. We investigated variation in forage quality across nine sites along a key environmental gradient of increasing rainfall and decreasing soil fertility in the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. We compared leaf elemental contents of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sodium (Na) and three nutrient ratios (N:P, Ca:P, and K:Na) between sites, between species within the same site, and between sites within the same species. Site-average N, P, and K leaf contents decreased with increasing rainfall and decreasing soil fertility. The decline in N and K was primarily associated with species turnover, with their contents remaining relatively stable within species. The decline in P was associated with a combination of species turnover and intraspecific variation, with intraspecific P content decreasing strongly with increasing rainfall (decreasing soil fertility) across sites. Variation in site-average Ca, Mg, and Na leaf contents did not significantly correlate with rainfall or soil fertility and was mainly explained by species turnover between sites. Comparing leaf nutrient content and ratios to literature-derived nutritional requirements for large herbivores suggests that Na is severely limiting in this ecosystem. K seems sufficient everywhere, and the other elements are moderately limiting. If Serengeti herbivores rely on plants for their nutrient intake and are nutrient-limited, these results suggest herbivores with high N, Ca, or Mg requirements should optimize their diet by selecting particular species, relatively independent of sites. Herbivores with a high P requirement can instead best select particular sites, relatively independent of plant species. To obtain sufficient Na, herbivores can target particular species at particular sites. Thus, resource partitioning among Serengeti herbivores may occur at different levels for different elements. Interspecific variation in herbivore nutrient requirements would then drive resource partitioning both across sites (for P and Na) and between plant species (N, Ca, Mg, and Na).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.