4.4 Review

An updated global data set for diet preferences in terrestrial mammals: testing the validity of extrapolation

期刊

MAMMAL REVIEW
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 160-167

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mam.12119

关键词

dietary data set; dietary guilds; extrapolation validity; mammalia; trophic level

资金

  1. Azrieli Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diet is a key trait of an organism's life history that influences a broad spectrum of ecological and evolutionary processes. Kissling etal. (2014; Ecology and Evolution 4: 2913-2930) compiled a species-specific data set of diet preferences of mammals for 38% of a total of 5364 terrestrial mammalian species assessed for the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, to facilitate future studies. The authors imputed dietary data for the remaining 62% by using extrapolation from phylogenetic relatives. We collected dietary information for 1261 mammalian species for which data were extrapolated by Kissling etal. (2014), in order to evaluate the success with which such extrapolation can predict true diets. The extrapolation method devised by Kissling etal. (2014) performed well for broad dietary categories (consumers of plants and animals). However, the method performed inconsistently, and sometimes poorly, for finer dietary categories, varying in accuracy in both dietary categories and mammalian orders. The results of the extrapolation performance serve as a cautionary tale. Given the large variation in extrapolation performance, we recommend a more conservative approach for inferring mammalian diets, whereby dietary extrapolation is implemented only when there is a high degree of phylogenetic conservatism for dietary traits. Phylogenetic comparative methods can be used to detect and measure phylogenetic signal in diet. If data for species are needed, then only the broadest feeding categories should be used. This would ensure a greater level of accuracy and provide a more robust data set for further ecological and evolutionary analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据