Methane Output of Tortoises: Its Contribution to Energy Loss Related to Herbivore Body Mass

Ragna Franz; Carla R. Soliva; Michael Kreuzer; Jean-Michel Hatt; Samuel Furrer; Jürgen Hummel; Marcus Clauss

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017628

Abstract

An increase in body mass (M) is traditionally considered advantageous for herbivores in terms of digestive efficiency. However, recently increasing methane losses with increasing M were described in mammals. To test this pattern in non-mammal herbivores, we conducted feeding trails with 24 tortoises of various species (M range 0.52–180 kg) fed a diet of grass hay ad libitum and salad. Mean daily dry matter and gross energy intake measured over 30 consecutive days scaled to M^{0.75 (95%CI 0.64–0.87)} and M^{0.77 (95%CI 0.66–0.88)}, respectively. Methane production was measured over two consecutive days in respiration chambers and scaled to M^{1.03 (95%CI 0.84–1.22)}. When expressed as energy loss per gross energy intake, methane losses scaled to 0.70 (95%CI 0.47–1.05) M^{0.29 (95%CI 0.14–0.45)}. This scaling overlaps in its confidence intervals to that calculated for nonruminant mammals 0.79 (95%CI 0.63–0.99) M^{0.15 (95%CI 0.09–0.20)}, but is lower than that for ruminants. The similarity between nonruminant mammals and tortoises suggest a common evolution of the gut fauna in ectotherms and endotherms, and that the increase in energetic losses due to methane production with increasing body mass is a general allometric principle in herbivores. These findings add evidence to the view that large body size itself does not necessarily convey a digestive advantage.

Citation: Franz R, Soliva CR, Kreuzer M, Hatt J-M, Furrer S, Hummel J, et al. (2011) Methane Output of Tortoises: Its Contribution to Energy Loss Related to Herbivore Body Mass. PLoS ONE 6(3): e17628. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017628

Editor: Brock Fenton, University of Western Ontario, Canada

Received: December 13, 2010; Accepted: February 3, 2011; Published: March 9, 2011

Copyright: © 2011 Franz et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This study was funded by DFG (German Research Foundation) grant CL 182/5-1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Among the different advantages commonly linked to an increase in body size [1], a widespread concept is that of an increasing digestive efficiency in larger herbivores. Based on the observation that energetic requirements of animals scale to metabolic body mass (i.e., M^0.75) but gut capacity scales linearly with body mass (M^1.0) in mammalian herbivores, Bell [2] and Jarman [3] deducted that at larger M, more gut capacity was available per unit energy requirement/food intake. This so-called ‘Jarman-Bell principle’ [4] was further refined subsequently [5]–[7] and has found widespread application in ecology [8]–[11].

This attractive concept provides an intuitive reason for the observation that larger-bodied herbivores usually ingest food of lower nutritional quality [12], [13]. However, recent findings do not support the notion that digestibility [14], [15] or ingesta retention [16] increase systematically with body mass in mammals, and also not in herbivorous reptiles [17]. Among potential disadvantages, ingesta particle size – one of the factors influencing digestive efficiency – increases with body mass [18], [19], and it has been suggested that energetic losses due to methane production are also higher in larger animals [20].

Methane production has been mainly measured in domestic herbivores to address the issue of feed energy use or, more recently, methane mitigation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [21]. Studies on methane production of non-domestic species have mainly been to complete national or global methane budgets [22]. In contrast, comparative investigations on methane production with respect to herbivore physiology are rare. Methane production has been demonstrated in faeces of captive specimens of nearly all herbivorous terrestrial herbivores, including reptiles [23], and methanogenes have been demonstrated by fluorescence microscopy in land and marine iguanas [24]. In vivo methane production has not been investigated in reptiles to our knowledge. Recently, Franz et al. [25], [26] presented data collections that suggest that methane production scales linearly with M in ruminant and nonruminant mammalian herbivores. The implication of this finding is that because food intake scales to M^0.75, energetic losses due to methane increase per unit ingested food with increasing body size. Thus, methane energy losses could become a serious constraint in species with large body size. Similarly, allometric relationships were the basis of the investigation of Smith et al. [27] who found that the body mass distribution in a herbivore fauna will impact this fauna's contribution to the global methane budget. Apparantly, methane production scales differently than metabolic requirements or rates.

In order to test the concept of disproportionately increasing methane losses with increasing herbivore M with an original dataset, we chose herbivores of another clade, tortoises. In tortoises, a large range of M is available with minimal differences in digestive anatomy and physiology. Scaling of food intake, gut capacity or digesta retention with M is generally similar in herbivorous reptiles and mammals [19], [28]. The aim of our study was to test whether, in tortoises, voluntary food intake scales to M^0.75, and methane production scales linearly with M.

Materials and Methods

This study was performed in accordance with Swiss animal welfare legislation (approved by the Cantonal Veterinary Office Zurich under experimental licence number 192/2006). We performed intake and respiration chamber measurements in 24 individual tortoises of the species Testudo graeca (n = 5, 1.16±0.95 kg, range 0.52–2.83 kg), T. hermanni (n = 6, 1.28±0.36 kg, range 0.91–1.72 kg), G. nigra (n = 2, 5.50±0.28 kg, range 5.30–5.70 kg), Geochelone sulcata (n = 8, 27.8±18.0 kg, range 7.2–50.0 kg), Dipsochelys dussumieri (n = 3, 141±38 kg, range 104–180 kg). Animals were kept individually for 30 days at 27–30°C for intake measurements after an adaptation period of one week. The diet consisted of grass hay and salad in varying proportions; details on intake and digestibility measurements were described previously [17]. Water was available ad libitum at all times. Feed offered and left over was quantified, and faeces were collected completely. Representative subsamples were used to determine dry matter (DM), crude protein, gross energy (GE) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) concentrations using standard methods [29]; these data allowed the calculation of the apparent digestibility of DM, GE and NDF [30]. Experimental conditions or sample size did not always allow all analyses to be performed for all individuals (cf. Table 1). The ingested diets contained crude protein at 130±18 g kg DM⁻¹ (range 95–170) and NDF at 488±107 g kg DM⁻¹ (296–662).

Download:

Table 1. Allometric scaling relationships for tortoises (T), mammalian nonruminants (NR) and ruminants (R) for daily methane production with body mass (M) according to the equation y = a M^b.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017628.t001

After 30-day intake measurements, tortoises were transferred to open circuit respiration chambers constructed and operated as described in Soliva and Hess [31] for two consecutive 22.5 h periods (temperature 29±1°C, constant humidity 60%, pressure 987±8 hPa; chambers for M from 0.5–10 kg: volume 0.85 m³, air flow 1.09±0.08 m³ h⁻¹; chambers for M from 20–180 kg: volume 4.55 m³, air flow 6.08±2.77 m³ h⁻¹). Animals were measured individually except for the tortoises <5 kg; after pilot measurements, two groups of five individuals between 0.5–2 kg and one group of three individuals between 2–3 kg were measured together, and results divided by the number of animals. Animals had access to feed and water in the respiration chambers. All gas volumes were corrected for standard conditions (1013 hPa, 0°C, 0% relative humidity). Methane concentrations were measured by Binos 1001 (infra-red; Fisher-Rosemount, Baar-Walterswil, Switzerland). Following various conventions in the scientific literature, daily methane production was not only expressed in absolute terms, but also in relation to DM, GE, digestible energy (DE) and digestible NDF (dNDF) intake. Data were analysed after ln-transformation using regression analysis with PSAW 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), indicating 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) according to y = a M^b or ln_y = ln_a+b ln_M.

Results

Mean dry matter intake (in kg d⁻¹) of the tortoises scaled to 0.005 (95%CI 0.004–0.007) M^{0.75 (95%CI 0.64–0.87)} (n = 22, r² = 0.90, p<0.001) and mean daily gross energy intake (in kJ d⁻¹) to 86.1 (95%CI 64.5–114.7) M^{0.77 (95%CI 0.66–0.88)} (n = 21, r² = 0.92, p<0.001). In contrast, mean daily methane production scaled linearly to M (Table 1, Fig. 1). During measurements in the respiration chamber, it was noted that methane production was not constant throughout the day but occurred in distinct bursts (Fig. 2).

Download:

Figure 1. Relationship between body mass and absolute daily methane production; data for ruminants (dark grey regression line; data collection from Franz et al. [25]), nonruminant mammalian herbivores (light grey regression line; data collection from Franz et al. [26]) and for tortoises in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017628.g001

Download:

Figure 2. Example of methane production in an open circuit respiration chamber in a Geochelone sulcata (10.5 kg) for one uninterrupted measurement period of 22 hours.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017628.g002

When expressed in relation to intake of digestible energy and fibre, methane losses scaled to M^0.32 and M^0.30, respectively (Table 1, Fig. 3 and 4). The 95%CI of scaling exponent b overlapped between tortoises, nonruminant mammals, and ruminants where data had been obtained in previous assessments [25], [26], except for the scaling exponent when methane was related to digestible energy (not significant in ruminants). The 95%CI of factor a was invariably higher in ruminants than in the other two groups (Table 1).

Download:

Figure 3. Relationship between body mass and methane energy losses in % of daily digestible energy intake; data for ruminants (dark grey regression line; data collection from Franz et al. [25]), nonruminant mammalian herbivores (light grey regression line; data collection from Franz et al. [26]) and for tortoises in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017628.g003

Download:

Figure 4. Relationship between body mass and methane energy losses related to the daily intake of digestible cell wall (neutral detergent fibre); data for ruminants (dark grey regression line; data collection from Franz et al. [25]), nonruminant mammalian herbivores (light grey regression line; data collection from Franz et al. [26]) and for tortoises in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017628.g004

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that in herbivores, methane production scales linearly with body mass, and the proportional losses of energy from feed ingested due to methane output increase with increasing body mass. Although the existing data must still be considered scarce, the parallel findings in ruminant and nonruminant mammalian herbivores and herbivorous tortoises strongly suggest a general scaling pattern.

Similar scaling patterns in reptiles and mammals have been found for other parameters such as field metabolic rate [32], [33], feed intake [16], [17], [34], or ingesta particle size [19] – although on different levels; whilst some other measures appear relatively similar between herbivorous reptiles and mammals, such as the proportion of the gut contents of total body mass [17], [28] or the achieved digestibilities [35], [36]. Generally, it is assumed that energy metabolism in reptiles is roughly a tenth of that observed in mammals [37]. The difference in the intercept a of the regression equation describing dry matter intake in the tortoises of this study (0.005) compared to the intercept of 0.047 found in herbivorous mammals in general [16] fits this pattern, as does the difference in the intercept describing the absolute methane output (0.014 in tortoises vs. 0.181 in nonruminant mammals, Table 1). Consequently, when methane production is expressed per unit intake, there is no significant difference in the intercept a between tortoises and nonruminant mammals (Table 1).

This finding indicates a common adaptation of the gastrointestinal fauna between ectotherms and endotherms. Other similarities between the microbial faunas of herbivorous reptiles and mammals have been reported, such as the number of gut bacteria and the presence of protozoa [38]–[40], cellulase activity [41], or the concentration of fermentation products [42]–[45]. A relatively similar methane production per unit food intake in reptiles and mammals means that the processes of microbial fermentation must be similar even though the microbial faunas of reptiles and mammals will vary distinctively in their temperature sensitivity. The findings suggest that methane production is a more or less constant, unavoidable by-product of microbial fermentation in herbivores. Because of the well-documented differences in ingesta retention times between herbivorous reptiles (230±140 h [17], [46]) and mammals (40±25 h [16]), the similarity in methane scaling between reptiles and mammals also indicates that retention time as such is not the main factor influencing the scope of methane production, even if it may be relevant when comparing data within species [47], [48]. Our results also suggest that the increase in methane production with increasing body size is not only due to an increase in fibre digestibility at higher body sizes; when expressed per unit of digestible fibre intake, the effect of an increasing methane production remains and scales similarly with M as when expressed in relation to other intake measures (Table 1).

Prins and Kreulen [49] and Van Soest [50] suggested that a different group of methanogenes – slower-growing archeae with a generation time of about 4 days that produce methane from acetate in sewers, for example – may actually limit body size in herbivores. They considered ingesta retention a function of body mass [6], [7], [16] and hypothesized that when retention times surpass 4 days, energetic losses due to acetate-based methanogenesis would become prohibitve for the host. In herbivorous reptiles retention times beyond 96 h are common [46], [51] which indicates that other factors than retention time must limit the occurence of slow-growing archeae in herbivores.

An interesting question is could methane production by the fast-growing archeae be a constraint on the evolution of body size? This has been suggested for ruminants, due to the high proportion of energetic methane losses in this group [25]; for nonruminant mammals, these losses might become limiting at extrapolated body masses of 100 metric tonnes [26] – a putative constraint that might apply conceptually for the largest dinosaurs [1]. Reptiles never reached such proportions. When the regression equation from tortoises is directly applied to the largest known chelonian, Archelon ischyros, a marine turtle with an estimated maximum M of 5000 kg [52], extrapolated methane energy losses per unit of digestible energy intake (14%) approach those found in large ruminants. Note that this similarity to ruminants, in spite of the general similarity in scaling between tortoises and nonruminant mammals, is due to the determined exponent b of 0.32, which is numerically higher than the one calculated for nonruminant mammals (0.17), though overlapping in its confidence interval. Differences in exponent should be considered with caution when extrapolations beyond the M range are performed that served to generate the regression equation [28].

Why herbivores apparently did not evolve to avoid methane losses is a fundamental question. Intervention studies in domestic ruminants have shown that functional digestion can be maintained in the absence or near-absence of Archeae and without methane production [53]–[56]. An alternative view of methanogenes could be that they are among the prerequisites for herbivory. Pimentel et al. [57] showed that, in a models with dogs and guinea pigs, methane slowed intestinal passage by decreasing intestinal contractile activity. In humans, methane production is associated with increased digesta retention times [58]–[61], and is positively correlated with constipation and negatively with diarrhoea [62], [63]. Reduction of methane production by oral antibiotic treatment leads to a reduction of constipation [64], [65]. While offering new insights into potential therapeutical interventions against human irritable bowel syndrome, these results also give rise to the speculation that the presence of methane, and its passage-delaying effect, was an important component of the evolution of physiological adaptations to herbivory, which requires long passage times. However, confirmation of this hypothesis requires much further research.

Our study shows that methane losses not only occur in mammalian but also in reptilian herbivores, and that they scale linearly with body mass, thus representing proportionally increasing losses at increasing body size. Therefore, differences in the proportion of ingested energy lost to methane, according to the body size composition of any mammal or reptile herbivore fauna should be considered when reconstructing trophic energy fluxes in ecosystems, or contributions of these ecosystems to changes in the composition of the atmosphere [27]. Further studies combining in vivo measurements and microbiological analyses should unravel the fundamental principles behind the link between microbial fibre fermentation in vertebrate herbivores and methane production.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Zoological Garden of Zurich, Peter Sandmeier, Ruth Huber and Otti Steck for providing the experimental animals. This is contribution no. 99 of the DFG Research Unit 533 “The Biology of Sauropod Dinosaurs”.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MC JH CRS MK J-MH. Performed the experiments: RF SF MC. Analyzed the data: RF JH MC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CRS MK SF J-MH. Wrote the paper: RF MK MC.

References

1. Sander PM, Christian A, Clauss M, Fechner R, Gee CT, et al. (2011) Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism. Biol Rev 86: 117–155.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Bell RHV (1971) A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci Am 225: 86–93.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Jarman PJ (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48: 215–266.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Geist V (1974) On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in ungulates. Am Zool 14: 205–220.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Parra R (1978) Comparison of foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In: Montgomery GG, editor. The ecology of arboreal folivores. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 205–229.
6. Demment MW, Van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125: 641–672.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Illius AW, Gordon IJ (1992) Modelling the nutritional ecology of ungulate herbivores: evolution of body size and competitive interactions. Oecologia 89: 428–434.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Fleming TH (1991) The relationship between body size, diet, and habitat use in frugivorous bats, Genus Carollia (Phyllostomidae). J Mammal 72: 493–501.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Barboza PS, Bowyer RT (2000) Sexual segregation in dimorphic deer: a new gastrocentric hypothesis. J Mammal 81: 473–489.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Gaulin SJC (1979) A Jarman-Bell model of primate feeding niches. Hum Ecol 7: 1–20.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. McNab BK (2002) The physiological ecology of vertebrates. A view from energetics. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
12. Codron D, Lee-Thorp JA, Sponheimer M, Codron J, de Ruiter D, et al. (2007) Significance of diet type and diet quality for ecological diversity of African ungulates. J Anim Ecol 76: 526–537.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Owen-Smith N (1988) Megaherbivores - the influence of very large body size on ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Pérez-Barberìa FJ, Elston DA, Gordon IJ, Illius AW (2004) The evolution of phylogenetic differences in the efficiency of digestion in ruminants. Proc R Soc B 271: 1081–1090.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Clauss M, Nunn C, Fritz J, Hummel J (2009) Evidence for a tradeoff between retention time and chewing efficiency in large mammalian herbivores. Comp Biochem Physiol A 154: 376–382.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Clauss M, Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Streich WJ, Hummel J (2007) A case of non-scaling in mammalian physiology? Body size, digestive capacity, food intake, and ingesta passage in mammalian herbivores. Comp Biochem Physiol A 148: 249–265.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Franz R, Hummel J, Müller DWH, Bauert M, Hatt J-M, et al. (2011) Herbivorous reptiles and body mass: effects on food intake, digesta retention, digestibility and gut capacity, and a comparison with mammals. Comp Biochem Physiol A 158: 94–101.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Fritz J, Hummel J, Kienzle E, Arnold C, Nunn C, et al. (2009) Comparative chewing efficiency in mammalian herbivores. Oikos 118: 1623–1632.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Fritz J, Hummel J, Kienzle E, Streich WJ, Clauss M (2010) To chew or not to chew: faecal particle size in herbivorous reptiles and mammals. J Exp Zool A 313: 579–586.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Clauss M, Hummel J (2005) The digestive performance of mammalian herbivores: why big may not be that much better. Mammal Rev 35: 174–187.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Martin C, Morgavi DP, Doreau M (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4: 351–365.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Crutzen PJ, Aselmann I, Seiler W (1986) Methane production by domestic animals, wild ruminants, other herbivorous fauna, and humans. Tellus 38B: 271–284.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Hackstein JHP, Van Alen TA (1996) Fecal methanogenes and vertebrate evolution. Evolution 50: 559–572.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Mackie RI, Rycyk M, Ruemmler RL, Aminov RI, Wikelski M (2004) Biochemical and microbiological evidence for fermentative digestion in free-living land iguanas (Conolophus pallidus) and marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) on the Galápagos Archipelago. Physiol Biochem Zool 77: 127–138.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Franz R, Soliva CR, Kreuzer M, Steuer P, Hummel J, et al. (2010) Methane production and body mass in ruminants and equids. Evol Ecol Res 12: 727–738.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Franz R, Soliva CR, Kreuzer M, Hummel J, Clauss M (2011) Methane in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) on a hay-only diet: implications for the scaling of methane procution with body mass in nonruminant mammalian herbivores. Comp Biochem Physiol A 158: 177–181.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Smith FA, Elliott SM, Lyons SK (2010) Methane emissions from extinct megafauna. Nature Geosci 3: 374–375.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Franz R, Hummel J, Kienzle E, Kölle P, Gunga HC, et al. (2009) Allometry of visceral organs in living amniotes and its implications for sauropod dinosaurs. Proc R Soc B 276: 1731–1736.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. AOAC (1997) Official methods of analysis. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
30. Robbins C (1993) Wildlife feeding and nutrition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31. Soliva CR, Hess HD (2007) Measuring methane emission of ruminants by in vitro and in vivo techniques. In: Makkar HPS, Vercoe PE, editors. Measuring methane production from ruminants. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 15–31.
32. Nagy KA, Girard IA, Brown TK (1999) Energetics of free-ranging mammals, reptiles, and birds. Ann Rev Nutr 19: 247–277.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Bennett AF, Dawson WR (1976) Metabolism. In: Gans C, Dawson WR, editors. Biology of the Reptilia, Vol 5 (Physiology A). New York: Academic Press. pp. 127–223.
34. Meienberger C, Wallis IR, Nagy KA (1993) Food intake rate and body mass influence transit time and digestibility in the desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii). Physiol Zool 66: 847–862.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Hatt JM, Clauss M, Gisler R, Liesegang A, Wanner M (2005) Fiber digestibility in juvenile captive Galapagos tortoises (Geochelone nigra). Zoo Biol 24: 185–191.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Karasov WH, Petrossian E, Rosenberg L, Diamond JM (1986) How do food passage rate and assimilation differ between herbivorous lizards and nonruminants mammals? J Comp Physiol B 156: 599–609.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Kirkwood JK (1996) Nutrition of captive and free-living wild animals. In: Kelly N, Wills J, editors. BSAVA manual of companion animal nutrition and feeding. Cheltenham, UK: British Small Animal Veterinary Association. pp. 235–243.
38. McBee RH, McBee VH (1982) The hindgut fermentation in the green iguana, Iguana iguana. In: Burghardt GM, Rand AS, editors. Iguanas of the world: behaviour, ecology, and conservation. New Jersey: Noyes Publishers. pp. 77–83.
39. Troyer K (1984) Behavioural acquisition of the hindgut fermentation system by hatchling Iguana iguana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14: 189–193.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Fenchel TM, McRoy CP, Ogden JC, Parker P, Rainey WE (1979) Symbiotic cellulose degradation in green turtles Chelonia mydas. Appl Environ Microbiol 37: 348–350.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Nagy KA (1977) Cellulose digestion and nutrient assimilation in Sauromalus obesus, a plant-eating lizard. Copeia 1977: 355–362.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Foley WJ, Bouskila A, Shkolnik A, Chosniak I (1992) Microbial digestion in the herbivorous lizard Uromastyx aegypticus (Agamidae). J Zool 226: 387–398.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Troyer K (1984) Structure and function of the digestive tract of a herbivorous lizard Iguana iguana. Physiol Zool 57: 1–8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Barboza PS (1995) Digesta passage and functional anatomy of the digestive tract in the desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii). J Comp Physiol B 165: 193–202.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Bjorndal KA (1979) Cellulose digestion and volatile fatty acid production in the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Comp Biochem Physiol A 63: 127–133.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Hailey A (1997) Digestive efficiency and gut morphology of omnivorous and herbivorous African tortoises. Can J Zool 75: 787–794.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Pinares-Patiño CS, Ulyatt MJ, Lassey KR, Barry TN, Holmes CW (2003) Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. J Agric Sci 140: 205–214.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Okine EK, Mathison GW, Hardin RT (1989) Effects of changes in frequency of reticular contractions on fluid and particulate passage rates in cattle. J Anim Sci 67: 3388–3396.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Prins RA, Kreulen DA (1991) Comparative aspects of plant cell wall digestion in mammals. In: Hoshino S, Onodera R, Minoto H, Itabashi H, editors. The rumen ecosystem. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Society Press. pp. 109–120.
50. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 476 p.
51. Hatt JM, Gisler R, Mayes R, Lechner-Doll M, Clauss M, et al. (2002) The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of intake, digestibility, mean retention time and diet selection in Galapagos tortoises. Herpetol J 12: 45–54.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Anonymous (1999) http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/states/south_dakota/turtle/archelon.html.
53. McCrabb GJ, Berger KT, Magner T, May C, Hunter RA (1997) Inhibiting methane production in Brahman cattle by dietary supplementation with a novel compound and the effects on growth. Austr J Agric Res 48: 323–329.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Goel G, Makkar HPS, Becker K (2009) Inhibition of methanogens by bromochloromethane: effects on microbial communities and rumen fermentation using batch and continuous fermentations. Br J Nutr 101: 1484–1492.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Tomkins NW, Colegate SM, Hunter RA (2009) A bromochloromethane formulation reduces enteric methanogenesis in cattle fed grain-based diets. Anim Prod Sci 49: 1053–1058.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Sawyer MS, Hoover WH, Sniffen CJ (1974) Effects of a ruminal methane inhibitor on growth and energy metabolism in the ovine. J Anim Sci 38: 908–914.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Pimentel M, Lin HC, Enayati P, van den Burg B, Lee H-R, et al. (2006) Methane, a gas produced by enteric bacteria, slows intestinal transit and augments small intestinal contractile activity. Am J Physiol 290: G1089–G1095.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Soares ACF, Lederman HM, Fagundes-Neto U, de Morais MB (2005) Breath methane associated with slow colonic transit time in children with chronic constipation. J Clin Gastroenterol 39: 512–515.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. El Oufir L, Flourié B, Bruley des Varannes S, Barry JL, Cloarec D, et al. (1996) Relations between transit time, fermentation products, and hydrogen consuming flora in healthy humans. Gut 38: 870–877.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Cloarec D, Bornet F, Gouilloud S, Barry JL, Salim B, et al. (1990) Breath hydrogen response to lactulose in healthy subjects: relationship to methane producing status. Gut 31: 300–304.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Stephen A, Wiggins HS, Englyst HN, Cole TJ, Wayman BJ, et al. (1986) The effect of age, sex and level of intake of dietary fibre from wheat on large-bowel function in thirty healthy subjects. Br J Nutr 56: 349–361.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Chatterjee S, Park S, Low K, Kong Y, Pimentel M (2007) The degree of breath methane production in IBS correlates with the severity of constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 102: 837–841.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Hwang L, Low K, Khoshini R, Melmed G, Sahakian A, et al. (2010) Evaluating breath methane as a diagnostic test for constipation-predominant IBS. Dig Dis Sci 55: 398–403.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Pimentel M, Chatterjee S, Chow EJ, Park S, Kong Y (2006) Neomycin improves constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome in a fashion that is dependent on the presence of methane gas: subanalysis of a double-blind randomized controlled study. Dig Dis Sci 51: 1297–1301.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Low K, Hwang L, Hua J, Zhu A, Morales W, et al. (2010) A combination of rifaximin and neomycin is most effective in treating irritable bowel syndrome patients with methane on lactulose breath test. J Clin Gastroenterol 44: 547–550.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Sander PM, Christian A, Clauss M, Fechner R, Gee CT, et al. (2011) Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism. Biol Rev 86: 117–155.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Bell RHV (1971) A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci Am 225: 86–93.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Jarman PJ (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48: 215–266.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Geist V (1974) On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in ungulates. Am Zool 14: 205–220.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Parra R (1978) Comparison of foregut and hindgut fermentation in herbivores. In: Montgomery GG, editor. The ecology of arboreal folivores. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 205–229.

[ref6] 6. Demment MW, Van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125: 641–672.
View Article
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Illius AW, Gordon IJ (1992) Modelling the nutritional ecology of ungulate herbivores: evolution of body size and competitive interactions. Oecologia 89: 428–434.
View Article
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Fleming TH (1991) The relationship between body size, diet, and habitat use in frugivorous bats, Genus Carollia (Phyllostomidae). J Mammal 72: 493–501.
View Article
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Barboza PS, Bowyer RT (2000) Sexual segregation in dimorphic deer: a new gastrocentric hypothesis. J Mammal 81: 473–489.
View Article
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Gaulin SJC (1979) A Jarman-Bell model of primate feeding niches. Hum Ecol 7: 1–20.
View Article
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. McNab BK (2002) The physiological ecology of vertebrates. A view from energetics. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.

[ref12] 12. Codron D, Lee-Thorp JA, Sponheimer M, Codron J, de Ruiter D, et al. (2007) Significance of diet type and diet quality for ecological diversity of African ungulates. J Anim Ecol 76: 526–537.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Owen-Smith N (1988) Megaherbivores - the influence of very large body size on ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[ref14] 14. Pérez-Barberìa FJ, Elston DA, Gordon IJ, Illius AW (2004) The evolution of phylogenetic differences in the efficiency of digestion in ruminants. Proc R Soc B 271: 1081–1090.
View Article
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Clauss M, Nunn C, Fritz J, Hummel J (2009) Evidence for a tradeoff between retention time and chewing efficiency in large mammalian herbivores. Comp Biochem Physiol A 154: 376–382.
View Article
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Clauss M, Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Streich WJ, Hummel J (2007) A case of non-scaling in mammalian physiology? Body size, digestive capacity, food intake, and ingesta passage in mammalian herbivores. Comp Biochem Physiol A 148: 249–265.
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Franz R, Hummel J, Müller DWH, Bauert M, Hatt J-M, et al. (2011) Herbivorous reptiles and body mass: effects on food intake, digesta retention, digestibility and gut capacity, and a comparison with mammals. Comp Biochem Physiol A 158: 94–101.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Fritz J, Hummel J, Kienzle E, Arnold C, Nunn C, et al. (2009) Comparative chewing efficiency in mammalian herbivores. Oikos 118: 1623–1632.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Fritz J, Hummel J, Kienzle E, Streich WJ, Clauss M (2010) To chew or not to chew: faecal particle size in herbivorous reptiles and mammals. J Exp Zool A 313: 579–586.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Clauss M, Hummel J (2005) The digestive performance of mammalian herbivores: why big may not be that much better. Mammal Rev 35: 174–187.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Martin C, Morgavi DP, Doreau M (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4: 351–365.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Crutzen PJ, Aselmann I, Seiler W (1986) Methane production by domestic animals, wild ruminants, other herbivorous fauna, and humans. Tellus 38B: 271–284.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Hackstein JHP, Van Alen TA (1996) Fecal methanogenes and vertebrate evolution. Evolution 50: 559–572.
View Article
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Mackie RI, Rycyk M, Ruemmler RL, Aminov RI, Wikelski M (2004) Biochemical and microbiological evidence for fermentative digestion in free-living land iguanas (Conolophus pallidus) and marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) on the Galápagos Archipelago. Physiol Biochem Zool 77: 127–138.
View Article
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Franz R, Soliva CR, Kreuzer M, Steuer P, Hummel J, et al. (2010) Methane production and body mass in ruminants and equids. Evol Ecol Res 12: 727–738.
View Article
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Franz R, Soliva CR, Kreuzer M, Hummel J, Clauss M (2011) Methane in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) on a hay-only diet: implications for the scaling of methane procution with body mass in nonruminant mammalian herbivores. Comp Biochem Physiol A 158: 177–181.
View Article
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Smith FA, Elliott SM, Lyons SK (2010) Methane emissions from extinct megafauna. Nature Geosci 3: 374–375.
View Article
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Franz R, Hummel J, Kienzle E, Kölle P, Gunga HC, et al. (2009) Allometry of visceral organs in living amniotes and its implications for sauropod dinosaurs. Proc R Soc B 276: 1731–1736.
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. AOAC (1997) Official methods of analysis. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.

[ref30] 30. Robbins C (1993) Wildlife feeding and nutrition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

[ref31] 31. Soliva CR, Hess HD (2007) Measuring methane emission of ruminants by in vitro and in vivo techniques. In: Makkar HPS, Vercoe PE, editors. Measuring methane production from ruminants. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 15–31.

[ref32] 32. Nagy KA, Girard IA, Brown TK (1999) Energetics of free-ranging mammals, reptiles, and birds. Ann Rev Nutr 19: 247–277.
View Article
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Bennett AF, Dawson WR (1976) Metabolism. In: Gans C, Dawson WR, editors. Biology of the Reptilia, Vol 5 (Physiology A). New York: Academic Press. pp. 127–223.

[ref34] 34. Meienberger C, Wallis IR, Nagy KA (1993) Food intake rate and body mass influence transit time and digestibility in the desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii). Physiol Zool 66: 847–862.
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Hatt JM, Clauss M, Gisler R, Liesegang A, Wanner M (2005) Fiber digestibility in juvenile captive Galapagos tortoises (Geochelone nigra). Zoo Biol 24: 185–191.
View Article
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Karasov WH, Petrossian E, Rosenberg L, Diamond JM (1986) How do food passage rate and assimilation differ between herbivorous lizards and nonruminants mammals? J Comp Physiol B 156: 599–609.
View Article
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Kirkwood JK (1996) Nutrition of captive and free-living wild animals. In: Kelly N, Wills J, editors. BSAVA manual of companion animal nutrition and feeding. Cheltenham, UK: British Small Animal Veterinary Association. pp. 235–243.

[ref38] 38. McBee RH, McBee VH (1982) The hindgut fermentation in the green iguana, Iguana iguana. In: Burghardt GM, Rand AS, editors. Iguanas of the world: behaviour, ecology, and conservation. New Jersey: Noyes Publishers. pp. 77–83.

[ref39] 39. Troyer K (1984) Behavioural acquisition of the hindgut fermentation system by hatchling Iguana iguana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14: 189–193.
View Article
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Fenchel TM, McRoy CP, Ogden JC, Parker P, Rainey WE (1979) Symbiotic cellulose degradation in green turtles Chelonia mydas. Appl Environ Microbiol 37: 348–350.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Nagy KA (1977) Cellulose digestion and nutrient assimilation in Sauromalus obesus, a plant-eating lizard. Copeia 1977: 355–362.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Foley WJ, Bouskila A, Shkolnik A, Chosniak I (1992) Microbial digestion in the herbivorous lizard Uromastyx aegypticus (Agamidae). J Zool 226: 387–398.
View Article
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Troyer K (1984) Structure and function of the digestive tract of a herbivorous lizard Iguana iguana. Physiol Zool 57: 1–8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Barboza PS (1995) Digesta passage and functional anatomy of the digestive tract in the desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii). J Comp Physiol B 165: 193–202.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Bjorndal KA (1979) Cellulose digestion and volatile fatty acid production in the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Comp Biochem Physiol A 63: 127–133.
View Article
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Hailey A (1997) Digestive efficiency and gut morphology of omnivorous and herbivorous African tortoises. Can J Zool 75: 787–794.
View Article
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Pinares-Patiño CS, Ulyatt MJ, Lassey KR, Barry TN, Holmes CW (2003) Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. J Agric Sci 140: 205–214.
View Article
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Okine EK, Mathison GW, Hardin RT (1989) Effects of changes in frequency of reticular contractions on fluid and particulate passage rates in cattle. J Anim Sci 67: 3388–3396.
View Article
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Prins RA, Kreulen DA (1991) Comparative aspects of plant cell wall digestion in mammals. In: Hoshino S, Onodera R, Minoto H, Itabashi H, editors. The rumen ecosystem. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Society Press. pp. 109–120.

[ref50] 50. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 476 p.

[ref51] 51. Hatt JM, Gisler R, Mayes R, Lechner-Doll M, Clauss M, et al. (2002) The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of intake, digestibility, mean retention time and diet selection in Galapagos tortoises. Herpetol J 12: 45–54.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Anonymous (1999) http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/states/south_dakota/turtle/archelon.html.

[ref53] 53. McCrabb GJ, Berger KT, Magner T, May C, Hunter RA (1997) Inhibiting methane production in Brahman cattle by dietary supplementation with a novel compound and the effects on growth. Austr J Agric Res 48: 323–329.
View Article
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Goel G, Makkar HPS, Becker K (2009) Inhibition of methanogens by bromochloromethane: effects on microbial communities and rumen fermentation using batch and continuous fermentations. Br J Nutr 101: 1484–1492.
View Article
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Tomkins NW, Colegate SM, Hunter RA (2009) A bromochloromethane formulation reduces enteric methanogenesis in cattle fed grain-based diets. Anim Prod Sci 49: 1053–1058.
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Sawyer MS, Hoover WH, Sniffen CJ (1974) Effects of a ruminal methane inhibitor on growth and energy metabolism in the ovine. J Anim Sci 38: 908–914.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Pimentel M, Lin HC, Enayati P, van den Burg B, Lee H-R, et al. (2006) Methane, a gas produced by enteric bacteria, slows intestinal transit and augments small intestinal contractile activity. Am J Physiol 290: G1089–G1095.
View Article
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Soares ACF, Lederman HM, Fagundes-Neto U, de Morais MB (2005) Breath methane associated with slow colonic transit time in children with chronic constipation. J Clin Gastroenterol 39: 512–515.
View Article
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. El Oufir L, Flourié B, Bruley des Varannes S, Barry JL, Cloarec D, et al. (1996) Relations between transit time, fermentation products, and hydrogen consuming flora in healthy humans. Gut 38: 870–877.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Cloarec D, Bornet F, Gouilloud S, Barry JL, Salim B, et al. (1990) Breath hydrogen response to lactulose in healthy subjects: relationship to methane producing status. Gut 31: 300–304.
View Article
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Stephen A, Wiggins HS, Englyst HN, Cole TJ, Wayman BJ, et al. (1986) The effect of age, sex and level of intake of dietary fibre from wheat on large-bowel function in thirty healthy subjects. Br J Nutr 56: 349–361.
View Article
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Chatterjee S, Park S, Low K, Kong Y, Pimentel M (2007) The degree of breath methane production in IBS correlates with the severity of constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 102: 837–841.
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Hwang L, Low K, Khoshini R, Melmed G, Sahakian A, et al. (2010) Evaluating breath methane as a diagnostic test for constipation-predominant IBS. Dig Dis Sci 55: 398–403.
View Article
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Pimentel M, Chatterjee S, Chow EJ, Park S, Kong Y (2006) Neomycin improves constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome in a fashion that is dependent on the presence of methane gas: subanalysis of a double-blind randomized controlled study. Dig Dis Sci 51: 1297–1301.
View Article
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Low K, Hwang L, Hua J, Zhu A, Morales W, et al. (2010) A combination of rifaximin and neomycin is most effective in treating irritable bowel syndrome patients with methane on lactulose breath test. J Clin Gastroenterol 44: 547–550.
View Article
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References