How absolute biomass intake can alter nutrient profile interpretation in free-ranging species: The case of protein intake in brown bears
Data files
Apr 10, 2025 version files 26.33 KB
-
ADC_DataCalculationsAll_250324.xlsx
22.28 KB
-
README.md
4.05 KB
Abstract
If an animal eats a large amount of a diet of a low content of a macronutrient, it can still ingest a considerable amount of that macronutrient. Various animals have been shown to balance nutrient content with intake in this way. We use the brown bear (Ursus arctos) as a model species, given their recent classification as ‘low protein omnivores’, to show how taking biomass intake into account can affect macronutrient intake interpretation. We 1) calculated absolute protein intake from published results of self-selection diet studies with bears in captivity and 2) modelled absolute protein intake of Swedish brown bears in autumn while binging on a berry diet of low protein concentrations. In feeding experiments in captivity, the self-selected macronutrient composition of brown bear diets are characterized by protein percentages (both on a dry matter and metabolizable energy basis) that appear low when compared to diets of carnivores. However, when taking into account absolute food intake and expressing this as daily protein intake per metabolic body mass (33-117 g/kg0.75/d), protein intake was considerably higher than established minimum requirements for domestic dogs and cats (2.6-3.8 g/kg0.75/d) – carnivores one would not consider ‘low protein specialists’. Our hypothetical berry model yielded a protein intake of 3.2-9.7 g/kg0.75/d, which is lower than the outcomes from the self-selection trials but still comparable to established requirements of domestic dogs and cats. Instead of perceiving bears as low-protein consumers, it might be more accurate to perceive them as temporary hyperphagia specialists for which low protein concentrations are necessary to avoid dramatically overshooting protein requirements. Including absolute food intake in diet determination offers important nuances in result interpretation. When coining labels to categorize animals, it may be advisable to not only consider nutrient concentrations but also absolute intake.
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.bnzs7h4nk
Description of the data and file structure
The datafile represents the calculations explained in the manuscript.
All the original data is either from the cited sources, or are assumed based on assumptions explained in the manuscript.
Files and variables
File: ADC_DataCalculationsAll_250324.xlsx
Description: The datafile contains four spreadsheets that explain the calculations made for the manuscript. The first spreadsheet is for all calculations relating to brown bears, the second spreadsheet for calculations relating to sloth bears, the third spreadsheet for calculations related to Giant pandas, and the fourth spreadsheet for calculations related to the remaining carnivores of the manuscript, including domestic dogs, wolves, domestic cats and feral cats. The calculations always follow the same principle and only differ in the way that data extracted from the original sources had to be arranged and transformed to produce comparable results.
Variables applying to all calculations
- body weight (BW) (kg)
- metabolic body weight (calculated as body weight to the power of 0.75)
- intake (expressed in fresh or dry matter in kg, and as % of body mass
- dry matter (DM, concentration in fresh matter)
- crude protein (CP) in % dry matter or in kg, in % of metabolizable energy (ME), and in g per metabolic body weight
- minimum and maximum (of ranges given in publications)
- intake rate (g per minute)
- foraging time (hours per day)
- digestibility (the percentage of DM or CP ingested that is actually digested, i.e. not excreted via faeces)
Code/software
The calculations are made in EXCEL using simple mathematical equations.
Access information
Other publicly accessible locations of the data:
- Bosch, G., Hagen-Plantinga, E. A. and Hendriks, W. H. 2015. Dietary nutrient profiles of wild wolves: insights for optimal dog nutrition? - British Journal of Nutrition 113: S40–S54.
- Christian, A. L. 2017. Seasonal variations in bamboo selection and utilization by giant pandas - Master thesis, Texas A&M University, USA.
- De Cuyper, A., Clauss, M., Carbone, C., Codron, D., Cools, A., Hesta, M. and Janssens, G. P. J. 2019. Predator size and prey size–gut capacity ratios determine kill frequency and carcass production in terrestrial carnivorous mammals. - Oikos 128: 13–22.
- D’Hooghe, S. 2024. Feline carnivores and their prey: How important is animal fibre and its structure in their diet? - PhD thesis, Ghent University, Belgium.
- Erlenbach, J. A., Rode, K. D., Raubenheimer, D. and Robbins, C. T. 2014. Macronutrient optimization and energy maximization determine diets of brown bears. - J Mammal 95: 160–168.
- Kazimierska, K., Biel, W., Witkowicz, R., Karakulska, J. and Stachurska, X. 2021. Evaluation of nutritional value and microbiological safety in commercial dog food. - Vet Res Commun 45: 111–128.
- Nagy, K. A., Girard, I. A. and Brown, T. K. 1999. Energetics of free-ranging mammals, reptiles, and birds. - Annu Rev Nutr 19: 247–277.
- Plantinga, E. A., Bosch, G. and Hendriks, W. H. 2011. Estimation of the dietary nutrient profile of free-roaming feral cats: possible implications for nutrition of domestic cats. - British Journal of Nutrition 106: S35–S48.
- Pritchard, G. and Robbins, C. 1990. Digestive and metabolic efficiencies of grizzly and black bears. - Can J Zool 68: 1645–1651.
- Robbins, C. T., Fortin, J. K., Rode, K. D., Farley, S. D., Shipley, L. A. and Felicetti, L. A. 2007. Optimizing protein intake as a foraging strategy to maximize mass gain in an omnivore. - Oikos 116: 1675–1682.
- Robbins, C. T., Christian, A. L., Vineyard, T. G., Thompson, D., Knott, K. K., Tollefson, T. N., Fidgett, A. L. and Wickersham, T. A. 2022a. Ursids evolved early and continuously to be low-protein macronutrient omnivores. - Sci Rep 12: 15251.