Sara Gamboa, Sofía Galván, Mar Sobral, Manuel Hernández Fernández, Sara Varela
{"title":"The division of food space among mammalian species on biomes","authors":"Sara Gamboa, Sofía Galván, Mar Sobral, Manuel Hernández Fernández, Sara Varela","doi":"10.1002/ecog.07660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding how species' ecological partitioning functions across biomes is fundamental to macroecology and conservation biology. Here, we examine the global distribution of dietary strategies in terrestrial mammals, focusing on how biome specialization modulates trophic diversity and structure at a broad geographical scale. Using species‐level data from over 3600 terrestrial mammal species, we constructed a multivariate dietary space and quantified the area, redundancy, dispersion, uniqueness, and turnover of trophic strategies across ten major biomes. Species were classified as biome specialists, moderate generalists, or extreme generalists based on their biome breadth. By analysing biome specialists and generalists separately, we show that biome specialists tend to exhibit more constrained and compositionally distinct dietary niches in less productive biomes, while generalists, particularly moderate generalists, dominate functional space occupancy in all biomes, even the harsher ones such as tundra and taiga. This highlights how environmental constraints and ecological roles shape trophic strategies at a global scale. Notably, extreme generalists tended to exhibit more carnivorous or insectivorous diets, suggesting a strategy based on mobile predation or opportunism rather than a highly diversified omnivory. Despite these general patterns, highly productive biomes supported the greatest diversity of dietary strategies, with higher functional redundancy and niche packing. Nestedness and turnover analyses revealed that biome specialists diets are often subsets of generalists diets, but with significant compositional shifts across biomes. These findings underscore the dual role of biome generalists as both functional stabilizers and potential limiters of ecological diversity, and highlight the vulnerability of specialist species to global change. Our study offers a mechanistic framework for understanding how dietary strategies interact with environmental filtering, and for identifying functional risks in changing ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"694 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ecog.07660","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Understanding how species' ecological partitioning functions across biomes is fundamental to macroecology and conservation biology. Here, we examine the global distribution of dietary strategies in terrestrial mammals, focusing on how biome specialization modulates trophic diversity and structure at a broad geographical scale. Using species‐level data from over 3600 terrestrial mammal species, we constructed a multivariate dietary space and quantified the area, redundancy, dispersion, uniqueness, and turnover of trophic strategies across ten major biomes. Species were classified as biome specialists, moderate generalists, or extreme generalists based on their biome breadth. By analysing biome specialists and generalists separately, we show that biome specialists tend to exhibit more constrained and compositionally distinct dietary niches in less productive biomes, while generalists, particularly moderate generalists, dominate functional space occupancy in all biomes, even the harsher ones such as tundra and taiga. This highlights how environmental constraints and ecological roles shape trophic strategies at a global scale. Notably, extreme generalists tended to exhibit more carnivorous or insectivorous diets, suggesting a strategy based on mobile predation or opportunism rather than a highly diversified omnivory. Despite these general patterns, highly productive biomes supported the greatest diversity of dietary strategies, with higher functional redundancy and niche packing. Nestedness and turnover analyses revealed that biome specialists diets are often subsets of generalists diets, but with significant compositional shifts across biomes. These findings underscore the dual role of biome generalists as both functional stabilizers and potential limiters of ecological diversity, and highlight the vulnerability of specialist species to global change. Our study offers a mechanistic framework for understanding how dietary strategies interact with environmental filtering, and for identifying functional risks in changing ecosystems.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.