Plasticity in food assimilation, retention time and coprophagy allow herbivorous cavies (Microcavia Australis) to cope with low food quality in the Monte desert- Sassi et al BY FAAIZAH IYAZ, LIZ LEWANDOWSKI, GERALDI PRAJNAMITRA, AND SONAM SAKYA geraldi http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/celeste0502/images/36791487/title/kawaii-bunny-eating-udon-photo http://www.fotonat.org/details.php?image_id=62250 http://cliparts.co/clipart/1624786

Background- Ruminant vs. non ruminant Do you remember? geraldi Sherwood Fig. 14-31: protein pathways in the ruminant https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=35033.15 Stevens & Hume, Physiological review 1998

Foregut vs. Hindgut Foregut Advantages Hindgut Advantages Microbial biome in Rumen Maximize energy extraction and absorption of nutrients Rumen can benefits from late sweep (intake poorer quality food and maximize extraction) Hindgut Advantages Relatively fast digestion large intestine receives the late sweep Individual obtains nutrients first geraldi and liz https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=35033.15

What is Coprophagy? Consumption of feces Why is this important? -Nutrients pass by too fast -Leads to system being limited with absorption -Recycled nutrients back into the system Young eat feces to establish a microbial population which grow in their gut lizzle https://simplovore.wordpress.com/tag/spam/

Introduction to Paper Main goal of this paper: Look at effects on digestibility, food ingestion rate, mean retention rate and number of coprophagy events in cavies from 2 different populations in the Monte Desert using low/ high quality food Desert habitat: Matagusanos Forest habitat: Nacunan High quality food= alfalfa w/ water Low quality= alfalfa w/ water and cellulose lizzle

Hypotheses 1. Individuals compensate for low quality diets through increases in ingestion rate and/or selective retention of digesta 2. Individuals feeding on low quality diets perform coprophagy more often

Experiment 1- Mean Retention Time Co-EDTA used as fluid digesta marker → not usual in cavies diet Feces collected from low/ high quality food fed cavies Mean retention time= amount of time spent in digestion Calculated from time Co-EDTA was ingested to egestion Faaizah

Results from Experiment 1 - MRT was lower for low quality diet than high quality food in cavies from Matagusanos - MRT is similar between low/high quality food in cavies from Nacunan

Experiment 2- Coprophagy Took video of 5 cavies from both locations, randomly fed low/high quality food Analyzed video to detect number of coprophagy events of low/high quality food fed cavies Results Coprophagy rate is significantly higher for low quality diet compared to high quality diet Experiment 2

I poop dingleberries hehe! :3 The Big Picture Experimental data does support initial predictions MRT indicates difference in cavie’s response to diet low quality diet = increased coprophagy I poop dingleberries hehe! :3 -mean retention time does show a difference in the two habitats and the cavies response to low quality diets. Matagusanos had a lower retention time which meant a more rapid passage of food and more coprophagy events. extracted more energy than the nacunans, and nacunan MRTS were similar for both high and low quality diets, which means that they weren’t as flexible in response to nutrient availability. In terms of coprophay Lower quality diets resulted in an increase of coprophagy events for the cavies they observed and obtained data from. https://ecohosteria.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/cuis_chico.jpg