Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 74–85 | Cite as

Preferences of Specialist and Generalist Mammalian Herbivores for Mixtures Versus Individual Plant Secondary Metabolites

  • Jordan D. NoblerEmail author
  • Meghan J. Camp
  • Miranda M. Crowell
  • Lisa A. Shipley
  • Carolyn Dadabay
  • Janet L. Rachlow
  • Lauren James
  • Jennifer S. Forbey


Herbivores that forage on chemically defended plants consume complex mixtures of plant secondary metabolites (PSMs). However, the mechanisms by which herbivores tolerate mixtures of PSMs are relatively poorly understood. As such, it remains difficult to predict how PSMs, singly or as complex mixtures, influence diet selection by herbivores. Although relative rates of detoxification of PSMs have been used to explain tolerance of PSMs by dietary specialist herbivores, few studies have used the rate of detoxification of individual PSMs to understand dietary preferences of individual herbivores for individual versus mixtures of PSMs. We coupled in vivo experiments using captive feeding trials with in vitro experiments using enzymatic detoxification assays to evaluate the dietary preferences and detoxification capacities of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis), dietary specialists on sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), and mountain cottontails (Sylvilagus nuttallii), dietary generalists. We compared preference for five single PSMs in sagebrush compared to a mixture containing those same five PSMs. We hypothesized that relative preference for individual PSMs would coincide with faster detoxification capacity for those PSMs by specialists and generalists. Pygmy rabbits generally showed little preference among individual PSMs compared to mixed PSMs, whereas mountain cottontails exhibited stronger preferences. Pygmy rabbits had faster detoxification capacities for all PSMs and consumed higher concentrations of individual PSMs versus a mixture than cottontails. However, detoxification capacity for an individual PSM did not generally coincide with preferences or avoidance of individual PSMs by either species. Cottontails avoided, but pygmy rabbits preferred, camphor, the PSM with the slowest detoxification rate by both species. Both species avoided β-pinene despite it having one of the fastest detoxification rate. Taken together our in vivo and in vitro results add to existing evidence that detoxification capacity is higher in dietary specialist than generalist herbivores. However, results also suggest that alternative mechanisms such as absorption and the pharmacological action of individual or mixtures of PSMs may play a role in determining preference of PSMs within herbivore species.


Specialist Generalist Plant secondary metabolite Monoterpenes Pygmy rabbit Cottontail rabbit Sagebrush 



We thank S. Berry, B. Davitt, J. Fluegel, L. McMahon, the volunteers at the Small Mammal Research Facility, and the APE lab at University of Nevada Reno. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions to improve the manuscript. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (DEB-1146194, IOS-1258217 and OIA-1826801, J.S. Forbey; NSF; DEB-1146368, L.A. Shipley; DEB-1146166, J.L. Rachlow), Washington State University, Bureau of Land Management (BLM; #L09 AC16253, J.S. Forbey; #L09 AC15391, J.L. Rachlow), the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA; Hatch Project 1005876, L.A. Shipley) and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Grant #P20GM103408 and P20GM109095, National Science Foundation Grant Nos. 0619793 and 0923535; the MJ Murdock Charitable Trust; and the Idaho State Board of Education (C. Dadabay, L. James, J.S. Forbey).


  1. Bell SG, Chen X, Sowden RJ (2003) Molecular recognition in (+)-α-pinene oxidation by cytochrome P450cam. J Am Chem Soc 125:705–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernays EA, Bright KL, Gonzalez N, Angel J (1994) Dietary mixing in a generalist herbivore: tests of two hypotheses. Ecology 75:1997–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyle R, McLean S, Foley WJ, Davies NW (1999) Comparative metabolism of dietary terpene, p-cymene, in generalist and specialist folivorous marsupials. J Chem Ecol 25:2109–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burritt EA, Provenza FD (2000) Role of toxins in intake of varied diets by sheep. J Chem Ecol 26:1991–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calla B, Noble K, Johnson RM, Walden KKO, Schuler MA, Robertson HM, Berenbaum MR (2017) Cytochrome P450 diversification and hostplant utilization patterns in specialist and generalist moths: birth, death and adaptation. Mol Ecol 26:6021–6035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camp MJ, Shipley LA, Johnson TR, Forbey JS, Rachlow JL, Crowell MM (2015) Modeling trade-offs between plant fiber and toxins: a framework for quantifying risks perceived by foraging herbivores. Ecology 96:3292–3302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camp MJ, Shipley LA, Johnson TR, Olsoy PJ, Forbey JS, Rachlow JL, Thornton DH (2017) The balancing act of foraging: mammalian herbivores trade-off multiple risks when selecting food patches. Oecologia 185:1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowell MM (2015) Food and fearscapes: responses of specialist and generalist rabbits to food and predation risks. Diss. In: Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowell MM, Shipley LA, Forbey JS, Rachlow JL, Kelsey RG (2018) Dietary partitioning of toxic leaves and fibrous stems differs between sympatric specialist and generalist mammalian herbivores. J Mammal 99:565–577. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cui JY (2018) Understanding the GUT microbiome-liver axis in xenobiotic biotransformation. Drug Metab and Pharmacok 33:S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daina A, Michielin O, Zoete V (2017) SwissADME: a free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules. Sci Rep-UK 7:42717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dearing MD, Cork S (1999) Role of detoxification of plant secondary compounds on diet breadth in a mammalian herbivore. Trichosurus vulpecula J Chem Ecol 25:1205–1219Google Scholar
  13. Dearing MD, Mangione AM, Karasov WH (2000) Diet breadth of mammalian herbivores: nutrient versus detoxification constraints. Oecologia 123:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Degabriel JL, Moore BD, Foley WJ, Johnson CN (2009) The effects of plant defensive chemistry on nutrient availability predict reproductive success in a mammal. Ecology 90:711–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denno R (2012) Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  16. Dermauw W, Van Leeuwen T (2014) The ABC gene family in arthropods: comparative genomics and role in insecticide transport and resistance. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 45:89–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dial KP (1988) Three sympatric species of Neotoma: dietary specialization and coexistence. Oecologia 76:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan AJ, Gordon IJ (1999) Habitat selection according to the ability of animals to eat, digest and detoxify foods. P Nutr Soc 58(4):799–805Google Scholar
  19. Duncan AJ, Hartley SE, Iason GR (1994) The effect of monoterpene concentrations in Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) on the browsing behaviour of red deer (Cervus elaphus). Can J Zool 72:1715–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dyer LA, Dodson CD, Stireman Iii JO et al (2003) Synergistic effects of three Piper amides on generalist and specialist herbivores. J Chem Ecol 29:2499–2514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dziba LE, Provenza FD (2008) Dietary monoterpene concentrations influence feeding patterns of lambs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 109:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Estell RE (2010) Coping with shrub secondary metabolites by ruminants. Small Rumin Res 94:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farentinos RC, Capretta PJ, Kepner RE, Littlefield VM (1981) Selective herbivory in tassel-eared squirrels - role of monoterpenes in ponderosa pines chosen as feeding trees. Science 213:1273–1275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finnerty PB, Stutz R, Price CJ et al (2017) Leaf odour cues enable non-random foraging by mammalian herbivores. J Anim Ecol 86(6):1317–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foley WJ, Iason GR, McArthur C (1999) Role of plant secondary metobolites in the nutritional ecology of mammalian herbivores: how far have we come in 25 years? In: 5th international symposium on the nutrition of herbivores. In: pp 130–209Google Scholar
  26. Forbey JS, Pu X, Xu D, Kielland K, Bryant J (2011) Inhibition of snowshoe hare succinate dehydrogenase activity as a mechanism of deterrence for papyriferic acid in birch. J Chem Ecol 37:1285–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeland WJ (1991) Plant secondary metabolites: biochemical coevolution with herbivores. Plant Def Mamm Herbiv CRC Press Boca Raton FL:61–81Google Scholar
  28. Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frye GG (2012) Phytochemical ecology of an avian herbivore, the greater sage-grouse: Implications for behavior, physiology, and conservation. Diss. In: Boise State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  30. Frye GG, Connelly JW, Musil DD, Forbey JS (2013) Phytochemistry predicts habitat selection by an avian herbivore at multiple spatial scales. Ecology 94:308–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Green AK, Haley SL, Dearing MD, Barnes DM, Karasov WH (2004) Intestinal capacity of P-glycoprotein is higher in the juniper specialist, Neotoma stephensi, than the sympatric generalist, Neotoma albigula. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 139:325–333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guglielmo CG, Karasov WH, Jakubas WJ (1996) Nutritional costs of a plant secondary metabolite explain selective foraging by ruffed grouse. Ecology 77:1103–1115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hemming JD, Lindroth RL (1995) Intraspecific variation in aspen phytochemistry: effects on performance of gypsy moths and forest tent caterpillars. Oecologia 103:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hernandez-Ortega A, Vinaixa M, Zebec Z (2018) A toolbox for diverse oxyfunctionalisation of monoterpenes. Sci Rep-UK 8:14396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson RN, O’Meally D, Chen Z, Etherington GJ, Ho SYW, Nash WJ, Grueber CE, Cheng Y, Whittington CM, Dennison S, Peel E, Haerty W, O’Neill RJ, Colgan D, Russell TL, Alquezar-Planas DE, Attenbrow V, Bragg JG, Brandies PA, Chong AYY, Deakin JE, di Palma F, Duda Z, Eldridge MDB, Ewart KM, Hogg CJ, Frankham GJ, Georges A, Gillett AK, Govendir M, Greenwood AD, Hayakawa T, Helgen KM, Hobbs M, Holleley CE, Heider TN, Jones EA, King A, Madden D, Graves JAM, Morris KM, Neaves LE, Patel HR, Polkinghorne A, Renfree MB, Robin C, Salinas R, Tsangaras K, Waters PD, Waters SA, Wright B, Wilkins MR, Timms P, Belov K (2018) Adaptation and conservation insights from the koala genome. Nat Genet 50:1102–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Julkunen-Tiitto R (1986) A chemotaxonomic survey of phenolics in leaves of northern Salicaceae species. Phytochemistry 25:663–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karlsson FH, Bouchene S, Hilgendorf C, Dolgos H, Peters SA (2013) Utility of In vitro systems and preclinical data for the prediction of human intestinal first-pass metabolism during drug discovery and preclinical development. Drug Metab Dispos 41:2033–2046. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelsey RG, Stephens JR, Shafizadeh F (1982) The chemical-constituents of sagebrush foliage and their isolation. J Range Manag 35:617–622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kimball BA, Russell JH, Ott PK (2012) Phytochemical variation within a single plant species influences foraging behavior of deer. Oikos 121:743–751. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirmani SN, Banks PB, McArthur C (2010) Integrating the costs of plant toxins and predation risk in foraging decisions of a mammalian herbivore. Oecologia 164:349–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kitanovic S, Orr TJ, Spalink D, Cocke GB, Schramm K, Wilderman PR, Halpert JR, Dearing MD (2018) Role of cytochrome P450 2B sequence variation and gene copy number in facilitating dietary specialization in mammalian herbivores. Mol Ecol 27:723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kohl KD, Weiss RB, Cox J, Dale C, Denise Dearing M (2014) Gut microbes of mammalian herbivores facilitate intake of plant toxins. Ecol Lett 17(10):1238–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kohl KD, Pitman E, Robb BC, Connelly JW, Dearing MD, Forbey JS (2015) Monoterpenes as inhibitors of digestive enzymes and counter-adaptations in a specialist avian herbivore. J Comp Physiol B 185:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kohl KD, Varner J, Wilkening JL et al (2017) Patterns of host gene expression associated with harboring a foregut microbial community. BMC Genomics 18(1):697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kumar P, Rathi P, Schöttner M, Baldwin IT, Pandit S (2014) Differences in nicotine metabolism of two Nicotiana attenuata herbivores render them differentially susceptible to a common native predator. PLoS One 9:e95982. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Labbé R, Caveney S, Donly C (2011) Genetic analysis of the xenobiotic resistance-associated ABC gene subfamilies of the Lepidoptera. Insect Mol Biol 20:243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lamb JG, Marick P, Sorensen J, Haley S, Dearing MD (2004) Liver biotransforming enzymes in woodrats Neotoma stephensi (Muridae). Comp Biochem Physiol C-Toxicol Pharmacol 138:195–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lawler IR, Foley WJ, Eschler BM, Pass DM, Handasyde K (1998) Intraspecific variation in Eucalyptus secondary metabolites determines food intake by folivorous marsupials. Oecologia 116:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawler IR, Foley WJ, Eschler BM (2000) Foliar concentration of a single toxin creates habitat patchiness for a marsupial folivore. Ecology 81:1327–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li X, Baudry J, Berenbaum MR, Schuler MA (2004) Structural and functional divergence of insect CYP6B proteins: from specialist to generalist cytochrome P450. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:2939–2944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marsh KJ, Wallis IR, McLean S, Sorensen JS, Foley WJ (2006) Conflicting demands on detoxification pathways influence how common brushtail possums choose their diets. Ecology 87:2103–2112.[2103:cdodpi];2Google Scholar
  52. McIlwee AM, Lawler IR, Cork SJ, Foley WJ (2001) Coping with chemical complexity in mammal-plant interactions: near-infrared spectroscopy as a predictor of Eucalyptus foliar nutrients and of the feeding rates of folivorous marsupials. Oecologia 128:539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McLean S, Boyle RR, Brandon S, Davies NW, Sorensen JS (2007) Pharmacokinetics of 1, 8-cineole, a dietary toxin, in the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula): significance for feeding. Xenobiotica 37:903–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore BD, Foley WJ (2005) Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape. Nature 435:488–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moore BD, Lawler IR, Wallis IR, Beale CM, Foley WJ (2010) Palatability mapping: a koala’s eye view of spatial variation in habitat quality. Ecology 91:3165–3176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nobler JD (2016) Risky business: tradeoffs between nutrition, toxicity, and predation by a specialist mammalian herbivore. Diss. In: Boise State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  57. Nyman T, Julkunen-Tiitto R (2005) Chemical variation within and among six northern willow species. Phytochemistry 66:2836–2843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Reilly-Wapstra JM, Miller AM, Hamilton MG, et al (2013) Chemical variation in a dominant tree species: population divergence, selection and genetic stability across environmentsGoogle Scholar
  59. Peters SA, Jones CR, Ungell A-L, Hatley OJD (2016) Predicting drug extraction in the human gut wall: assessing contributions from drug metabolizing enzymes and transporter proteins using preclinical models. Clin Pharmacokinet 55:673–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Richards LA, Dyer LA, Smilanich AM, Dodson CD (2010) Synergistic effects of amides from two Piper species on generalist and specialist herbivores. J Chem Ecol 36:1105–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Richards LA, Lampert EC, Bowers MD, Dodson CD, Smilanich AM, Dyer LA (2012) Synergistic effects of iridoid glycosides on the survival, development and immune response of a specialist caterpillar, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). J Chem Ecol 38:1276–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Richards LA, Dyer LA, Forister ML, Smilanich AM, Dodson CD, Leonard MD, Jeffrey CS (2015) Phytochemical diversity drives plant–insect community diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:10973–10978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (2012) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites: ecological and evolutionary processes. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmitt MH, Shuttleworth A, Ward D, Shrader AM (2018) African elephants use plant odours to make foraging decisions across multiple spatial scales. Anim Behav 141:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shipley LA, Forbey JS, Moore BD (2009) Revisiting the dietary niche: when is a mammalian herbivore a specialist ? Integr Comp Biol 49:274–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shipley LA, Davis EM, Felicetti LA, McLean S, Forbey JS (2012) Mechanisms for eliminating monoterpenes of sagebrush by specialist and generalist rabbits. J Chem Ecol 38:1178–1189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Skopec MM, Haley S, Dearing MD (2007) Differential hepatic gene expression of a dietary specialist (Neotoma stephensi) and generalist (Neotoma albigula) in response to juniper (Juniperus monosperma) ingestion. Comp Biochem Physiol Part D Genomics Proteomics 2:34–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sorensen J, Dearing M (2003) Elimination of plant toxins by herbivorous woodrats: revisiting an explanation for dietary specialization in mammalian herbivores. Oecologia 134:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sorensen JS, Dearing MD (2006) Efflux transporters as a novel herbivore countermechanism to plant chemical defenses. J Chem Ecol 32:1181–1196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sorensen JS, Turnbull CA, Dearing MD (2004) A specialist herbivore (Neotoma stephensi) absorbs fewer plant toxins than does a generalist (Neotoma albigula). Physiol Biochem Zool 77:139–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sorensen JS, McLister JD, Dearing MD (2005a) Plant secondary metabolites compromise the energy budgets of specialist and generalist mammalian herbivores. Ecology 86:125–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sorensen JS, McLister JD, Dearing MD (2005b) Novel plant secondary metabolites impact dietary specialists more than generalists (Neotoma spp.). Ecology 86:140–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sorensen JS, Skopec MM, Dearing MD (2006) Application of pharmacological approaches to plant-mammal interactions. J Chem Ecol 32:1229–1246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tan BH, Pan Y, Dong AN, Ong CE (2017) In vitro and in silico approaches to study cytochrome P450-mediated interactions. J Pharm Pharm Sci 20:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thacker ET, Gardner DR, Messmer TA, Guttery MR, Dahlgren DK (2012) Using gas chromatography to determine winter diets of greater sage-grouse in Utah. J Wildl Manag 76(3):588–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thoss V, O’Reilly-Wapstra J, Iason GR (2007) Assessment and implications of intraspecific and phenological variability in monoterpenes of scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) foliage. J Chem Ecol 33:477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ulappa AC, Kelsey RG, Frye GG, Rachlow JL, Shipley LA, Bond L, Pu X, Forbey JS (2014) Plant protein and secondary metabolites influence diet selection in a mammalian specialist herbivore. J Mammal 95:834–842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Utz JL (2012) Understanding the tradeoff between safety and food quality in a mammalian herbivore specialist, the pygmy rabbit. Boise State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  79. Utz JL, Shipley LA, Rachlow JL, Johnstone-Yellin T, Camp M, Forbey JS (2016) Understanding tradeoffs between food and predation risks in a specialist mammalian herbivore. Wildl Biol 22:167–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiggins NL, McArthur C, McLean S, Boyle R (2003) Effects of two plant secondary metabolites, cineole and gallic acid, on nightly feeding patterns of the common brushtail possum. J Chem Ecol 29:1447–1464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wiggins NL, McArthur C, Davies NW, McLean S (2006) Behavioral responses of a generalist mammalian folivore to the physiological constraints of a chemically defended diet. J Chem Ecol 32:1133–1147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordan D. Nobler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Meghan J. Camp
    • 2
  • Miranda M. Crowell
    • 3
  • Lisa A. Shipley
    • 2
  • Carolyn Dadabay
    • 4
  • Janet L. Rachlow
    • 5
  • Lauren James
    • 4
  • Jennifer S. Forbey
    • 1
  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Washington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  3. 3.University of NevadaRenoUSA
  4. 4.College of IdahoCaldwellUSA
  5. 5.University of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations