The digestive performance of mammalian herbivores: why big may not be that much better

By M. Clauss, J. Hummel. 2005

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Agronomy and Crop Science, Ecology, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fbf5812b2fc657c6e386c9298550b3ce5578c7cd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Agronomy and Crop Science

1. Norman Owen-Smith
2. Randal Arsenault
3. J. Hummel
4. M. Clauss

In Ecology

1. Norman Owen-Smith
2. Randal Arsenault
3. Charles L. Nunn
4. J. Hummel
5. M. Clauss
6. H. Olff
7. Liam J. Revell

In Genetics

1. Norman Owen-Smith
2. Randal Arsenault
3. J. Hummel
4. M. Clauss
5. Charles L. Nunn

Citations in the corpus

• Resource partitioning by grass height among grazing ungulates does not follow body size relation (2008, methodology): “Nevertheless, their reduced massspecific metabolic requirements (Illius and Gordon 1992, but see Clauss and Hummel 2005), enables them to exploit taller less nutritious grass when necessary (Owen-Smith 1988).”
• Comparative Chewing Efficiency in Mammalian Herbivores (2009, background): “Yet, larger animals might also experience digestive disadvantages (Clauss and Hummel 2005), including an increase in ingesta particle size (Pe´rez-Barberı`a and Gordon 1998a).”