Megaherbivores facilitate large grazing herbivores and suppress small mammals through vegetation structure and cryptic pathways

dc.contributor.authorMcCleery, Robert A.
dc.contributor.authorKruger, Laurence
dc.contributor.authorMonadjem, Ara
dc.contributor.authorTye, Donovan
dc.contributor.authorMhlava, Philip
dc.contributor.authorZwane, Emanuel
dc.contributor.authorBijl, Alison
dc.contributor.authorJones, Maggie M.
dc.contributor.authorHartfelder, Jack
dc.contributor.authorSibya, Muzi
dc.contributor.authorCoetsee, Corli
dc.contributor.authorFletcher Jr, Robert J.
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-16T12:12:51Z
dc.date.issued2025-10
dc.descriptionDATA AVAILABILITY : Data will be available upon request. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL APPENDIX A. Estimating detection functions. SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE S1. The predicted annual response and SE (error bars) of A) grazers (dung piles per plot) and B) mixed feeders and browsers (dung piles per plot) as a function of three experimental treatments, Open (open to all herbivores), Mega (excluding megaherbivores but accessible to small mammals and mesoherbivores) and Full (excluding megaherbivores and mesoherbivores but accessible to small mammals), across 6 years. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE S1. Results (beta estimates, standard error, z values and p values) from generalized linear mixed model examining variation in small mammal number and the activity of all large herbivores and large grazing herbivores as a function of Open (all herbivores), Mega (all herbivore except megaherbivores) and Full (Only small herbivores [1 < kg]) treatments and year post treatment. Open plots and the year prior to treatments were set as the reference conditions and large herbivores were not recorded on Full treatments. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE S2. Pairwise comparison of Open (all herbivores), Mega (all herbivore except megaherbivores) and Full (Only small herbivores [1 < kg]) treatments on large herbivore activity, small mammal numbers, grass biomass, canopy cover and shrub cover before (pre) and after (post) initiation of herbivore exclosures. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE S3. Pairwise comparison of Open (all herbivores), Mega (all herbivore except megaherbivores) and Full (Only small herbivores [1 < kg]) treatments on large herbivore activity, small mamal numbers, grass biomass, canopy cover and shrub cover before (pre) and after (post) initiation of herbivore exclosures, excluding the years with a controlled fire (2020).
dc.description.abstractVariability in large mammalian herbivores can reshape smaller animal communities in complex ways. Accordingly, conservation strategies require a deeper understanding of the extent to which mesoherbivores (>20–1000 kg) and megaherbivores (>1000 kg) influence on animal communities are mediated by changes to vegetation structure, and the extent to which the influence of megaherbivores overlap with mesoherbivores. Using an exclusion experiment, we examined how megaherbivores altered mesoherbivore activity and how both groups influenced small mammals. We compared influences that were mediated by broad metrics of vegetation structure (i.e., indirect effects) with all other influences that were not mediated by vegetation structure (e.g., direct effects). We found megaherbivores were linked to increased mesoherbivore activity, particularly grazers, through both vegetation structure-mediated and other pathways. Alternatively, we found small mammals were suppressed where megaherbivores were present, and their population fluctuations were explained by both structure-mediated and other pathways. Small mammal abundance was higher where large herbivores were excluded compared to open plots, with no difference between plots excluding only megaherbivores and those excluding all herbivores. This suggests that these effects were produced by either megaherbivores alone, or by megaherbivores in conjunction with the increased mesoherbivore activity they facilitated. While small mammal abundance was linked to mesoherbivore-induced changes in grass biomass, their non-linear response, did not correspond with the exclusion of mesoherbivores. These findings highlight megaherbivores' capacity to reshape animal communities through interactions beyond broad metrics of vegetation structure, underscoring the importance of considering the varied influences of megaherbivores on mammal communities in conservation strategies. HIGHLIGHTS • The presence of Megaherbivores reduced small mammal densities. • Large herbivore activity increases in the presence of megaherbivores. • Responses were only partially due to megaherbivore changes to vegetation structure. • Megaherbivores' largest influences were not from vegetation structure. • Megaherbivores play a unique role in shaping animal communities.
dc.description.departmentZoology and Entomology
dc.description.departmentMammal Research Institute
dc.description.embargo2026-07-28
dc.description.librarianhj2025
dc.description.sdgSDG-15: Life on land
dc.description.sponsorshipNSF IRES Grants and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida, Nsasani Trust and the Organization for Tropical Studies.
dc.description.urihttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
dc.identifier.citationMcCleery R.A., Kruger L., Monadjem A. et al. 2025, 'Megaherbivores facilitate large grazing herbivores and suppress small mammals through vegetation structure and cryptic pathways', Biological Conservation, vol. 310, art. 111378, pp. 1-11, doi : 10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111378.
dc.identifier.issn0006-3207 (print)
dc.identifier.issn1873-2917 (online)
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111378
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2263/104340
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rights© 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. Notice : this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Biological Conservation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. A definitive version was subsequently published in Biological Conservation, vol. 310, art. 111378, pp. 1-11, doi : 10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111378.
dc.subjectSavanna
dc.subjectMammalian interactions
dc.subjectCommunity dynamics
dc.subjectTrophic cascades
dc.subjectExclusion experiments
dc.subjectEcosystem engineers
dc.subjectIndirect ecological effects
dc.titleMegaherbivores facilitate large grazing herbivores and suppress small mammals through vegetation structure and cryptic pathways
dc.typePostprint Article

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: