Collecting Evidence for Herbivore Niche Partitioning Proceed through Module 1, including the review questions at the end. After completing Module 1, answer the questions below. 7. Did you find evidence to support the hypothesis that the four herbivore species partition their niches? 8. What is the most likely niche partitioning mechanism for the four Mpala herbivores? Support your claim with evidence. *6 The data for time and vegetation was presented in two formats, tally marks and percentages. III Dik-dik 50% Grevy’s zebra 35% Impala 44% Buffalo 27% 10 (7) (8) (4) 35% 55% 39% 20% (7) (11) (7) (3) 15% 10% 17% 53% (E) (2) () (8) impala buffalo II M Which format provided a more useful representation of the data from which to make a claim? Explain your reasoning. MODULE 2: A More Detailed Look into Dietary Partitioning In science, research typically leads to more questions and more research. Sometimes, the new questions can only be answered once new methods and technologies for collecting and analyzing data become available. 10. What technology did you use to make your observations in Module 1? What were two limitations of the technology? Start working through Module 2, where you will collect dung, identify plant species using DNA barcoding, and analyze the results in several ways. 11. In your own words, describe how DNA metabarcoding works. 12. The data for the herbivores’ diets were presented in two different formats, a data table and a Venn diagram.
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
7. Did you find evidence to support the hypothesis that the four herbivore species partition their niches?
Yes, the evidence supports the hypothesis that the four herbivore species partition their niches.
8. What is the most likely niche partitioning mechanism for the four Mpala herbivores? Support your claim with evidence.
The most likely mechanism is dietary partitioning, based on the differences in plant species consumed by each herbivore as shown in the DNA metabarcoding and vegetation type preferences.
Which format provided a more useful representation of the data from which to make a claim? Explain your reasoning.
The percentage format was more useful, because it provided a clear and quantifiable comparison of resource use among species.
10. What technology did you use to make your observations in Module 1? What were two limitations of the technology?
Camera trap technology was used. Two limitations were:
- It only shows presence/absence, not actual feeding behavior.
- It can miss smaller or faster-moving animals, leading to biased data.
11. In your own words, describe how DNA metabarcoding works.
DNA metabarcoding identifies plant species in herbivore dung by extracting plant DNA fragments, amplifying them using PCR, and matching them to known DNA sequences in a database.
12. The data for the herbivores’ diets were presented in two different formats, a data table and a Venn diagram.
The Venn diagram was more effective for visualizing dietary overlap among the species and identifying unique vs. shared plant consumption.
Explanation:
This study of herbivore niche partitioning at Mpala provides strong evidence that species coexist by using different resources—a concept called niche partitioning. Camera trap data and percentage-based vegetation use revealed that species such as dik-dik and buffalo prefer different habitats and likely different diets, indicating spatial and dietary partitioning. The percentage format clarified these trends better than tally marks because it allowed for easy comparison across species and vegetation types.
The primary mechanism of niche partitioning observed was dietary differentiation, as shown through DNA metabarcoding of dung samples. This advanced technology made it possible to identify specific plant species each herbivore consumed. Although the camera traps in Module 1 were useful for detecting species in various vegetation zones, they could not directly capture diet. Additionally, camera traps often miss small or nocturnal animals, introducing observational bias.
DNA metabarcoding overcame these limitations by directly analyzing plant material in dung. The method works by extracting DNA, amplifying plant-specific barcodes using PCR, and matching these sequences to databases. This allowed scientists to build detailed dietary profiles for each species. The data table showed exact consumption frequencies, but the Venn diagram clearly displayed which plants were unique or shared, thus visualizing the degree of dietary overlap.
Together, the evidence from Module 1 and Module 2 strongly supports that the herbivores partition their niches mainly through diet, reducing competition and allowing them to coexist in the same ecosystem. This aligns with ecological theory that niche partitioning promotes biodiversity.
