. 1 and Hoplitomeryx sp. 2 (MS = 0.4 and 0.2, respectively) in biozone 4. This trend is further expressed in biozone 5, with all the species here recorded (e.g., in Chiro 20A, Chiro 20E, Gervasio, San Giovannino, etc) having scores of around 0.35. Although species stayed with browse, all this indicates higher levels of abrasion A-836339 site control40 in the tooth wear equilibrium of Hoplitomeryx, with a preference for more abrasive foods and/or higher grit exposure after biozone 3, and species most likely occupying somewhat more open areas. There might be three different phenomena to explain this greater amount of tooth wear. First, a greater reliance on tubers and roots, which would involve higher tooth abrasion by species as a consequence of digging into the ground to reach them. Second, and because numerous extant mixed feeders (e.g., T. oryx, A. marsupialis and T. imberbis, this latter being an attrition-dominated mixed feeder) show similar mesowear scores to those of the Hoplitomeryx species in biozone 5, another possible and probably interrelated explanation is that some (Z)-4-Hydroxytamoxifen web grasses and abrasive elements (probably including more grit encroachment on foods) became a part of the diet of these species, at least on a seasonal basis. Lastly, extensive frugivory could also account for the higher scores of the species, as ruminants involved in fruit-eating show more rounded and less sharpened cusp apices than leafy-browsers as a result of tip-crushing wear associated with hard fruit coverings and seed coats and/or soil adhering to fallen fruits31. This latter, however, may not be the case to explain the increase in dietary abrasion during the period represented by biozones 4 and 5, as none of the Hoplitomeryx species fell in the range of fruit-browsers in a new CVA (Fig. 3C) that includes extant representatives (especially duikers) of this feeding type. Given that dental mesowear is best thought of as an abrasion (and not a dietary) index, though it indeed provides a glimpse of the dietary capabilities of the species, the ability of dental microwear to indicate subtle, short-term (e.g., seasonal) variations in diet41 could be used for teasing out the determinants of the dietary shift (i.e., silica phytoliths of plants vs. grit/dust, or a shift that combines all the aforementioned reasons) and implement the results obtained here. At the same time, two possible explanations, not neccessrily mutually exclusive, may shed light on this new dietary breadth expansion (i.e., wider ecological divergence) in Hoplitomeryx after biozone 3: (i) an adaptive strategy to survive–that is, species of Hoplitomeryx were probably forced to expand the range of consumable food items (with higher abrasiveness and lower nutritional value) in an attempt to exploit vacant ecological niches and ensure the survival of the group; (ii) a response to a rapid climatic and environmental instability–hence, aphase of aridification could have put Hoplitomeryx in contact with novel plant species (e.g., more abrasive items such as grasses and other monocots, dicots rich in phytoliths, grit loaded foliage, etc) and thus increased the likelihood of occupation of niches through ecological fitting. Although it mayScientific RepoRts | 6:29803 | DOI: 10.1038/srepwww.nature.com/scientificreports/seem quite surprising that an arid episode may have led to some grass being available, grasses (and related plants) are indeed the most common type of food eaten by living ruminants in desert and arid area.. 1 and Hoplitomeryx sp. 2 (MS = 0.4 and 0.2, respectively) in biozone 4. This trend is further expressed in biozone 5, with all the species here recorded (e.g., in Chiro 20A, Chiro 20E, Gervasio, San Giovannino, etc) having scores of around 0.35. Although species stayed with browse, all this indicates higher levels of abrasion control40 in the tooth wear equilibrium of Hoplitomeryx, with a preference for more abrasive foods and/or higher grit exposure after biozone 3, and species most likely occupying somewhat more open areas. There might be three different phenomena to explain this greater amount of tooth wear. First, a greater reliance on tubers and roots, which would involve higher tooth abrasion by species as a consequence of digging into the ground to reach them. Second, and because numerous extant mixed feeders (e.g., T. oryx, A. marsupialis and T. imberbis, this latter being an attrition-dominated mixed feeder) show similar mesowear scores to those of the Hoplitomeryx species in biozone 5, another possible and probably interrelated explanation is that some grasses and abrasive elements (probably including more grit encroachment on foods) became a part of the diet of these species, at least on a seasonal basis. Lastly, extensive frugivory could also account for the higher scores of the species, as ruminants involved in fruit-eating show more rounded and less sharpened cusp apices than leafy-browsers as a result of tip-crushing wear associated with hard fruit coverings and seed coats and/or soil adhering to fallen fruits31. This latter, however, may not be the case to explain the increase in dietary abrasion during the period represented by biozones 4 and 5, as none of the Hoplitomeryx species fell in the range of fruit-browsers in a new CVA (Fig. 3C) that includes extant representatives (especially duikers) of this feeding type. Given that dental mesowear is best thought of as an abrasion (and not a dietary) index, though it indeed provides a glimpse of the dietary capabilities of the species, the ability of dental microwear to indicate subtle, short-term (e.g., seasonal) variations in diet41 could be used for teasing out the determinants of the dietary shift (i.e., silica phytoliths of plants vs. grit/dust, or a shift that combines all the aforementioned reasons) and implement the results obtained here. At the same time, two possible explanations, not neccessrily mutually exclusive, may shed light on this new dietary breadth expansion (i.e., wider ecological divergence) in Hoplitomeryx after biozone 3: (i) an adaptive strategy to survive–that is, species of Hoplitomeryx were probably forced to expand the range of consumable food items (with higher abrasiveness and lower nutritional value) in an attempt to exploit vacant ecological niches and ensure the survival of the group; (ii) a response to a rapid climatic and environmental instability–hence, aphase of aridification could have put Hoplitomeryx in contact with novel plant species (e.g., more abrasive items such as grasses and other monocots, dicots rich in phytoliths, grit loaded foliage, etc) and thus increased the likelihood of occupation of niches through ecological fitting. Although it mayScientific RepoRts | 6:29803 | DOI: 10.1038/srepwww.nature.com/scientificreports/seem quite surprising that an arid episode may have led to some grass being available, grasses (and related plants) are indeed the most common type of food eaten by living ruminants in desert and arid area.
