Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Commentary

How large herbivores subsidize aquatic food webs in African savannas

Robert M. Pringle
PNAS July 18, 2017 114 (29) 7489-7491; first published July 10, 2017; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708571114
Robert M. Pringle
aDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rpringle@princeton.edu

See related content:

  • Wildebeest mass drownings alter river ecosystem
    - Jun 19, 2017
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Mass migration—the periodic, synchronized movement of large numbers of animals from one place to another—is an important part of the life cycle of many species. Such migrations are variously a means of avoiding climatic stress, escaping food and water scarcity, and satiating predators (thereby reducing individuals’ risk of being eaten). They are among the most spectacular of natural phenomena, and also among the most threatened: by building walls and dams, disrupting the climate, and decimating wildlife populations, people have steadily diminished and extinguished many of the huge migrations known from historical records (1, 2). Although tragic on purely aesthetic grounds—nobody today knows the music of several million American bison (Bison bison) snuffling and shuffling across the Great Plains—the extinction of great migrations also poses a profound threat to the functioning of ecosystems. In PNAS, Subalusky et al. (3) show how one of the world’s last vast overland migrations, the seasonal movement of ∼1.2 million wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) through East Africa’s Serengeti–Mara Ecosystem, couples terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Each year, thousands of wildebeest drown while trying to cross the Mara river, injecting the water with massive doses of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients, much of which is taken up by aquatic organisms. When wildebeest sleep with the fishes, the fishes feast.

The Serengeti wildebeest, along with more than 200,000 zebra (Equus quagga) and 400,000 gazelles (Eudorcas thomsonii), follow the rains in a clockwise loop from the southern part of Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park into Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve, and back again (Fig. 1). The river crossings that they must undertake to complete this annual cycle are dramatic events that attract thousands of tourists, who watch as animals fling themselves into the water (and occasionally into the jaws of lurking crocodiles). It had been observed that some wildebeest also drown while trying to cross, but Subalusky et al. (3) provide the first quantitative multiyear accounting of this phenomenon, and of what happens to the nutrients that drowned wildebeest carry into the river in their bodies. The numbers involved are staggering: mass drownings occurred in the Kenyan portion of the Mara almost every year from 2001 to 2015, on average four to five times per year, resulting in a mean annual total of 6,250 wildebeest carcasses. These carcasses contribute more than 1,000 tons of biomass into the river—equivalent to roughly 10 blue whales—comprising dry mass of 107 tons carbon, 25 tons nitrogen, and 13 tons phosphorus.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Subsidies linking terrestrial and aquatic food webs in African savannas. (A) Large herbivores visit water to feed and drink, and their excretions wash into the river. (B) Hippopotami graze on land at night and spend their days partially submerged, showering dung and urine into the river (13). Drowned wildebeest carcasses provide food for (C) vultures, which move nutrients back to land, and (D) crocodiles. (E) Uneaten soft tissue decomposes rapidly, releasing large pulses of carbon and nitrogen (3). (F) Bones take years to decay, slowly leaching nutrients (notably phosphorus) and a providing a substrate where biofilms grow and are grazed by aquatic consumers. Nutrients in the water column can enter aquatic food chains via consumption by (G) zooplankton, (H) insects and crustaceans, and (I) fishes, or be conveyed back into the riparian zone by (J) floods, which fertilize the plants eaten by herbivores (A and B). (Inset) Map of the Serengeti wildebeest migration; triangles indicate major river crossings. Figure designed by TerraCommunications.

Subalusky et al. (3) conducted a suite of detailed measurements and calculations to track the fate of these nutrients. By combining photographic surveys of carcasses with an energetic model for vultures, they estimate that avian scavengers consume 4–7% of the carbon and nitrogen, much of which is transported back to land (Fig. 1C). Unscavenged soft tissues—such as skin, muscle, and internal organs, which together make up 56% of each carcass—decompose rapidly within 70 d, saturating the water with nutrients that are either assimilated locally by biofilms (algae, bacteria, fungi) or else transported downstream (Fig. 1E). The remaining 44% of each carcass is bone, which decays slowly; thus, 95% of the phosphorus, 25% of the nitrogen, and 29% of the carbon present in wildebeest carcasses ends up in a kind of extended-release capsule, slowly infusing the river with nutrients over a period of 7 y (Fig. 1F). Collectively, these pathways account for around half of the carbon and nitrogen and the vast majority of phosphorus entering the river via wildebeest carcasses. The remainder flows into two as yet unquantified pathways: atmospheric loss (e.g., CO2 and N2 produced during microbial breakdown of tissues) and in-stream consumption by aquatic animals (Fig. 1 G–I). Although it therefore remains to be determined what overall fraction of wildebeest-derived nutrients actually enters the riverine food web, the contribution is substantial: stable-isotope analyses revealed that wildebeest account for between 34% and 50% of the assimilated diet of three fish species when carcasses are present, and between 7% and 24% (derived from biofilm growing on bones) after soft tissues decomposed (3).

The nutrient budget assembled by Subalusky et al. (3) provides valuable insights into the ecological functioning not just of rivers, but also of the larger landscapes in which they are embedded. The fluxes of energy and nutrients that link terrestrial and aquatic food webs, known as allochthonous inputs, play a crucial role in structuring and stabilizing these coupled systems (4, 5). Perhaps the best known and most celebrated example of such fluxes involves the migration of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) from the ocean into their nutrient-poor natal streams and lakes, where they spawn and die in their thousands (6). This attracts bears (Ursus spp.), wolves (Canis lupus), and other terrestrial carnivores and scavengers, which kill as many as 40–50% of the salmon (7, 8) and transport the marine-derived nutrients onto land in the form of urine, feces, and uneaten fish scraps. These inputs have transformative effects on riparian ecosystems, supplying up to a quarter of the nitrogen budget, enriching the foliage, increasing plant growth rates, shifting the species composition of vegetation assemblages (6⇓–8), and perhaps even locally depressing the densities of moose by inflating the number of wolves (9).

The work of Subalusky et al. (3) shows that the wildebeest migration plays a very similar functional role: wildebeest are the salmon of the Serengeti, but in reverse, transferring terrestrial-derived nutrients into the river and subsidizing fish. However, wildebeest are not alone in vectoring terrestrial resources into African rivers and lakes (10⇓–12); astonishingly, given the numbers quoted above, they do not even rank first in the Mara River! Another recent study by the Subalusky et al. research team (13) estimated that the Mara’s 4,000 hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius), which graze nightly on land and return daily to water, contribute 1,277 tons of carbon, 180 tons of nitrogen, and 18 tons of phosphorus to the river each year via dung and urine (Fig. 1B). More mundanely, permanent water sources in African savannas attract diverse wildlife species to drink and forage on riparian vegetation that stays green year-round (Fig. 1A), concentrating dung and urine inputs, some of which enter the water. Even the vertical structure of riparian vegetation can serve as a source of subsidies, as gravity-assisted downward movement of tree-dwelling insects makes prey available to predators in lower habitat strata (14).

These diverse inputs of terrestrial-derived resources may be particularly important for sustaining Africa’s freshwater food webs. Many of these waters are highly turbid, due to high sediment loads (not to mention enormous quantities of hippo feces and moldering antelope corpses), which reduces the availability of light needed for photosynthesis and in situ (autochthonous) production. Consequently, the abundance of fish and other high-level consumers in these systems likely depends on the regular influx of energy and nutrients assimilated by terrestrial animals in sun-drenched savanna grasslands.

So what would happen if the great wildebeest migration were sapped of its wildebeest and all its greatness, or blocked by an ill-situated highway (15), or if the hippo pods and elephant herds were hunted and harried into oblivion? In the Serengeti, at least, the short-term future seems secure; in fact, its wildebeest, hippo, and elephant populations have all increased in recent decades (3, 16, 17). The same cannot be said for other once-great animal migrations. The biomass of spawning salmon, and associated nitrogen and phosphorus transfers, are down by 93% relative to historical levels throughout the northwestern United States (6). American bison, although no longer in danger of extinction, are also in no danger of returning to their 18th-century range and migration patterns. The migratory saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) of the Asian steppe declined from more than a million individuals in 1993 to fewer than 50,000 in 2008 (2) and remain critically endangered. The disintegration of these migrations has undoubtedly reconfigured nutrient transport and allochthonous fluxes, but reconstructing the details is difficult because there are few reliable baseline data with which to measure change.

Instead, the most promising route to understanding the ecological and biogeochemical consequences of mass animal movements (and their loss) is to focus on extant migrations, as Subalusky et al. (3) have done. Their study raises multiple fascinating questions in need of further research. Now that we know the astounding frequency and ecological significance of wildebeest mass drowning, we need to know why wildebeest mass drown. Subalusky et al. hypothesize that mass drownings result from complex interactions between geomorphology, river discharge, herd size, and tourist behavior; elucidating the role of this last factor, in particular, is of paramount importance for management. Exactly how much of the wildebeest-vectored nutrient load ends up as atmospheric loss and how much as aquatic biomass, and what pathways do the nutrients follow up the food chain? What is the fate and role of other elemental inputs—what of potassium, calcium, iron, molybdenum? And to what extent, if any, do these and other large-herbivore–vectored subsidies bolster the fisheries relied upon by people downstream (18)?

Ecologists are justifiably preoccupied with the specter of species extinction. But as studies like that of Subalusky et al. (3) remind us, the biodiversity of interactions and processes also merit urgent conservation attention: they are what knit ecosystems together and they are easily lost. However, the continuing vibrancy of the Serengeti migration, a century after its devastation by the great rinderpest pandemic, also affirms that nature’s great spectacles can, with a little help from their friends, reconstitute themselves. With a concerted global effort to expand protected areas (19) and conserve migration corridors (2), perhaps even some of the storied migrations of yesteryear can be resurrected.

Acknowledgments

My research on food webs has been supported by National Science Foundation Grants DEB-1355122 and DEB-1457691.

Footnotes

  • ↵1Email: rpringle{at}princeton.edu.
  • Author contributions: R.M.P. wrote the paper.

  • The author declares no conflict of interest.

  • See companion article on page 7647.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wilcove DS,
    2. Wikelski M
    (2008) Going, going, gone: Is animal migration disappearing? PLoS Biol 6:e188.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Berger J,
    2. Young JK,
    3. Berger KM
    (2008) Protecting migration corridors: Challenges and optimism for Mongolian saiga. PLoS Biol 6:e165.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Subalusky AL,
    2. Dutton CL,
    3. Rosi EJ,
    4. Post DM
    (2017) Annual mass drownings of the Serengeti wildebeest migration influence nutrient cycling and storage in the Mara River. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:7647–7652.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Nakano S,
    2. Murakami M
    (2001) Reciprocal subsidies: Dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:166–170.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Huxel GR,
    2. McCann K
    (1998) Food web stability: The influence of trophic flows across habitats. Am Nat 152:460–469.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Naiman RJ,
    2. Bilby RE,
    3. Schindler DE,
    4. Helfield JM
    (2002) Pacific salmon, nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5:399–417.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Helfield JM,
    2. Naiman RJ
    (2006) Keystone interactions: Salmon and bear in riparian forests of Alaska. Ecosystems 9:167–180.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Hocking MD,
    2. Reynolds JD
    (2011) Impacts of salmon on riparian plant diversity. Science 331:1609–1612.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Adams LG, et al.
    (2010) Are inland wolf-ungulate systems influenced by marine subsidies of Pacific salmon? Ecol Appl 20:251–262.
    .
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Jacobs SM, et al.
    (2007) Nutrient vectors and riparian processing: A review with special reference to African semiarid savanna ecosystems. Ecosystems 10:1231–1249.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Masese FO, et al.
    (2015) Are large herbivores vectors of terrestrial subsidies for riverine food webs? Ecosystems 18:686–706.
    .
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. McCauley DJ, et al.
    (2015) Carbon stable isotopes suggest that hippopotamus-vectored nutrients subsidize aquatic consumers in an East African river. Ecosphere 6:art52.
    .
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Subalusky AL,
    2. Dutton CL,
    3. Rosi-Marshall EJ,
    4. Post DM
    (2014) The hippopotamus conveyor belt: Vectors of carbon and nutrients from terrestrial grasslands to aquatic systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Freshw Biol 60:512–525.
    .
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Pringle RM,
    2. Fox-Dobbs K
    (2008) Coupling of canopy and understory food webs by ground-dwelling predators. Ecol Lett 11:1328–1337.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Dobson AP, et al.
    (2010) Road will ruin Serengeti. Nature 467:272–273.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Holdo RM, et al.
    (2009) A disease-mediated trophic cascade in the Serengeti and its implications for ecosystem C. PLoS Biol 7:e1000210.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Mduma H, et al.
    (2014) Aerial Total Count of Elephants and Buffaloes in the Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem (World Wide Fund For Nature, Nairobi).
    .
  18. ↵
    1. Pringle RM
    (2005) The Nile perch in Lake Victoria: Local responses and adaptations. Africa 75:510–538.
    .
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Pringle RM
    (2017) Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity. Nature 546:91–99.
    .
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How large herbivores subsidize aquatic food webs in African savannas
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Cross-ecosystem subsidies in African savannas
Robert M. Pringle
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2017, 114 (29) 7489-7491; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708571114

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Cross-ecosystem subsidies in African savannas
Robert M. Pringle
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2017, 114 (29) 7489-7491; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708571114
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 114 (29)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Ecology

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
One red and one yellow modeled protein structures
Journal Club: Study reveals evolutionary origins of fold-switching protein
Shapeshifting designs could have wide-ranging pharmaceutical and biomedical applications in coming years.
Image credit: Acacia Dishman/Medical College of Wisconsin.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490