Skip to main content

Wood-eating behaviour in hadrosaurs

I came across a really interesting article yesterday about some hadrosaur coprolites from the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine Formation that contained woody materials (Chin 2007). This is direct evidence that at least some hadrosaurs ate wood. Coprolites at this locality regularly contain wood indicating that conifer wood was regularly ingested. Wood contains lignin which cannot be digested by vertebrate herbivores so there is no nutritional value on its own. Thus, in order for any animal to intentionally ingest wood it must have a very good reason of doing so as processing wood is such an effort, both in mechanical digestion (chewing) and chemical digestion. The absence of little twigs from the coprolites pretty much rules out accidental ingestion while foraging leaves.

On the other hand, the author found signs of fungal decomposition in the wood material. So apparently, the hadrosaur was eating fungus-infected, or in other words, rotting wood. Fungus de-lignifies wood and makes cellulose available for other organisms to consume. 'From an energetic standpoint, it is evident that partially degraded wood would provide a nourishing resource augmented by fungal tissues, associated microbial symbionts, and invertebrates. Decaying wood would require less energy to process and could be easily comminuted' (Chin 2007).

Modern megaherbivores consume fugus-decayed wood when high-quality browse is sparse. However, these Two Medicine coprolites were preserved during the rainy season. The author suggests that the high proportion of fungal degraded wood in the hadrosaur diet may have been because of a lack of vast grasslands. Modern large herds are largely supported by the fast regeneration of grass after consumption by a herd of herbivores. In a grass-poor Cretaceous world, large herbivorous dinosaurs obviously had to eat other sources of food, e.g. ferns, angiosperms, conifers AND decaying wood.

Chin, K. 2007. The paleobiological implications of herbivorous dinosaur coprolites from the upper cretaceous Two Medicine formation of Montana: Why eat wood? Palaios 22(5):554-566.


Zach Miller said…
That's awesome. Looks like duckbills were more selective in their choice of food than anyone thought!
Traumador said…
Just discovered your blog it's awesome!

I know there's been more work done on possible Hadrosaur stomach contents in Alberta with people from the Tyrrell museum and the Uni of Alberta working on an Edmontosaur (if I recall correctly).

I can't remember the details of the talk as it was from the Dinosaur Provincal Park synposium in 05, but they had some equally interesting stuff coming to light on duckbill diet preferences. I don't recall mention of rotten wood, but again it was a while ago (and I was far more into the stratographic proof that Lambeosaurs weren't sexual diamorphic, but rather different geo formationally seperate species).

Anyways again awesome blog. I'll be reading it for sure!

Popular posts from this blog

R for beginners and intermediate users 3: plotting with colours

For my third post on my R tutorials for beginners and intermediate users, I shall finally touch on the subject matter that prompted me to start these tutorials - plotting with group structures in colour.

If you are familiar with R, then you may have noticed that assigning group structure is not all that straightforward. You can have a dataset that may have a column specifically for group structure such as this:

B0 B1 B2 Family
Acrocanthosaurus 0.308 -0.00329 3.28E-05 Allosauroidea
Allosaurus 0.302 -0.00285 2.04E-05 Allosauroidea
Archaeopteryx 0.142 -0.000871 2.98E-06 Aves
Bambiraptor 0.182 -0.00161 1.10E-05 Dromaeosauridae
Baryonychid 0.189 -0.00238 2.20E-05 Basal_Tetanurae
Carcharodontosaurus 0.369 -0.00502 5.82E-05 Allosauroidea
Carnotaurus 0.312 -0.00324 2.94E-05 Neoceratosauria
Ceratosaurus 0.377 -0.00522 6.07E-05 Neoceratosauria
Citipati 0.278 -0.00119 5.08E-06 Oviraptorosauria

The difference between Lion and Tiger skulls

A quick divergence from my usual dinosaurs, and I shall talk about big cats today. This is because to my greatest delight, I had discovered today a wonderful book. It is called The Felidæ of Rancho La Brea (Merriam and Stock 1932, Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, no. 422). As the title suggests it goes into details of felids from the Rancho La Brea, in particular Smilodon californicus (probably synonymous with S. fatalis), but also the American Cave Lion, Panthera atrox. The book is full of detailed descriptions, numerous measurements and beautiful figures. However, what really got me excited was, in their description and comparative anatomy of P. atrox, Merriam and Stock (1932) provide identification criteria for the Lion and Tiger, a translation of the one devised by the French palaeontologist Marcelin Boule in 1906. I have forever been looking for a set of rules for identifying lions and tigers and ultimately had to come up with a set of my own with a lot of help fro…

Top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

I thought I'd do a fun post for once. And since list based articles are the norm for fun on the internet, I thought I'd do one on dinosaurs, but given that I know most about theropods, I've decided to restrict my list to theropods (...maybe in a future post, I'll do other clades).

My ranking is based mostly on scientific importance so it may not reflect awesomeness, and it is obviously subjective as to how I rank importance to science. For instance, interesting discoveries or unique palaeobiology are ranked relatively low compared to wealth of information and data or completely revolutionising our understanding of the evolution of theropods.

So here are my top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

10. Megalosaurus

Being the first dinosaur to be named, Megalosaurus automatically deserves a spot on this list, but given the fragmentary nature of known fossil specimens, and being mostly useless as a meaningful source for biologi…