Submit a preprint


New insights on feeding habits of *Kolpochoerus* from the Shungura Formation (Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia) using dental microwear texture analysisuse asterix (*) to get italics
Margot Louail, Antoine Souron, Gildas Merceron, Jean-Renaud BoisseriePlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>During the Neogene and the Quaternary, African suids show dental morphological changes considered to reflect adaptations to increasing specialization on graminivorous diets, notably in the genus <em>Kolpochoerus</em>. They tend to exhibit elongated third molars and some degree of hypsodonty, suggesting increasing consumption of abrasive grasses. However, the most significant morphological changes are observed more than 1 million years after the increased consumption of C4 plants, such as graminoids. To date, only a few studies have applied dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA) to specimens of <em>Kolpochoerus</em>, which provides information on the mechanical properties of the diet, and therefore bring fundamental insights on the mechanical stresses exerted on dental morphologies. In addition, none has yet focused on specimens from the Shungura Formation (Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia), which is the most complete Late Pliocene to Early Pleistocene record in eastern Africa. To better interpret the dental microwear textures (DMT) of <em>Kolpochoerus</em>, we built a modern referential using four genera of extant suids with contrasting diets: the herbivores <em>Phacochoerus </em>and <em>Hylochoerus</em>, and the omnivores <em>Potamochoerus </em>and <em>Sus</em>. Our results show that their DMT reflect their different feeding habits. In light of these results, we then studied the DMT of 68 Kolpochoerus specimens from the Shungura Formation and dating from about 2.9 Ma to 1.0 Ma. Their DMT differ from extant suids, but some similarities with <em>Phacochoerus </em>are observed. In line with previous studies, we propose that their DMT reflect a high consumption of herbaceous plants (graminoids and non-graminoids), with preferences for young, low-abrasive grasses. Yet, while a high intake of such grasses is consistent with both the shift toward increased C4 feeding and morphological changes, more studies are needed to further understand the temporal offset between the two.</p> should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
abrasion, dietary niche, ecology, paleoenvironment, Plio-Pleistocene, scale-sensitive fractal analysis (SSFA)
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Paleoecology, Vertebrate paleontology
Denise Su,, Ana Rosa Gómez Cano,, Juan López Cantalapiedra,, Guillaume Billet,, Lionel Hautier,, Jessica Scott [] suggested: Hi Denise, I am so very sorry to have to say no, but I cannot do the review on that time frame. I am leaving the country in a couple of days and not returning until October 5. , Jessica Scott [] suggested: Blaine Schubert would be a great choice., Mark Teaford [] suggested: Sorry, but the fall semester is my busiest, so I just can't do it right now..., Jeremy Green suggested: Thank you but I left paleontology 4 years ago and my position in Ohio and I no longer practice in this field, I suggest trying Larisa DeSantis at Vanderbilt University, I sadly do not have an up to date email address. , Florent Rivals [] suggested: Daniela Winkler:, Florent Rivals [] suggested: Mugino O. Kubo:, Kari Prassack suggested: Larisa DeSantis, No need for them to be recommenders of PCIPaleo. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-08-28 10:38:33
Denise Su