Next Article in Journal
Validation of a Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Mass Spectrometry Method for Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Urine for Human Biomonitoring Using Combined Hybrid Anion-Exchange and Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid Chromatography
Previous Article in Journal
Mineralogical Characteristics of Baima Vanadium Titanomagnetite during Magnetic Separation Upgrading
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nutritional and Possible Pharmaceutical Aspects of Tree Exudates Eaten by Lemurs of Madagascar’s Dry Forests †

by
Jörg U. Ganzhorn
1,*,
Yedidya R. Ratovonamana
1,
Melina Rother
1,2,
Peggy Giertz
1,
Curswan A. Andrews
3,
Sabine Baumann
1,
Yvonne E.-M. B. Bohr
1,
Peter M. Kappeler
4,5,
B. Karina Montero
1,6,
Andreas Pommerening-Röser
7,
Ute Radespiel
8,
S. Jacques Rakotondranary
1,9,
Oliver Schülke
10,
Kim J. E. Steffens
1,
Sandra Thorén
8,
Gabriele Timmermann
7 and
Irene Tomaschewski
1
1
Institute of Systems Biology of Animals, Animal Ecology and Conservation, Universität Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
2
Medac Gesellschaft für Klinische Spezialpräparate mbH, Abteilung Pharmacovigilance, Theaterstraße 6, 22880 Wedel, Germany
3
African Primate Initiative for Ecology & Speciation, Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, South Africa
4
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center–Leibnitz Institute of Primatology, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
5
Department Sociobiology/Anthropology, University of Göttingen, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
6
Institute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, University of Ulm, 89081 Ulm, Germany
7
Institute of Plant Science and Microbiology, Department of Microbiology and Biotechnology, Universität Hamburg, Ohnhorststrasse 18, 22609 Hamburg, Germany
8
Institute of Zoology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Buenteweg 17, 30559 Hannover, Germany
9
Département d’Anthropologie, Université d’Antanananriovo, Antananarivo P.O. Box 906, Madagascar
10
Department for Behavioral Ecology, University of Göttingen, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
In memoriam of Fabien Génin and Judith Masters.
Separations 2023, 10(11), 575; https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10110575
Submission received: 1 November 2023 / Accepted: 14 November 2023 / Published: 18 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Analysis of Natural Products and Pharmaceuticals)

Highlights

  • Tree exudates can represent valuable food resources for primates and other animals, especially during dry seasons.
  • Tree exudates can contain high protein concentrations and provide high energy contents if animals can break down ß-linked glycosides.
  • Exudates from some trees are consumed even though they have very low protein and energy contents.
  • These low nutritional exudates have antibacterial activity and contain components with pharmaceutical properties.
  • Tree exudates could be screened for pharmaceutical properties in view of self-medication of primates as well as for human applications.

Abstract

:
Gums produced by trees after injuries are valuable food resources for several primate species. Yet, information on the chemical characteristics of gum is scant and inconsistent. We use gums consumed by lemurs (strepsirrhine primates of Madagascar) as an example to illustrate their possible nutritive and pharmaceutical properties. Exudates from 45 tree species of the dry forests of Madagascar contained 0.38–23.29% protein, 0.46–65.62% sugar, and 0.39–11.86 kJ/g of energy in dry matter. Exemplified by the lemur species Microcebus griseorufus, gum consumption increased with increasing sugar and energy content but was unrelated to protein. But lemurs also fed on gum with very low protein and energy content, suggesting that these exudates were consumed for other reasons. Disk diffusion tests with exudates from five out of 22 tree species consumed by lemurs showed antibacterial activity against Micrococcus spp. and/or Staphylococcus aureus. Exudates with antibacterial activity had lower protein, sugar, and energy contents than samples without antibacterial properties. GC-MS analyses revealed several components with antimicrobial effects that would have the potential for self-medication. This might explain the consumption of gum with very low nutritive value. Possible medicinal effects of tree exudates deserve further attention in view of their pharmaceutical applicability for animals and humans alike.

1. Introduction

Exudates produced on tree trunks after injuries can be gums, resins, or latexes [1]. Gums can be important food items for primates and a variety of other mammalian species [2,3]. Following the classification of Bearder and Martin [4], gums are water-soluble and are produced to seal wounds from mechanical or insect damage. They can contain large amounts of di-, oligo-, and polysaccharides characterized by ß-glycoside linkages. ß-linked glycosides cannot be broken down by primate digestive enzymes, instead requiring microbial fermentation to turn them into energy that can be absorbed by primates. These gums represent important food items, especially in dry forest ecosystems, but are thought to be difficult to collect and to digest, requiring specific morphological adaptation for clinging to large tree trunks, possibly a tooth comb to scrape the exudate off the trunk, and specializations of the digestive tract to improve microbial fermentation (e.g., [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]). In contrast to gum, resins are not soluble in water but can be dissolved in lipophilic solvents. Resins are produced by specialized cells to seal wounds against infections and contain no or very low concentrations of metabolizable nutrient components [4]. Resins are not supposed to be eaten by primates [6], but, especially when produced due to wounds, gums and resins can be mixed, thus making categorization of the exudate difficult under field conditions. Both types of exudates (gums and resins) can contain a variety of plant secondary metabolites used for medicinal purposes by humans, such as terpenoids mixed with essential oils. Well-known examples are gum Arabic from Acacia spp. or myrrh from Commiphora spp. [11,12]. Due to these properties, tree exudates may not only provide nutrients [3,13], but have also been considered to be consumed for their pharmaceutical properties [14]. Despite (or because of) this complexity, exudates have not received similar attention to other primate food categories, such as leaves or fruit [15,16,17,18,19].
In this report, we apply the conventional approach used in studies on leaf and fruit selection by primates in relation to plant chemistry to the chemical composition of gum. In short, animals need protein and energy to survive. Micronutrients, vitamins, and minerals are certainly also important but will not be considered here [20]. As a rule of thumb, and not considering the quality of proteins (i.e., the composition of amino acids), primate food must contain 6–8% protein in dietary dry matter (equivalent to about 1.1% nitrogen) to cover their protein needs [21]. If protein concentrations are below this threshold, the diet must be supplemented with protein-rich items (e.g., insects) or consumers must have special morphological or physiological adaptations to compensate for the low-protein items [22]. A similar threshold cannot be defined for the energy content of food as requirements vary widely in relation to body mass and the physiological state of animals.
Gum-eating mammals, including primates, have been categorized as obligate, facultative, and opportunistic gum feeders [3]. Obligate feeders are expected to have specializations that optimize nutrient extraction from gum. Facultative and opportunistic feeders are not expected to have similar adaptations because they rely on different food categories, such as leaves and fruit. As a consequence, facultative and opportunistic feeders should feed on gum of higher quality (higher protein and/or higher energy content) than obligate gum feeders because the latter should be able to extract nutrients from gum more efficiently and therefore can extend the range of gums for consumption towards gum of low quality. If animals eat gum of lower quality than is believed to be needed to fulfill their nutritional needs, the consumption could be for other reasons, such as for minerals (e.g., [15]), or for pharmaceutical purposes (e.g., [23]). The latter is especially difficult to test under descriptive field conditions, but any evidence for pharmaceutical properties of gum might allow the design of further studies, similar to the phenomenon of chimpanzees feeding on leaves with antihelminthic properties [24,25].
Here, we use gum-eating lemur species (nonhuman primates of Madagascar) of the dry forest ecosystems of western Madagascar [26] to address the following questions:
  • Do facultative gum feeders consume gum of different nutritional quality than obligate gum-feeding species?
  • Are the protein, sugar, and energy content of gum relevant for food selection?
  • Are consumed gums with low protein, sugar, and/or energy content more likely to display antibacterial activity than gums of higher nutritional value?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Comparison of Obligate and Facultative Gum Feeders

During various studies carried out between 1990 and 2012, we collected 152 exudates from natural tree wounds of 45 different tree species at six dry and spiny forest sites in western Madagascar. We considered these exudates to represent gum. For this general comparison between lemur species, gums were collected at sites and from tree species where lemurs have been observed feeding on these tree species, but not always from the same tree or in the same season or year. The sites were (from north to south): Ankarafantsika [27], Analabe [28]; gum collected by F. Génin in November 2007), Kirindy (CNFEREF) [29,30], Zombitse [31]; gum collected by F. Génin in August 2011), Tsimanampetsotse [32,33]; Giertz unpubl., and Berenty [34,35] (Figure 1). Observed consumers of the tree exudates used here were Microcebus griseorufus, M. murinus, M. ravelobensis, and Phaner pallescens [7,27,29,36], supplemented with unpublished data from P. Giertz, Y. Ratovonamana, and O. Schuelke. All sites are part of Madagascar’s dry and spiny forest ecosystem with annual precipitation decreasing from north to south from 1600 mm in Ankarafantsika to less than 400 mm per year in Tsimanampetsotse [31,37].

2.2. Relevance of Protein, Sugar, and Energy Content for Gum Consumption of Microcebus griseorufus

To investigate the relevance of protein, sugar, and energy content for gum consumption, we studied the obligate gum-eating lemur species Microcebus griseorufus as an example. The case study was carried out in the Parc National de Tsimanampetsotse (24°03′–24°12′ S, 43°46′–43°50′ E), located about 85 km south of Toliara. Rainfall is highly seasonal, rarely exceeding 400 mm per year, and is mostly restricted to the time between December and February. During the last two decades, rainfall shifted towards March and April [33]. The vegetation has a pronounced xerophytic character and belongs to Madagascar’s spiny forest formations [31,37]. The different vegetation formations within Tsimanampetsotse National Park vary according to the underlying soils and their water-holding capacity. Two main formations were considered for the study reported here: (1) Dry forest on unconsolidated sands at the foot of the Mahafaly Plateau. This formation is characterized by Didierea madagascariensis (Didieraceae) and Cedrelopsis grevei (Rutaceae) and reaches a mean height of 6 m; (2) xerophytic, spiny bush on calcareous soil, characterized by Alluaudia commosa (Didieraceae), Cassia meridionalis (Fabaceae), and Cedrelopsis gracilis (Rutaceae). The spiny bush grows on limestone and reaches a maximum height of 4 m [33].
As part of a radio-tracking and capture-mark-recapture study of Microcebus griseorufus [32,33,38,39,40]; Giertz unpubl., we recorded feeding events of 16 M. griseorufus in the Tsimanampetsotse National Park for a total of 108 h in the dry forest on sand and 102 h on the limestone plateau between March 2008 and March 2009.

2.3. Antibacterial Properties and Chemical Composition of Consumed Gum

For the study of possible interactions between antibacterial properties and the concentrations of protein, sugar, and the energy content of gum consumed by lemur species, we restricted the analyses to samples linked to actual feeding observations and took samples from the same trees where the animals had been observed feeding or from a conspecific tree nearby within a day of the feeding observations.

2.3.1. Chemical Analyses

Samples were dried in the air (if needed) and stored away from sunlight in a cool place, and ground into powder using a mortar and pestle prior to analyses. We analyzed 101 samples for total nitrogen using the Kjeldahl method. The Kjeldahl procedure digests samples in a mixture of sulfuric acid and a commercially available catalyst, followed by transformation of nitrogen into ammonium and titration to measure the amount of nitrogen in the sample. Nitrogen can serve as a proxy for protein. The factor for the conversion of nitrogen into protein can vary between different food categories and the conversion factor is unknown for exudates [41]. For the calculation of the energy content of protein in gum, we use a conversion factor of 6.25.
We analyzed 152 samples of soluble sugar concentrations as equivalent to galactose after acid hydrolyzation of 50% methanol extract. The concentrations of the resulting monosaccharides were measured photometrically at 490 nm using a phenolic reagent (2.5 g phenol in 50 mL H2O) [42]. Though this represents a rather indiscriminate method, the results are well correlated with enzymatic analyses of distinct sugars, such as glucose and fructose, analyzed by lab-kits from Boehringer Mannheim. Due to the small quantities of sample material available, we could run chemical analyses only once per sample.
For the 101 samples for which nitrogen and sugar analyses were available, we estimated the energy content (kJ/g dry matter) derived from the protein and sugar concentrations as E = [(% Protein x 16.736) + (% Sugar x 16.736)]/100 [43].
We assayed methanol extracts of exudates from 17 tree species using gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry using a GCMS-QP2010S of Shimadzu and a DB5 column. Since we only wanted to assess the composition of the exudates qualitatively, we did not aim for any quantification of the components. We produced methanol extracts with 200–300 mg of sample in 2 mL of methanol using an Ultra-Turrax for 2 min. The resulting solution was filtered. We considered blank samples for comparison. We identified the components with the FFNSC library (Flavor and Fragrance Natural and Synthetic Compounds) provided by Shimazdu. We considered only components that were identified by the library with a probability ≥98%. Due to the large number of components, we did not add internal standards to the samples. We took information on possible pharmaceutical properties of the substances identified using the GC-MS from The Merck Index [44] and the NIH National Library of Medicine (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/; accessed 20 June 2023).

2.3.2. Antibacterial Activity

We conducted disk diffusion tests according to Bauer et al. [45] to test the exudates for antibacterial activity. We dissolved the exudate powders in water, methanol, and olive oil with concentrations of 3 to 33.3 mg/100 µL. Some of the samples did not seem to dissolve well in the solvent and therefore we added powder in a non-standardized way, hoping that some components might come into solution. This qualitative approach certainly prohibits any direct pharmaceutical application of our results. We prepared base plates for bacterial growth tests by pouring 20 mL of yeast-extract-peptone-glucose agar into sterile Petri dishes. We poured 7 mL of semisolid agar medium (Luria-Bertani- and yeast-extract-peptone-glucose medium), inoculated with 100–300 µL of the specific test organisms, over the base plate to obtain a homogenous bacteria layer. We placed 25 µL of oil-dissolved exudates or 15 µL of water- and methanol-dissolved exudates on a sterile filter paper clip (9 mm diameter) on the agar plates. Controls consisted of the solvents without exudates. After incubating the test plates for 24–48 h at 28–37 °C, depending on the optimal growth conditions of the test organisms, we measured antibacterial activity as the diameter of the zones of inhibition around the filter paper (including the filter paper).
Since there is little information available on the bacterial composition of the digestive tract of lemurs and the microbiome of Microcebus griseorufus can vary substantially under different conditions [46,47,48,49,50], and viruses can show regional co-evolution with hosts with unknown consequences for co-infections [51], we used standard laboratory bacteria for our antibacterial tests. The test organisms were the gram-negative Escherichia coli (ESCH 006) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSMN 028), and the gram-positive Micrococcus sp. (MICO 001), Micrococcus roseus (MICO 003), Micrococcus luteus (MICO 004), Micrococcus sp. (MICO 005), Micrococcus lysodeicticus (MICO 006), Staphylococcus aureus (SFCO 002), and Enterococcus faecalis (STCO 001). IDs in brackets refer to bacteria strains provided by the Department of Microbiology and Biotechnology, Institute of Plant Science and Microbiology, University of Hamburg, Germany.

2.3.3. Statistics

For the comparison of the chemical composition of gum consumed by obligate or facultative gum feeders, we calculated the mean nitrogen, sugar, and energy content per tree species across all study sites. Some trees could not be identified. Since they were different from the known tree species, they were considered as distinct species. For the regional study, samples were collected at the different study sites between 1989 and 2012. Since gums were collected at different sites and over many years, we calculated means per tree species and used these means to characterize the chemical composition of gums consumed by the different lemur species. The components of gums consumed by the different species were compared via single-factor analyses of variance.
To study the relevance of protein, sugar, and energy content for gum consumption of Microcebus griseorufus, we log-transformed the number of feeding records to improve normality and correlated the number of feeding records with the protein, sugar, and energy content per food species using Pearson correlations. For these analyses, we considered the data from the dry forest and the spiny bush and from the dry and the wet season as being independent. We used only food tree species for which we had collected gum in the respective habitat and season.
To study possible differences of chemical properties of gums with and without antibacterial activity, we used the mean concentrations of the 22 species for which we had carried out the antimicrobial tests. If different individuals of the same tree species produced either positive or negative results, we restricted the calculation of the mean protein, sugar, and energy content to the samples for which we had run the antibacterial tests and calculated the means separately for individuals with or without antibacterial activity. This applied to two tree species: Albizia tulearensis and Terminalia disjuncta. Since residuals deviated from normality, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests for comparisons of the samples with and without antibacterial activity.
The p values are two-tailed. Statistical tests were performed with SPSS 25.0.

2.4. Ethical Note

All animal work has been conducted according to Malagasy and German guidelines. Our research was conducted in collaboration with the Département Biologie Animale and the Département Biologie et Ecologie Végétale of the Université d’Antananarivo. Authorization to enter Tsimanampetsotse National Park, as well as to capture and handle small mammals, were delivered by the Ministère de l’Environement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme of Madagascar in accordance with Madagascar National Parks (MNP, former ANGAP; permit n° 057/07 issued on March 12, 2007, permit n° 009/08 issued on 15 January 2008, and permit n° 261/08 issued on 9 October 2008). We hereby confirm that our study was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Weatherall report “The use of non-human primates in research”.

3. Results

3.1. Regional Study

The 152 gum samples belonged to 45 different tree species. The chemical composition (mean per tree species) ranged from 0.38 to 23.29% protein (n = 42), 0.46–65.62% sugar (n = 47), and 0.39–11.86 kJ/g of energy (n = 42; Appendix A, Table 1). Gums consumed by the facultative gum feeder, Microcebus murinus, had higher contents of proteins, sugars, and energy than the obligate gum feeding species, but the chemical concentrations and the energy content did not differ significantly between the four lemur species (ANOVA: F < 1.17 for all three components; p > 0.05).

3.2. Relevance of Protein, Sugar and Energy Content for Gum Consumption of Microcebus griseorufus

During the 210 h of focal animal observations, we recorded 189 feeding events, including 37 cases of exudate feeding, representing 19.6% of all feeding records. During the focal observations, M. griseorufus consumed exudates from eight different tree species. Exudates were consumed most often during the dry season in the spiny thicket on limestone (Appendix B). Operculicarya hyphaenoides is also known to be eaten but this was not observed during the systematic observations.
The number of feeding observations per vegetation formation and season was not correlated significantly with the protein concentrations in the exudates (r = −0.43; p = 0.084, n = 17), and was significantly positively correlated with the sugar concentrations and the energy content (r = 0.57, p = 0.014, n = 18, and r = 0.51, p = 0.037, n = 17). Samples with antibacterial properties were low in protein, sugar, and energy and were consumed only twice during the systematic observations (Figure 2).

3.3. Antibacterial Properties and Chemical Composition of Consumed Gum

Six of the 40 samples from 22 different tree species analyzed for antibacterial activity showed clear antibacterial inhibition and three showed indications of antibacterial activity against bacteria used in the assays (Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix E). No exudate in any of the solvents showed antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli (ESCH 006), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSMN 028), Micrococcus sp. (MICO 006), Micrococcus lysodeicticus (MICO 006), and Enterococcus faecalis (STCO 001). It should be kept in mind that we could not use extracts from all samples in all assays due to the low quantities of exudate available for some of the samples.
Water-dissolved samples showed no antibacterial effect (Appendix C). We found clear antibacterial activity in five oil-dissolved samples of Commiphora simplicifolia (Figure 3a) against Micrococcus luteus (MICO 004), Micrococcus sp. (MICO 005), M. Roseus (MICO 003), and Staphylococcus aureus (SFCO 002, Appendix D). The exudate from an unidentified tree species collected at Zombitse (F11-11) showed clear activity in M. luteus (Figure 3b) and a faint inhibition against Micrococcus sp. (MICO 005). Oil-dissolved extracts of Quivisianthe papinae and Terminalia disjuncta indicated an inhibition against M. luteus (MICO 004) and Micrococcus sp. (MICO 005).
Methanol dissolved exudates showed some antibacterial activity (Appendix E). Clear antibacterial activity was found in the exudate of Commiphora simplicifolia. Quivisianthe papinae showed some indication of inhibition against S. aureus (SFCO 002, Figure 3c) and some species of the genus Micrococcus. Albizia tulearensis inhibited Micrococcus luteus.
Of the 22 tree species tested, three showed clear antibacterial activity in the disk diffusion tests. Two species (Albizia tulearensis and Terminalia disjuncta) showed antibacterial activity in some samples but not in others. Extracts from gum of 17 species did not show any antibacterial activity (Table 2).
Sugar concentration and the energy content of exudates showing antibacterial activity were significantly lower than in exudates that did not show antibacterial activity (Mann-Whitney U test: sugar: z = 2.24, p = 0.025; energy: z = 2.64, p = 0.008). Protein concentrations did not differ between samples with and without antibacterial activity (z = 1.24, p = 0.215; Figure 4).
In the GC-MS analyses, we identified a total of 75 different components matching the library with a probability ≥98% from the methanol extracts of the exudate samples from 17 different tree species (Appendix F). There is no general pattern in the number of different components between species with or without antibacterial effect. The two species of Commiphora stand out for their large number of components, but one of them (C. simplicifolia) showed very strong antibacterial effects, while C. arafy had no effect in our assays. Terminalia spp. did not produce a single component identified in the library.
Many of the components identified have some pharmaceutical properties and are used for medical purposes. Others are irritants or are added to human food as flavors. The consequences of consuming the substances are highly dependent on their concentrations and thus cannot be generalized. Some components are listed as having antimicrobial effects, such as andrographolide, caprylic acid, eugenol, pelagonic acid, salicylic acid, and viriflorol. Apart from salicylic acid, all these components occur predominantly in exudates that had shown antibacterial activity in our disk diffusion tests.

4. Discussion

As well as fruits, leaves, insects, and nectar, primate species from all radiations eat tree exudates. The notion of the role of these components for primate nutrition ranges from exudates being a fallback resource consumed when nothing else was available to being a staple food resource, or a required source of plant secondary metabolites with pharmaceutical properties needed to maintain the animals’ health [2,3,14]. Different conclusions might be drawn as this dietary category combines different plant products derived from different plant parts and with different properties, such as gums, saps, resins, or latexes, that may be difficult to distinguish under field conditions [2,4,6,54,55,56]. In order to reduce additional complexity introduced by evolutionary adaptations of the different primate radiations, we used obligate and facultative gum consumers among lemurs from the dry and spiny forests of Madagascar to explore possible drivers of exudate consumption that we considered to be gum.
The gums consumed by three of the four lemur species (i.e., the three species of Microcebus) contained average protein concentrations that match the recommended protein concentrations of 6–8% protein in primate foods. Gum consumed by the most specialized gum eater, Phaner pallescens, had lower protein concentrations that would not be sufficient to cover the species’ protein needs. Phaner spp. have a rather differentiated gut and other gum-eating primates with similar specializations are known for their long food passage time that allows efficient extraction of nutrients (mainly through fermentation products produced in the hindgut, i.e., after the small intestine where amino acids can be absorbed) [3,13,57,58]. Thus, the low-protein concentrations in gum are unlikely to be compensated for by morphological adaptations, but rather through supplementing their diet with insects [28]. Contrary to their response towards protein concentrations, Microcebus griseorufus increased their consumption of gum with increasing energy content. This matches the findings and interpretations of other studies that gum is primarily a source of energy [3,13,55].
As a yet unresolved phenomenon, some of the exudates consumed by the lemurs contained very low concentrations of protein, sugars, and energy content, but were still eaten by lemurs. It is questionable whether or not these exudates were gums or rather resins, but this issue cannot be resolved. In any case, the lemurs consumed these exudates. This resembles the phenomenon of the consumption of leaves with low nutrient content but high pharmaceutical properties by other non-human primates, summarized under the issue of self-medication [23,25,59,60,61]. Gum-eating lorises were also suggested to consume exudates for their medicinal effects, with negative effects if these components are not provided in captivity [3,13,14,62].
Though our sample size is small, it is noticeable that some of the extracts with very low protein and energy contents showed antibacterial activity against gram-positive bacteria (Micrococcus spp. and Staphylococcus aureus), while none of the exudates with high protein or energy content had similar activities. Most notably, extracts from Commiphora simplicifolia showed pronounced antibacterial activity. Antibacterial inhibition was obtained with oil- and methanol- dissolved samples, but not with water-dissolved samples. These results are consistent with the distinction between water-soluble “gum” and non-water-soluble “resin” and their properties, with antibacterial properties that are more prominent components of the lipophilic but not the water-soluble fraction of tree exudates [4,63]. The feeding behavior of Microcebus griseorufus on exudates with antibacterial properties could be interpreted as ingestion of exudates with positive medicinal effects because the nutritional value of these exudates was extremely low. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as “sampling” exudates by M. griseorufus to monitor sources of exudates.
Many studies have postulated or demonstrated that animals eat specific plants to combat or control disease [23,25,60,64,65,66]. Experimental evidence for self-medication is lacking from free-ranging primates, but the phenomenon that primate species eat plant parts with very low nutritive quality suggests another role for these items, such as fighting against diseases [61]. The African great apes (Hominidae) are especially well studied in terms of self-medication [23,25,65,67,68]. Chimpanzees show a reduction in intestinal parasite load after chewing the bitter pith of Vernonia amygdalina, and many plants consumed by Macaca fuscata inhibit protozoan parasites that are relevant for humans [61]. Some studies on strepsirrhine primates have also postulated antiparasitic effects of plants consumed, such as in Eulemur fulvus [69], peripartum sifaka females (Propithecus verreauxi) [70], and Eulemur spp., that might use millipede secretions against ectoparasites and intestinal parasites [71,72].
Antibacterial, antiviral, and other pharmaceutical effects have been described for all tree genera for which we have found inhibiting effects against the bacteria used in our assays (e.g., Commiphora: [73,74]; Quivisianthe: [75]; Terminalia: [76]. Pharmaceutical effects of Commiphora species are especially well known, such as C. mukul, with its antiphlogistic [77], hypolipidemic, and antioxidant effects [78]. The commonly known Myrrh, which is the gum of different Commiphora species, is used as a mouth wash and as an antibacterial and antifungal drug [79]. Chewing on C. africana provides a positive effect on Massai’s health [80], and sesquiterpenes of C. molmol have been proven to have antibacterial and antifungal properties [79]. Madagascar’s Commiphora spp. have not been studied extensively. A search in the Web of Science with the topic “Commiphora” produced 799 hits worldwide, many addressing pharmaceutical properties. In contrast, “Commiphora” and “Madagascar” produced only 15 hits, none of which addressed any pharmaceutical aspect (accessed 10 May 2020). Quivisianthe papinae is poorly covered by the international literature, but other members of the family Meliaceae (e.g., Neobeguea mahafaliensis, which did not show antibacterial properties in our assays) have some pharmaceutical properties appreciated by the local population that might also be present in Quivisanthe [52,81]. Parts of Terminalia are used against tumors, HIV-1, fungal and microbial diseases, malaria, diarrhea, or as a painkiller. Similarly, as with Commiphora, the majority of pharmaceutical properties documented stem from species outside of Madagascar [76].

5. Conclusions

The study started out with the observation that lemurs eat gum with nutritive values too low to cover the energy or protein needs of the consumers. Following the findings that gum consumed by Asian loris have pharmaceutical properties [13,14,23], we postulated that gum is either consumed for its energy and protein content, or, if the energy or protein content was very low, gum could also be consumed for its pharmaceutical properties. Though our sample size was small, gum with antibacterial activity had lower protein, sugar, and energy contents than samples without antibacterial properties, thus supporting the idea that pharmaceutical properties play a role in food selection of lemurs when feeding on gum. Due to the small sample size and opportunistic rather than systematic sampling, the present study has to be considered a pilot study on possible reasons for the consumption of gum without obvious nutritive value, possibly hinting towards pharmaceutical properties of gum that is of low nutritive value. Without experimental approaches, it is difficult to compile convincing evidence for self-medication by animals. But the large number of bio-active components found in exudates of the various tree species studied here indicates an unexplored source for pharmaceutical applications. Given the widespread occurrence of exudate feeding among Malagasy strepsirrhines and the limited information on ethnobotanical applications and pharmaceutical properties [75], more detailed analyses of this phenomenon might offer promising options for future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.U.G. and C.A.A.; methodology, M.R., P.G., C.A.A., Y.E.-M.B.B., A.P.-R., O.S., G.T. and I.T.; Validation, J.U.G., P.G., A.P.-R., G.T. and I.T.; Formal analysis, J.U.G., M.R., B.K.M. and I.T.; investigation, Y.R.R., M.R., P.G., C.A.A., S.B., Y.E.-M.B.B., A.P.-R., U.R., S.J.R., O.S., K.J.E.S. and S.T.; resources, J.U.G., Y.R.R., P.M.K., A.P.-R., U.R. and G.T.; data curation, J.U.G., M.R., P.G., C.A.A. and I.T.; writing—original draft, J.U.G. and M.R.; writing—review & editing, Y.R.R., M.R., P.G., C.A.A., S.B., Y.E.-M.B.B., P.M.K., B.K.M., A.P.-R., U.R., S.J.R., O.S., K.J.E.S., S.T., G.T. and I.T.; supervision, J.U.G., A.P.-R., U.R. and G.T.; project administration, J.U.G., Y.R.R., P.M.K. U.R. and S.J.R.; funding acquisition, J.U.G., P.M.K. and U.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded in part by BMBF: SUA 10/040, BMBF SuLaMa (FKZ 01LL0914), and DFG Ga 342/15.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its Appendix.

Acknowledgments

We conducted this study within the Accord de Collaboration between Madagascar National Parks (MNP, formerly ANGAP), the University of Antananarivo, and the University of Hamburg and the German Primate Center Göttingen. We thank Ch. Andrianarivo, J. Rakotomala, D. Rakotomalala, D. Rakotondravony, and the late O. Ramilijaona for their collaboration and support. We acknowledge the authorization and support of this study by the Ministère de l’Environement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme, MNP, the University of Antananarivo and WWF Madagascar. T. Andrianasolo managed bureaucratic affairs. S. Kobbe, G. A. Rakoto Ramambason, Edson, Fisy, and Antsara provided important assistance in the field. F. Génin provided gums collected in Zombitse and Analabe. Special thanks go to J. Rothman, F. Génin, F. Cabana and three reviewers who provided very helpful comments on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Appendix A

Protein, sugar, and energy content of tree exudates consumed by lemurs of the dry and spiny forests of western Madagascar. The year of exudate collection and the lemur species listed as consumer do not match in all cases. Consumer species: Mg = Microcebus griseorufus, Mm = M. murinus, Mr = M. ravelobensis, Pp = Phaner pallescens. Consumer species not occurring at the site of sample collection but known to feed on exudates from the same tree species elsewhere are listed in brackets.
Tree SpeciesSite of CollectionYear CollectedConsumer SpeciesProtein
%
Sugar
%
Energy kJ_g
Acacia bellulaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg10.4434.557.53
Acacia bellulaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg7.1334.406.95
Acacia bellulaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg3.3159.0010.43
Alantsilodendron alluaudianumBerenty2006Mg21.3810.015.25
Alantsilodendron alluaudianumBerenty2006Mg19.8141.0010.18
Alantsilodendron alluaudianumBerenty2006Mg19.0627.497.79
Alantsilodendron alluaudianumBerenty2006Mg18.4447.6311.06
Alantsilodendron alluaudianumBerenty2006Mg12.8848.6810.30
Albiza tulearensisTsimanampetsotse2012Mg4.130.650.80
Albiza tulearensisTsimanampetsotse2012Mg2.940.470.57
Albiza tulearensisTsimanampetsotse2012Mg2.630.570.53
Albizia mainaeaAnalabe2007Mm, Pp11.3128.356.64
Albizia microphyllaBerenty2011Mg2.198.041.71
Astrotrichilia asterotrichaAnkarafantsika2009Mm, Mr1.7521.933.96
Azima tetracanthaBerenty2004Mg5.2565.6211.86
Commiphora 1Berenty2004Mg4.0032.236.06
Commiphora 3Berenty2004Mg2.8131.375.72
Commiphora 5Berenty2004Mg2.7530.425.55
Commiphora aprevaliiBerenty2006Mg4.5659.0810.65
Commiphora arafyAnalabe2007Mm, Pp15.2530.817.71
Commiphora arafyKirindy2000Pp 32.82
Commiphora arafyKirindy1990Pp 16.70
Commiphora arafyKirindy1989Pp 17.10
Commiphora humbertiiTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 6.05
Commiphora humbertiiBerenty2006Mg1.9428.985.17
Commiphora lamiiTsimanampetsotse2008Mg9.4441.538.53
Commiphora lamiiBerenty2006Mg5.0031.46.09
Commiphora marchandiiTsimanampetsotse2008Mg9.4453.7310.57
Commiphora marchandiiTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 25.67
Commiphora marchandiiTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 49.94
Commiphora monstruosaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 24.66
Commiphora orbicularisBerenty2006Mg11.3839.338.49
Commiphora orbicularisBerenty2006Mg11.3155.9411.26
Commiphora orbicularisBerenty2006Mg10.0632.517.12
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg4.699.172.32
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg4.3115.223.27
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg4.009.882.32
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg3.814.901.46
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg3.816.021.65
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.9412.352.56
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg1.3817.393.14
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 4.76
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 5.81
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg 8.92
Commiphora simplicifoliaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 10.7
Commiphora sp.Berenty2006Mg2.6350.178.84
Commiphora stellulataKirindy1990Pp 26.10
Commiphora trifoliaBerenty2003Mg16.882.133.18
Commiphora_Anka1Ankarafantsika2009Mm17.7538.179.36
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg4.5621.994.44
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg4.2526.715.18
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.7571.6112.44
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.5058.1410.15
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg1.448.031.58
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg1.3150.698.70
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg1.2556.039.59
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg0.7534.125.84
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg0.6324.774.25
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 20.59
Delonix floribundaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 35.93
Delonix floribundaAnalabe2007Mm, Pp3.8847.598.61
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg30.9418.688.30
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 11.88
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg22.9418.496.93
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg18.1932.398.46
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 22.83
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg22.3121.217.28
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 22.19
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 21.67
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 30.85
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 19.55
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 28.20
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 24.91
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 22.61
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 2.63
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 21.13
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg22.8126.518.25
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg22.5632.39.18
DichrostachysBerenty2004Mg 38.53
Grewia_TabarikeBerenty2004Mg7.0016.643.96
Grewia_TabarikeBerenty2004Mg7.5014.013.60
Grewia_TaolankafotsyBerenty2004Mg11.252.492.30
Hymenodictyon decaryiKirindy2000Pp3.505.551.51
Neobeguea mahafaliensisTsimanampetsotse2012Mg5.1321.424.44
Neobeguea mahafaliensisTsimanampetsotse2008Mg3.3811.082.42
Neobeguea mahafaliensisTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.256.151.41
Neobeguea mahafaliensisTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.0010.712.13
Neobeguea mahafaliensisTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 0.17
Neobeguea mahafaliensisTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 2.70
Neobeguea mahafaliensisTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 9.53
Neobeguea mahafaliensisKirindy2000Pp 37.25
Neobeguea mahafaliensisAnalabe2007Pp3.382.831.04
Operculicarya gummiferaKirindy2001Pp 0.63
Operculicarya gummiferaKirindy2001Pp 0.81
Operculicarya gummiferaKirindy Pp 26.01
Operculicarya hyphaenoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.4465.6011.39
Operculicarya hyphaenoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.1374.7212.86
Operculicarya hyphaenoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg1.6940.677.09
Operculicarya hyphaenoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 58.18
Operculicarya hyphaenoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 73.64
Operculicarya hyphaenoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg3.1911.432.45
Poupartia silvaticaAnkarafantsika2009Mm, Mr 28.216.45
Poupartia silvaticaKirindy2000Pp27.257.955.89
Poupartia silvaticaKirindy1999Pp2.3156.649.87
Poupartia silvaticaKirindy1999Pp1.3825.084.43
Poupartia silvaticaKirindy1990Pp 16.70
Poupartia silvaticaKirindy1990Pp 23.30
Poupartia silvaticaKirindy1993Pp 39.59
Quivisianthe papinaeBerenty2011(Mg)2.380.460.47
Rhopalocarpus lucidusZombitse2011(Mg)2.7513.512.72
Rhopalocarpus similisAnkarafantsika2009Mm2.5664.7611.27
Rhopalocarpus spAnalabe2007Mm3.9438.157.04
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg3.9478.7613.84
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg3.6948.668.76
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg3.1962.8611.05
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg3.1361.6010.83
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg3.0080.6314.00
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.3885.9414.78
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg2.1353.259.27
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2012Mg2.0051.578.97
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg1.639.481.86
Terminalia disjunctaTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 55.76
Terminalia mantaliopsisAnalabe2007Mm, Pp2.3826.064.76
Terminalia mantalyAnalabe2007Mm, Pp1.4425.154.45
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2001Pp2.6917.883.44
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2001Pp2.4426.914.91
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp1.5664.7011.09
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp1.441.410.48
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 2.28
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 6.32
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 6.67
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2001Pp 8.40
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 11.21
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 12.19
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 15.48
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 19.32
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2001Pp 21.89
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2000Pp 26.66
Terminalia sp.Kirindy2001Pp 51.5
Terminalia sp.2Kirindy2000Pp 0.66
Terminalia ulexoidesTsimanampetsotse2012Mg13.754.683.08
Terminalia ulexoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg3.0011.902.49
Terminalia ulexoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg1.759.861.94
Terminalia ulexoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg1.5018.603.36
Terminalia ulexoidesTsimanampetsotse2012Mg 5.28
Terminalia ulexoidesTsimanampetsotse2008Mg 18.50
unknown sp1Kirindy1999Pp0.3823.524.00
unknown sp2Kirindy2000Pp1.500.840.39
unknown sp3Zombitse2011Pp5.3112.012.90
Zanthoxylum sp.Kirindy1999Pp4.1354.399.79
Zanthoxylum sp.Kirindy2001Pp3.5045.218.15
Zanthoxylum sp.Kirindy2001Pp 60.65

Appendix B

Exudate consumption of Microcebus griseorufus in Tsimanampetsotse National Park; chemical composition of exudates is represented by the mean per tree species derived from Appendix A, assigned to different vegetation formations and seasons. Freq. = Frequency of consumption, N% = % nitrogen, Sugar % = % sugar; AB = antibacterial effect.
Dry SeasonWet SeasonDry SeasonWet Season
Freq.N %Sugar %ABFreq.NSugarABFreq.N %Sugar %ABFreq.NSugarAB
Acacia bellula01.1142.6501 00 00 0
Albizia tulearensis2 000.520.5600 01 0
Commiphora marchandi01.5143.1101 00 00 0
Commiphora simplicifolia10.5811.49100.616.6110 10 1
Delonix floribunda00.6827.74010.4471.61020.3228.71020.1540.400
Neobeguea mahafaliensis00.545.63000.8221.4203 00 0
Operculicarya hyphaenoides0 0 00.3850.1200
Terminalia disjuncta10.269.48170.4754.360110.4073.2703 0
Terminalia ulexoïdes10.3615.25002.24.9800 18.5000 0

Appendix C

Antibacterial activity of water dissolved gum.
Tree SpeciesSample No.ESCH 006PSMN 028MICO 004SFCO 002
Acacia bellulaP08-1270---
Acacia bellulaP08-1280---
Acacia burkeiF11-4--0-
Albizia tulearensisB12-10--0-
Albizia tulearensisB12-11--0-
Albizia tulearensisB12-12--0-
Combretum molleF11-50---
Commiphora simplicifoliaP08-1200000
Commiphora sp.F07-70-0-
Commiphora sp.F07-80-0-
Delonix floribundaB12-15--0-
Delonix floribundaB12-16--0-
Harpephyllum caffrumF11-70---
Neobeguea mahafaliensisP08-104--0-
Neobeguea mahafaliensisB12-13--0-
Neobeguea mahafaliensisB12-14--0-
Quivisianthe papinaeF11-8-00-
Terminalia disjunctaP08-78--0-
Terminalia mantaliopsisF07-3--0-
Terminalia ulexoidesB12-1--0-
Terminalia ulexoidesB12-2--0-
Terminalia ulexoidesB12-3--0-
Unknown speciesF11-11--0-
All zones of inhibition measured as diameter including the filter paper with a diameter of 9 mm. 0: No zone of inhibition; -: No test performed.

Appendix D

Antibacterial activity of gum dissolved in olive oil.
Tree SpeciesSample No.ESCH 006PSMN 028MICO 001MICO 003MICO 004MICO 005MICO 006SFCO 002STCO 001
Acacia bellulaP08-127----0----
Acacia bellulaP08-128----0----
Acacia burkeiF11-4----0----
Acacia robustaF11-6----0----
Albizia mainaeaF07-50-0000000
Albizia tulearensisB12-100---0----
Albizia tulearensisB12-110---0----
Albizia tulearensisB12-120-0000000
Combretum molleF11-5--0000000
Commiphora guillauminiS00-19--0000000
Commiphora marchandiiP08-111--0000000
Commiphora marchandiiP08-114----0----
Commiphora simplicifoliaP08-1190---2----
Commiphora simplicifoliaP08-120000121000
Commiphora simplicifoliaP08-1250---2----
Commiphora simplicifoliaB12-7---221-1-
Commiphora simplicifoliaB12-800-121-1-
Commiphora sp.F07-7--0000000
Commiphora sp.F07-8----0----
Delonix floribundaF07-4----0----
Delonix floribundaP08-76----0----
Delonix floribundaP08-51----0----
Delonix floribundaB12-150---0----
Delonix floribundaB12-160---0----
Harpephyllum caffrumF11-7----0----
Hymenodictyon decaryiS00-3----0----
Neobeguea mahafaliensisP08-100----0----
Neobeguea mahafaliensisP08-104--0000000
Neobeguea mahafaliensisB12-130---0----
Neobeguea mahafaliensisB12-140---0----
Operculicarya gummiferaS00-10----0----
Operculicarya hyphaenoidesP08-108----0----
Poupartia silvaticaS00-2----0----
Quivisianthe papinaeF11-80000nrnr000
Rhopalocarpus sp.F07-6----0----
Terminalia disjunctaP08-30----nr----
Terminalia disjunctaP08-53----0----
Terminalia disjunctaP08-78----0----
Terminalia mantaliopsisF07-3----0----
Terminalia mentalyF07-2----0----
Terminalia ulexoidesB12-10---0----
Terminalia ulexoidesB12-20---0----
Terminalia ulexoidesB12-30---0----
Zanthoxylum sp.S00-13----0----
Unknown speciesF11-1100--2nr-00
All zones of inhibition measured as diameter including the filter paper with a diameter of 9 mm. 0: No zone of inhibition, 1: Zone of inhibition of 10–15 mm, 2: Zone of inhibition of 16–50 mm, nr: Inhibition suggested but not replicable, -: No test performed.

Appendix E

Antibacterial activity of methanol dissolved gum.
Tree SpeciesSample No.ESCH 006PSMN 028MICO 003MICO 004MICO 005SFCO
002
Albizia tulearensisB12-12---nr-0
Commiphora guillauminiS00-19--00--
Commiphora simplicifoliaP08-1200012nr1; 2
Commiphora simplicifoliaB12-8--nr1Nrnr
Quivisianthe papinaeF11-8--nrnrNrnr
Terminalia disjunctaP08-30---0-0
All zones of inhibition measured as diameter including the filter paper with a diameter of 9 mm. 0: No zone of inhibition, 1: Zone of inhibition of 10–15 mm, 2: Zone of inhibition of 16–50 mm, nr: Inhibition suggested but not replicable, -: No test performed.

Appendix F

Components identified by GC-MS in methanol extracts of exudates investigated in the present study; shaded columns species abbreviations are: Ab = Acacia bellula, Am = Albizia mainaea, At = Albizia tulearensis, Df = Delonix floribunda, Ca = Commiphora arafy, Cs = C. simplicifolia, Hd = Hymenodictyon decaryi, NM = Neobeguea mahafaliensis, Oh = Operculicarya hyphanoides, Ps = Poupartia sylvatica, Qp = Quivisanthe papinae, Rs = Rhopalocarpus sp., Td = Terminalia disjuncta, Tm = Terminalia mantalis, Tma = Terminalia mantaliopsis, Tu = Terminalia ulexoides, Zsp = Zanthoxylum sp. Parts used in traditional medicine according to [52,53]: Ar = Aerial parts, Gum, Sb = Subterranean parts, Lx = Sap or latex, Tr = Trunk, Br = stem barks.
AbAmAtDfCaCsHdNmOhPsQpRsTdTmT
ma
TuZ
sp
Pharmacology
[44]
Pharmacology
NIH National Library of Medicine
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 1 November 2023)
Antimicrobial effect in the present study000/10010000100/10000
Part used according to [52,53]Ar BrLxGumAr Sb,Tr Ar SbSb
Acetophenone 1 1 NonePhotosensitizing
Allocimene 1 Not listedPossibly toxic
Andrographolide 1 Anti-inflammatoryAntiprotozoal
Anti-inflammatory
Antiviral
Platelet Aggregation Inhibitor
Anethole 1 Antitussive; flavoring agent in foodFlavoring agent
Anisic acid 1 Condiment and flavor in foods; carminative; expectorantFlavoring agent
Aromadendrene 1 Not listedNone
trans-α- Begamoten 1 Not listedNone
Benzaldehyd 1
Bourbonene 11 Not listedFlavouring agent
Bulnesene 1 Not listedNone
Cadinene 1 1 NoneNone
Calorene 1 Not listedNot listed
Camphen 1 NoneNone
Caprylic acid
(Octanoic Acid)
1 Antifungal
Toxic
Possibly against seizures
Caryo-phyllene 1 11 NoneFlavouring agent
Cendrene 1 Not listedNot listed
Chamigrene 11 Not listedNone
Chavicol 1 1 NoneNone
Copaene 1 1 NoneNone
Cubebene 1 Urinary antiseptic; expectorantNone
Curcumene 1 NoneNone
Curzene 1 Not listedNot listed
Cyclolanost-24en-3ol 1 Not listedNot listed
Cymen 1 NoneNone
Elemene 1 11 Not listedNone
Elemol 1 Not listedNone
Enanthic acid 1 Not listed; Enanthotoxin highly toxicNone
Ergostene 1 NoneNot listed
Eudesmol 1 Not listedNone
Eugenol 1 1 ToxicAnti-infective agent
Falcarinol 1 Not listedUnclear
Farnesene 11 NoneNone
Germacrene 1 Not listedNone
Guaiacol 1 ExpectorantNot listed
Himachalene 1 Not listedNone
Hydrochinon 1 Not listedAntioxidant
Mutagen
Isoeugenol 1 NoneNone
Isoledene 1 Not listedNone
Isolongifolene 1 Not listedNone
Lauric acid 1 NoneNone
Limonene 1 1 1 NoneNone
Longifolenaldehyde 1 NoneNone
Maltol 1 Flavoring agentNone
p-Mentadien 1 1 1 Not listedNot listed
Muurolen 1 Not listedNone
Myrcene 1 NoneNone
Myristic acid 1 AntifoamingNone
Neoisolongifolene 1 Not listedNone
Nerolidol 1 1 NoneNone
Palmitic acid 1 NoneEnzyme inhibitor
Pelargonic acid 1 Strong irritantAntifungal
Pelargonaldehyde 1 Not listedNone
Phenanthrene 1 Photosensitization of skinNone
Phenanthrenol 1 Not listedNone
α-Pinene 1 ToxicNone
ß-Pinene 1 NoneNone
Pinocarveol 1 Not listedNone
Podocarp 7-en-3one 1 Not listedNot listed
Resorcinol 1 Toxic; antisepticUnclear
Salicylic acid 1 Antireumatic, analgesicAnti-infective
Antifungal
Keratolytic
Santolinatriene 1 Not listedNone
Selinene 1 Not listedNone
Spathulenol 1 1 Not listedPart of essential oils
Syringol 1 1 Not listedNone
Tetradecanal 1 Not listedNone
Valeric acid 1 NoneNone
Valerolactone 1 Not listedNone
Veratraldehyde 1 NoneNone
Veratric acid 1 NonePrevention of neoplasm associated with HPV
Veratril 1 1 Not listedNone
Verbenone 1 NoneNot listed
Vertraldehyde 1 Not listedNot listed
Viridiflorol 1 11 Not listedGrowth inhibitor
(animal cells, micro-organisms)

References

  1. Murphy, H.N. (Ed.) Chemical Constituents and Applications of Gums, Resins, and Latexes of Plant Origin. In Gums, Resins and Latexes of Plant Origin; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  2. Burrows, A.M.; Nash, L.T. The Evolution of Exudativory in Primates; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cabana, F.; Dierenfeld, E.S.; Wirdateti; Donati, G.; Nekaris, K.A.I. Exploiting a readily available but hard to digest resource: A review of exudativorous mammals identified thus far and how they cope in captivity. Integr. Zool. 2018, 13, 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bearder, S.K.; Martin, R.D. Acacia gum and its use by lesser bushbabies, Galago senegalensis (Primates: Lorisidae). Int. J. Primatol. 1980, 1, 102–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Heymann, E.W.; Smith, A.C. When to feed on gums: Temporal patterns of gummivory in wild tamarins, Saguinus mystax and Saguinus fuscicollis (Callitrichidae). Zoo Biol. 1999, 18, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nash, T.L.; Burrows, A.M. (Eds.) Introduction: Advances and remaining sticky issues in the understanding of exudativory in primates. In The Evolution of Exudativory in Primates; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  7. Génin, F.G.S.; Masters, J.C.; Ganzhorn, J.U. Gummivory in cheirogaleids: Primitive retention or adaptation to hypervariable environments? In The Evolution of Exudativory in Primates; Burrows, A.M., Nash, L.T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 123–140. [Google Scholar]
  8. Charles-Dominique, P. Ecology and Behaviour of Nocturnal Prosimians; Duckworth: London, UK, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hladik, C.M. Diet and ecology of prosimians. In The Study of Prosimian Behavior; Doyle, G.A., Martin, R.D., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1979; pp. 307–357. [Google Scholar]
  10. Isbell, L.A.; Rothman, J.M.; Young, P.J.; Rudolph, K. Nutritional benefits of Crematogaster mimosae ants and Acacia drepanolobium gum for patas monkeys and vervets in laikipia, Kenya. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2013, 150, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Harborne, J.B. Introduction to Ecological Biochemistry; Academic Press: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lieberei, R.; Reisdorff, C. Nutzpflanzenkunde; Georg Thieme Verlag KG: Stuttgart, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dewi, T.; Imron, M.A.; Lukmandaru, G.; Hedger, K.; Campera, M.; Nekaris, K.A.I. The sticky tasty: The nutritional content of the exudativorous diet of the Javan slow loris in a lowland forest. Primates 2022, 63, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Das, N.; Nekaris, K.A.I.; Bhattacharjee, P.C. Medicinal plant exudativory by the Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis. Endanger. Species Res. 2014, 23, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chapman, C.A.; Rothman, J.M.; Lambert, J.E. Food as a selective force in primates. In The Evolution of Primate Societies; Kappeler, P.M., Ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2012; pp. 149–168. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ganzhorn, J.U.; Arrigo-Nelson, S.J.; Carrai, V.; Chalise, M.K.; Donati, G.; Droescher, I.; Eppley, T.M.; Irwin, M.T.; Koch, F.; Koenig, A.; et al. The importance of protein in leaf selection of folivorous primates. Am. J. Primatol. 2017, 79, e22550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Donati, G.; Santini, L.; Eppley, T.M.; Arrigo-Nelson, S.J.; Balestri, M.; Boinski, S.; Bollen, A.; Bridgeman, L.L.; Campera, M.; Carrai, V.; et al. Low levels of fruit nitrogen as drivers for the evolution of Madagascar’s primate communities. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chivers, D.J.; Wood, B.A.; Bilsborough, A. Food Acquisition and Processing in Primates; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nevo, O.; Valenta, K.; Helman, A.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Ayasse, M. Fruit scent as an honest signal for fruit quality. BMC Ecol. Evol. 2022, 22, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Robbins, C.T. Wildlife Feeding and Nutrition; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  21. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Non-Human Primates, 2nd ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  22. Terborgh, J. Diversity and the Tropical Rain Forest; Scientific American Library: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  23. Huffman, M.A. Animal self-medication: Ethnoveterinary medicine without human cultural bias? Planta Medica 2016, 82, S1–S381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wrangham, R.W. Relationship of chimpanzee leaf-swallowing to a tapeworm infection. Am. J. Primatol. 1995, 37, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Krief, S.; Huffman, M.A.; Sevenet, T.; Hladik, C.M.; Grellier, P.; Loiseau, P.M.; Wrangham, R.W. Bioactive properties of plant species ingested by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) in the Kibale National Park, Uganda. Am. J. Primatol. 2006, 68, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Waeber, P.O.; Wilmé, L.; Ramamonjisoa, B.; Garc¡a, G.; Rakotomalala, D.; Rabemananjara, Z.H.; Kull, C.A.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Sorg, J.P. Dry forests in Madagascar: Neglected and under pressure. Int. For. Rev. 2015, 16, 127–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Thoren, S.; Quietzsch, F.; Schwochow, D.; Sehen, L.; Meusel, C.; Meares, K.; Radespiel, U. Seasonal changes in feeding ecology and activity patterns of two sympatric mouse lemur species, the Gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus) and the Golden-brown mouse lemur (M. ravelobensis), in northwestern Madagascar. Int. J. Primatol. 2011, 32, 566–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hladik, C.M.; Charles-Dominique, P.; Petter, J.J. Feeding strategies of five nocturnal prosimians in the dry forest of the west coast of Madagascar. In Nocturnal Malagasy Primates; Charles-Dominique, P., Cooper, H.M., Hladik, A., Hladik, C.M., Pages, E., Pariente, G.F., Petter-Rousseaux, A., Petter, J.J., Schilling, A., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 41–73. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ganzhorn, J.U.; Kappeler, P.M. Lemurs of the Kirindy Forest. Primate Rep. 1996, 46, 257–274. [Google Scholar]
  30. Schülke, O.; Kappeler, P.M. So near and yet so far: Territorial pairs but low cohesion between pair partners in a nocturnal lemur, Phaner furcifer. Anim. Behav. 2003, 65, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Goodman, S.M.; Raherilalao, M.J.; Wohlhauser, S. Les Aires Protégées Terrestres de Madagascar: Leur Histoire, Description et Biote/The Terrestrial Protected Areas of Madagascar: Their History, Description, and Biota; Association Vahatra: Antananarivo, Madagascar, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bohr, Y.E.M.B.; Giertz, P.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Ganzhorn, J.U. Gray-brown mouse lemurs (Microcebus griseorufus) as an example of distributional constraints through increasing desertification. Int. J. Primatol. 2011, 32, 901–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Rajeriarison, C.; Edmond, R.; Ganzhorn, J.U. Phenology of different vegetation types in Tsimanampetsotsa National Park, south-western Madagascar. Malagasy Nat. 2011, 5, 14–38. [Google Scholar]
  34. Génin, F. Life in unpredictable environments: First investigation of the natural history of Microcebus griseorufus. Int. J. Primatol. 2008, 29, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Andrews, C.A. A Comparative Evolutionary Approach to Gum-Feeding in Galago moholi and Microcebus griseorufus. Master’s Thesis, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa, 24 February 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. Steffens, K.J.E. Lemur food plants as options for forest restoration in Madagascar. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 1517–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moat, J.; Smith, P. Atlas of the Vegetation of Madagascar. Atlas de la Végétation de Madagascar; Kew Publishing, Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rakotondranary, J.S.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Ganzhorn, J.U. Distributions et caractéristiques des microhabitats de Microcebus griseorufus (Cheirogaleidae) dans le Parc National de Tsimanampetsotsa (Sud-ouest de Madagascar). Malagasy Nat. 2010, 4, 55–64. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ratovonamana, R.Y. Analyse Floristique et Structurale des Différentes Formations Végétales, Habitats de Microcebus griseorufus dans le Parc National de Tsimanampetsotse. Doctoral Thesis, Faculté des Sciences, Département de Biologie et Ecologie Végétales, Université d’Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. Abel, C.; Giertz, P.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Püttker, T.; Rakotondranary, S.J.; Scheel, B.M.; Lenz, T.L.; Ganzhorn, J.U. Habitat quality affects the social organization in mouse lemurs (Microcebus griseorufus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2023, 77, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Milton, K.; Dintzis, F.R. Nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors for tropical plant samples. Biotropica 1981, 13, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kates, M. Techniques in lipidology. In Laboratory Techniques in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Work, T.S., Work, E., Eds.; North Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1972; pp. 267–610. [Google Scholar]
  43. Irwin, M.T.; Raharison, J.-L.; Raubenheimer, D.; Chapman, C.A.; Rothman, J.M. Nutritional correlates of the “lean season”: Effects of seasonality and frugivory on the nutritional ecology of Diademed Sifakas. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2014, 153, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. O’Neil, M.J. (Ed.) The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals; RSC Publ., Royal Soc. of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bauer, A.W.; Kirby, W.M.M.; Sherris, J.C.; Turck, M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1966, 45, 493–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Montero, B.K.; Wasimuddin; Schwensow, N.; Gillingham, M.A.F.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Rakotondranary, S.J.; Corman, V.; Drosten, C.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Sommer, S. Evidence of MHC class I and II influencing viral and helminth infection via the microbiome in a non-human primate. PLoS Pathog. 2021, 17, e1009675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schmid, D.W.; Fackelmann, G.; Wasimuddin; Rakotondranary, S.J.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Montero, B.K.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Sommer, S. A framework for testing the impact of co-infections on host gut microbiomes. Anim. Microbiome 2022, 4, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wasimuddin; Corman, V.M.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Rakotondranary, S.J.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Drosten, C.; Sommer, S. Adenovirus infection is associated with altered gut microbial communities in a non-human primate. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wasimuddin; Malik, H.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Rakotondranary, S.J.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Sommer, S. Anthropogenic disturbance impacts gut microbiome homeostasis in a Malagasy primate. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 911275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Clayton, J.B.; Gomez, A.; Amato, K.; Knights, D.; Travis, D.A.; Blekhman, R.; Knight, R.; Leigh, S.; Stumpf, R.; Wolf, T.; et al. The gut microbiome of nonhuman primates: Lessons in ecology and evolution. Am. J. Primatol. 2018, 80, e22867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Veith, T.; Bleicker, T.; Eschbach-Bludau, M.; Brünink, S.; Mühlemann, B.; Schneider, J.; Beheim-Schwarzbach, J.; Rakotondranary, S.J.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Tsagnangara, C.; et al. Non-structural genes of novel lemur adenoviruses reveal recent parallel evolution of virus and host. Virus Evol. 2023, 9, vead024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Andriamparany, J.N.; Brinkmann, K.; Jeannoda, V.; Buerkert, A. Effects of socio-economic household characteristics on traditional knowledge and usage of wild yams and medicinal plants in the Mahafaly region of south-western Madagascar. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2014, 10, 82. Available online: http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/10/1/82 (accessed on 1 November 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Favre, J.-C. Fiches et Listes des Essences Faisant L’objez D’une Collection par la Population du Village de Marofandilia Dans la Région de Morondava/Madagascar; ETH Zürich: Zürich, Switzerland, 1990; Volume 90/5. [Google Scholar]
  54. Power, M.L. Nutritional and digestive challenges to being a gum-feeding primate. In The Evolution of Exudativory in Primates; Burrows, A.M., Nash, L.T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 25–44. [Google Scholar]
  55. Smith, A.C. Exudativory in primates: Interspecific patterns. In The Evolution of Exudativory in Primates; Burrows, A.M., Nash, L.T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 45–87. [Google Scholar]
  56. Smith, A.C. Influences on gum feeding in primates. In The Evolution of Exudativory in Primates; Burrows, A.M., Nash, L.T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cabana, F.; Dierenfeld, E.; Wirdateti, W.; Donati, G.; Nekaris, K.A.I. The seasonal feeding ecology of the javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2017, 162, 768–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Chivers, D.J.; Hladik, C.M. Morphology of the gastrointestinal tract in primates: Comparison with other mammals in relation to diet. J. Morphol. 1980, 166, 337–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Huffman, M.A. Current evidence for self-medication in primates: A multidisciplinary perspective. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 1997, 40, 171–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Krief, S.; Huffman, M.A.; Sevenet, T.; Guillot, J.; Bories, C.; Hladik, C.M.; Wrangham, R.W. Noninvasive monitoring of the health of Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii in the Kibale National Park, Uganda. Int. J. Primatol. 2005, 26, 467–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tasdemir, D.; MacIntosh, A.J.J.; Stergiou, P.; Kaiser, M.; Mansour, N.R.; Bickle, Q.; Huffman, M.A. Antiprotozoal and antihelminthic properties of plants ingested by wild Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata yakui) in Yakushima Island. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 247, 112270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Starr, C.; Nekaris, K.A.I. Obligate exudativory characterizes the diet of the Pygmy Slow Loris, Nycticebus pygmaeus. Am. J. Primatol. 2013, 75, 1054–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abdallah, E.M.; Khalid, A.S.; Ibrahim, N. Antibacterial activity of oleo-gum resins of Commiphora molmol and Boswellia papyrifera against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Sci. Res. Essays 2009, 4, 351–356. Available online: http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE (accessed on 20 June 2023).
  64. Glander, K.E. The impact of plant secondary compounds on primate feeding behavior. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 1982, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Huffman, M.A.; Gotoh, S.; Turner, L.A.; Hamai, M.; Yoshida, K. Seasonal trends in intestinal nematode infection and medicinal plant use among chimpanzees in the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania. Primates 1997, 38, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Villalba, J.J.; Provenca, F.D.; Shaw, R. Sheep self-medicate when challenged with illness-inducing foods. Anim. Behav. 2006, 71, 1131–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Huffman, M.A.; Caton, J.M. Self-induced increase of gut motility and the control of parasitic infections in wild chimpanzees. Int. J. Primatol. 2001, 22, 329–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wrangham, R.W.; Nishida, T. Aspilia spp. leaves: A puzzle in the feeding behavior of wild chimpanzees. Primates 1983, 24, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Negre, A.; Tarnaud, L.; Roblot, J.F.; Gantier, J.C.; Guillot, J. Plants consumed by Eulemur fulvus in Comoros Islands (Mayotte) and potential effects on intestinal parasites. Int. J. Primatol. 2006, 27, 1495–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Carrai, V.; Borgognini-Tarli, S.M.; Huffman, M.A.; Bardi, M. Increase in tannin consumption by sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi) females during the birth season: A case for self-medication in prosimians? Primates 2003, 44, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Birkinshaw, C. Use of millipedes by Black lemurs to anoint their bodies. Folia Primatol. 1999, 70, 170–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Peckre, L.R.; Defolie, C.; Kappeler, P.M.; Fichtel, C. Potential self-medication using millipede secretions in red-fronted lemurs: Combining anointment and ingestion for a joint action against gastrointestinal parasites? Primates 2018, 59, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bouslama, L.; Kouidhi, B.; Alqurashi, Y.M.; Chaieb, K.; Papetti, A. Virucidal effect of guggulsterone isolated from Commiphora gileadensis. Planta Medica 2019, 85, 1225–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ullah, H.; Khan, A.; Rehman, N.U.; Halim, S.A.; Khan, H.; Khan, I.; Csuk, R.; Al-Rawahi, A.; Al-Hatmi, S.; Al-Harrasi, A. Lophenol and lathosterol from resin of Commiphora kua possess hepatoprotective effects in vivo. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 252, 112558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hudson, J.B.; Lee, M.; Rasoanaivo, P. Antiviral activities in plants endemic to Madagascar. Pharm. Biol. 2000, 38, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhang, X.R.; Kaunda, J.S.; Zhu, H.T.; Wang, D.; Yang, C.R.; Zhang, Y.J. The genus Terminalia (Combretaceae): An ethnopharmacological, phytochemical and pharmacological review. Nat. Prod. Bioprospect. 2019, 9, 357–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kimura, I.; Yoshikawa, M.; Kobayashi, S.; Sugihara, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Oominami, H.; Murakami, T.; Matsuda, H.; Doiphode, V.V. New triterpenes, myrrhanol A and myrrhanone A, from guggul-gum resins, and their potent anti-inflammatory effect on adjuvant-induced air-pouch granuloma of mice. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2001, 11, 985–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Singh, R.B.; Niaz, M.A.; Ghosh, S. Hypolipidemic and antioxidant effects of Commiphora mukul as an adjunct to dietary therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Cardiovasc. Drugs Ther. 1994, 8, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Dolara, P.; Corte, B.; Ghelardini, C.; Pugliese, A.M.; Cerbai, E.; Menichetti, S.; Lo Nostro, A. Local anaesthetic, antibacterial and antifungal properties of sesquiterpenes from myrrh. Planta Medica 2000, 66, 356–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Johns, T.; Nagarajan, M.; Parkipuny, M.L.; Jones, P.J.H. Maasai gummivory: Implications for paleolithic diets and contemporary health. Curr. Anthropol. 2000, 41, 453–459. Available online: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/300152 (accessed on 20 June 2023). [CrossRef]
  81. Mulholland, D.A.; Taylor, D.A.H. Limonoid extractives from the genera Capuronianthus, Neobeguea and Quivisianthe. Phytochemistry 1988, 27, 1741–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sites of sample collection, marked by asterisks (base map from Google Maps).
Figure 1. Sites of sample collection, marked by asterisks (base map from Google Maps).
Separations 10 00575 g001
Figure 2. Frequency of exudate consumption by Microcebus griseorufus in relation to protein, sugar, and energy content, and antibacterial properties of the exudate; ○ no antibacterial effect; ▲ antibacterial effect.
Figure 2. Frequency of exudate consumption by Microcebus griseorufus in relation to protein, sugar, and energy content, and antibacterial properties of the exudate; ○ no antibacterial effect; ▲ antibacterial effect.
Separations 10 00575 g002
Figure 3. Zones of inhibition against Micrococcus luteus of oil-dissolved samples, (a) Commiphora simplicifolia (sample P08-125), (b) Sample F11-11 from an unknown tree species consumed by Phaner pallescens in Zombitse, (c) Indication of antibacterial activity of methanol dissolved gum from Quivisianthe papinae against Staphylococcus aureus. Upper part: photos of the original plates. Lower part: schematic representation; white circles are the disks of filter paper soaked in gum extracts; grey circles represent zones of bacterial inhibition due to diffusion of antibacterial components from the white disks.
Figure 3. Zones of inhibition against Micrococcus luteus of oil-dissolved samples, (a) Commiphora simplicifolia (sample P08-125), (b) Sample F11-11 from an unknown tree species consumed by Phaner pallescens in Zombitse, (c) Indication of antibacterial activity of methanol dissolved gum from Quivisianthe papinae against Staphylococcus aureus. Upper part: photos of the original plates. Lower part: schematic representation; white circles are the disks of filter paper soaked in gum extracts; grey circles represent zones of bacterial inhibition due to diffusion of antibacterial components from the white disks.
Separations 10 00575 g003
Figure 4. Protein and sugar concentrations (% dry matter) and energy content (kJ/g dry matter) of exudates without antimicrobial effect (blue) and exudates with antimicrobial activity (green). Values are medians, quartiles, and ranges. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4. Protein and sugar concentrations (% dry matter) and energy content (kJ/g dry matter) of exudates without antimicrobial effect (blue) and exudates with antimicrobial activity (green). Values are medians, quartiles, and ranges. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Separations 10 00575 g004
Table 1. Chemical composition and energy content of gum consumed by four lemur species of the dry deciduous and spiny forests of Madagascar. Values are means ± standard deviations and sample size. For M. ravelobensis, only two samples were available. We list the values for these two samples rather than calculating standard deviations. The classification of specialization on gum follows [3].
Table 1. Chemical composition and energy content of gum consumed by four lemur species of the dry deciduous and spiny forests of Madagascar. Values are means ± standard deviations and sample size. For M. ravelobensis, only two samples were available. We list the values for these two samples rather than calculating standard deviations. The classification of specialization on gum follows [3].
Lemur SpeciesGum SpecializationProtein
(%)
Sugar
(%)
Energy
(kJ/g)
Microcebus griseorufusObligate6.43 ± 5.6627.06 ± 19.535.62 ± 3.41
N = 25N = 26N = 25
M. murinusFacultative6.90 ± 6.1233.96 ± 12.296.84 ± 2.24
N = 10N = 10N = 10
M. ravelobensisObligate1.75/10.3121.93/28.213.96/6.45
N = 2N = 2N = 2
Phaner pallescensObligate4.96 ± 4.7321.58 ± 13.924.90 ± 2.65
N = 12N = 16N = 12
Table 2. Antibacterial activity according to disk diffusion tests and the protein, sugar, and energy contents of exudates from lemur food plants. Values are means from gum collected from 1–5 different trees, tested individually. Information on the utilization of the tree species in traditional medicine are from [52] (A), [39] (R), and [53] (F); na = not applicable because of unclear species identification.
Table 2. Antibacterial activity according to disk diffusion tests and the protein, sugar, and energy contents of exudates from lemur food plants. Values are means from gum collected from 1–5 different trees, tested individually. Information on the utilization of the tree species in traditional medicine are from [52] (A), [39] (R), and [53] (F); na = not applicable because of unclear species identification.
SpeciesProteinSugarEnergyUsed in Traditional
Medicine
No antibacterial activity
Acacia bellula8.7834.487.24A, F
Albizia mainaea11.3128.356.64
Albizia tulearensis3.380.610.67A
Commiphora arafy15.2530.817.71F
Commiphora guillaumini 32.82
Commiphora marchandii 37.81 A
Commiphora sp34.3874.5213.20
Delonix floribunda2.6144.407.87A, R
Hymenodictyon decaryi3.505.551.51
Neobeguea mahafaliensis3.5812.882.76A, R, F
Operculicarya gummifera 0.63 F
Operculicarya hyphaenoides3.1911.432.45R
Poupartia sylvatica27.257.955.89
Rhopalocarpus sp3.9438.157.04
Terminalia disjuncta2.7573.7712.81A
Terminalia mantaliopsis1.4425.154.45
Terminalia mantaly2.3826.064.76
Terminalia ulexoides13.754.983.08A
Zanthoxylum sp4.1354.399.79
Antibacterial activity
Albizia tulearensis2.940.470.57A
Commiphora simplicifolia3.588.372.11A, F
Quisvianthe papinae2.380.460.47
Terminalia disjuncta1.639.481.86A
Unknown tree species consumed by Phaner pallescens5.3112.012.90na
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ganzhorn, J.U.; Ratovonamana, Y.R.; Rother, M.; Giertz, P.; Andrews, C.A.; Baumann, S.; Bohr, Y.E.-M.B.; Kappeler, P.M.; Montero, B.K.; Pommerening-Röser, A.; et al. Nutritional and Possible Pharmaceutical Aspects of Tree Exudates Eaten by Lemurs of Madagascar’s Dry Forests. Separations 2023, 10, 575. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10110575

AMA Style

Ganzhorn JU, Ratovonamana YR, Rother M, Giertz P, Andrews CA, Baumann S, Bohr YE-MB, Kappeler PM, Montero BK, Pommerening-Röser A, et al. Nutritional and Possible Pharmaceutical Aspects of Tree Exudates Eaten by Lemurs of Madagascar’s Dry Forests. Separations. 2023; 10(11):575. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10110575

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ganzhorn, Jörg U., Yedidya R. Ratovonamana, Melina Rother, Peggy Giertz, Curswan A. Andrews, Sabine Baumann, Yvonne E.-M. B. Bohr, Peter M. Kappeler, B. Karina Montero, Andreas Pommerening-Röser, and et al. 2023. "Nutritional and Possible Pharmaceutical Aspects of Tree Exudates Eaten by Lemurs of Madagascar’s Dry Forests" Separations 10, no. 11: 575. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10110575

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop