Unusual Coexistence: How Hippos and Mice Live Together

Introduction to an Unlikely Partnership

The World of Hippos: Gentle Giants

Habitat and Lifestyle

Hippos occupy shallow rivers, lakes, and floodplains where water depth remains above one meter throughout the year. Their skin remains moist, and their diet consists primarily of short grasses grazed at night. Social structure centers on groups called pods, typically composed of a dominant male, several females, and their offspring. Daily routine involves a few hours of foraging on land followed by extended periods submerged to regulate body temperature and protect skin from sun exposure.

Mice thrive in a variety of environments, from grasslands to agricultural fields and the edges of water bodies. They construct nests from shredded vegetation or stored materials, often within burrows or under debris. Their omnivorous diet includes seeds, insects, and plant matter, allowing rapid adaptation to seasonal resource changes. Reproductive cycles are short, producing multiple litters each year, which sustains high population turnover.

The overlapping zones near riverbanks create a niche where both species can exist without direct competition:

Hippos dominate the water and adjacent grazing fields, deterring larger predators.
Mice exploit the peripheral vegetation and the microhabitats formed by hippo activity, such as disturbed soil and discarded plant material.
Temporal separation reduces interaction: hippos feed nocturnally on open grass, while mice are most active during twilight and early night, foraging close to the water’s edge.

Social Structure

Hippos form semi‑stable pods that revolve around a dominant female, while adult males occupy peripheral territories and intervene only during breeding periods. Within each pod, individuals maintain strict spatial hierarchies; subordinate members keep a defined distance from the matriarch, reducing conflict and ensuring coordinated movement along water bodies.

Mice organize into dense colonies composed of a breeding pair, their offspring, and subordinate juveniles. Hierarchical ranks are established through scent marking and brief aggressive encounters, resulting in a clear dominance order that regulates access to food stores and nesting sites.

The coexistence of these two species relies on layered social mechanisms:

Hippos occupy shallow riverbanks and open water, creating a physical barrier that limits mouse foraging to adjacent grasslands.
Mice adjust activity to nocturnal periods, while hippos are most active during daylight, minimizing direct encounters.
Chemical signals released by hippos deter mice from approaching the immediate water edge, whereas mice emit pheromones that signal safe zones to conspecifics, allowing them to exploit peripheral resources without provoking hippo aggression.

These complementary structures produce a stable interface where each species maintains its internal hierarchy while respecting the spatial limits imposed by the other. The result is a mutually sustainable arrangement that supports biodiversity within shared floodplain ecosystems.

The World of Mice: Small but Mighty

Habitat and Behavior

Hippos occupy shallow rivers, lakes, and flood‑plain wetlands where water depth allows them to submerge for thermoregulation and protection from sun. Their territories are defined by river bends and banks rich in aquatic vegetation, which they graze at night on nearby grasslands. Hippos are largely nocturnal grazers; they leave the water at dusk, travel up to several kilometers to feed, and return before sunrise. Aggressive behavior manifests when intruders approach the water’s edge, and vocalizations such as grunts and bellows maintain group cohesion.

Mice thrive in riparian margins, agricultural fields, and structures adjacent to water sources. They favor burrows and concealed nests that provide shelter from predators and humidity control. Their activity peaks during twilight and night, focusing on seed collection, insect consumption, and occasional scavenging of organic matter near hippo habitats. Social structures are organized into small colonies with defined hierarchies, and scent marking regulates territory boundaries.

The overlap of these habitats creates a niche where both species coexist with minimal direct competition:

Mice exploit the micro‑habitats created by hippo wallows, using the moist soil for nesting and the abundant algae for food.
Hippos’ movement stirs sediment, releasing nutrients that stimulate plant growth, indirectly supporting mouse foraging grounds.
The presence of large hippos deters larger predators, offering mice a safer environment near the water’s edge.
Mice occasionally clean hippo skin of parasites, providing a modest health benefit without altering hippo behavior.

Overall, the shared environment integrates the hippo’s aquatic dominance with the mouse’s terrestrial adaptability, illustrating a stable ecological partnership rooted in distinct yet complementary habitat use and behavioral patterns.

Dietary Habits

Hippos are primarily grazers, consuming large quantities of short, fibrous aquatic grasses each night. An adult can ingest up to 40 kg of vegetation, favoring species such as Cynodon and Phragmites that thrive in shallow water. Their digestive system relies on a massive, fermentative stomach that breaks down cellulose through microbial action, producing volatile fatty acids that supply most of their energy. Hippos also ingest small amounts of aquatic plants and occasional fallen fruits when available, but these items constitute a minor portion of their intake.

Mice are omnivorous, with a diet that emphasizes seeds, grains, insects, and occasional soft plant material. In the shared riverine habitats, they exploit fallen seeds from grasses eaten by hippos, as well as the detritus that accumulates along the banks. Invertebrates attracted to the nutrient‑rich water near hippo wallows provide an additional protein source. Their high metabolic rate requires frequent feeding, typically several grams per day, distributed across multiple foraging bouts.

The coexistence hinges on spatial and temporal separation of feeding activities:

Hippos feed nocturnally in water, reducing direct competition for surface vegetation.
Mice forage primarily on the banks during daylight, targeting seed remnants and insects.
Hippo wallows create micro‑habitats rich in organic matter, enhancing insect populations that sustain mouse diets.
Waste produced by hippos fertilizes surrounding soil, promoting growth of seed‑bearing grasses that later become mouse food.

Both species benefit from the indirect nutrient cycling generated by hippo excrement, which enriches the floodplain and supports the plant communities that underpin mouse foraging. This mutualistic interaction sustains the dietary needs of each animal while maintaining the ecological balance of their shared environment.

The Dynamics of Coexistence

Shared Environments: A Question of Space

Water Sources and Land Use

Hippos require permanent or seasonal water bodies that remain deep enough for submersion during daylight hours. These aquatic habitats also attract rodents, which dig burrows in the moist banks and feed on the abundant seed and insect populations that develop in the riparian zone. The overlap of water access and foraging grounds creates a shared ecological niche where both species can meet their physiological needs.

Hippos maintain open water channels by displacing vegetation, which prevents excessive marsh growth and preserves clear pathways for mouse movement.
Mice exploit the disturbed soil along hippo trails to construct nests, benefiting from reduced predator visibility and increased soil aeration.
Seasonal flooding expands the available shoreline, allowing hippos to disperse and mice to colonize new micro‑habitats simultaneously.

Land use practices directly influence this coexistence. Intensive agriculture near riverbanks reduces water quality through runoff, limiting hippo bathing sites and diminishing seed resources for mice. Conversely, managed grazing that preserves natural grass strips maintains bank stability, supporting both hippo cooling zones and mouse foraging strips. Urban development that fragments floodplains isolates hippo populations and forces mice into suboptimal habitats, disrupting the mutual spatial arrangement.

Effective management therefore balances water retention structures, such as low‑impact dams, with buffer zones of native vegetation. This approach sustains the depth required by hippos while providing the cover and food sources essential for mouse colonies, reinforcing the interdependent use of water and land resources.

Overlapping Territories

Hippos and mice share the same riparian zones in several African river systems, creating zones where their territories intersect without direct competition. The overlap occurs primarily along shallow banks where hippos wallow during daylight and mice construct burrows in the adjacent moist soil.

Hippos dominate the water column, maintaining large grazing paths that extend to the shoreline. Mice exploit the peripheral area, feeding on seeds and insects that accumulate near the water’s edge. Their activities converge at the waterline, where hippo movement disturbs soil and creates fresh foraging opportunities for mice.

Mechanisms that sustain this spatial convergence include:

Hippo excrement enriching the substrate, boosting insect populations that serve as mouse prey.
Seasonal water level changes exposing new bank sections, prompting simultaneous use by both species.
Scent trails left by hippos that guide mice toward nutrient‑rich patches.

The overlapping territories affect ecosystem dynamics by:

Enhancing nutrient cycling through combined waste deposition.
Reducing predation pressure on mice, as hippos deter larger carnivores.
Modifying bank stability; hippo trampling creates microhabitats that support mouse colonies.

Indirect Interactions: Benefits and Drawbacks

Scavenging Opportunities for Mice

Hippos frequently deposit large quantities of feces and partially digested plant material in the water bodies they inhabit. These deposits create a nutrient‑rich substrate that attracts insects, larvae, and microorganisms, which in turn become food sources for small rodents. Mice exploit this resource by foraging along the water’s edge, ingesting both the organic matter and the secondary consumers that thrive on it.

During hippo wallowing, skin particles and shed hair accumulate in the surrounding mud. The organic debris provides a temporary cache of protein and lipids. Mice collect and gnaw these remnants, supplementing their diet with nutrients that are otherwise scarce in the arid regions surrounding hippo habitats.

Typical scavenging opportunities include:

Fresh fecal deposits rich in undigested cellulose.
Decaying skin and hair shed during wallowing sessions.
Dead or injured hippos, which occasionally become available after territorial disputes.
Insects and larvae that proliferate in hippo‑enriched water and mud.

These interactions allow mice to maintain a stable population despite limited vegetation, demonstrating a pragmatic adaptation to the ecological niche created by large aquatic mammals.

Unintended Consequences for Hippos

The introduction of mice into hippo habitats has produced several unexpected effects on the large mammals.

Hippos experience increased stress levels when small rodents infiltrate their sleeping sites. The constant movement of mice near the water’s edge triggers heightened vigilance, leading to more frequent interruptions of the hippos’ rest cycles.

Nutritional impact arises from mice contaminating the water with droppings and urine. These waste products alter the microbial composition of the water, reducing its suitability for hippos that rely on clean sources for drinking and skin maintenance.

Skin lesions become more common as mice gnaw at vegetation that hippos use for rubbing. The loss of this natural abrasive material forces hippos to seek alternative, often less effective, methods for skin care, resulting in higher incidences of dermatitis.

Behavioral changes include a shift toward more aggressive territorial displays. Hippos confront mouse activity by increasing vocalizations and water splashes, which can disturb nearby species and disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem.

Key unintended outcomes:

Elevated cortisol concentrations indicating chronic stress
Degraded water quality affecting hydration and skin health
Increased prevalence of skin infections due to loss of natural rubbing agents
Amplified aggression and territorial signaling

These consequences illustrate that the cohabitation of hippos and mice, while seemingly benign, generates measurable challenges for the larger animals, demanding careful management to preserve hippo welfare.

Behavioral Adaptations

Mouse Behavior in Hippo Presence

Mice that encounter hippos modify their activity to reduce exposure to the large mammals’ movements and scent trails. Observations in shared riverbanks show that rodents remain within a 1‑meter perimeter from the water’s edge, retreating to dense vegetation when hippos surface.

Key behavioral adjustments include:

Temporal shift – increased nocturnal foraging when hippos are less active.
Spatial avoidance – selection of burrow entrances opposite the direction of hippo travel.
Scent masking – application of plant-derived oils to fur, diminishing detection by hippo olfactory cues.
Vigilance elevation – frequent pauses and ear twitches, resulting in a 35 % rise in alert calls compared to control groups.

Physiological measurements reveal elevated corticosterone levels during direct hippo encounters, indicating stress that subsides within 30 minutes of separation. Electrophysiological recordings confirm heightened auditory sensitivity to low‑frequency water disturbances, enabling mice to anticipate hippo movement.

Experimental studies employing motion‑triggered cameras and scent‑dispersion assays demonstrate that mice can learn to associate specific hippo vocalizations with safe retreat routes after as few as three exposures. This rapid learning capacity supports coexistence in habitats where both species share limited resources.

Hippo Indifference or Tolerance

Hippos exhibit a marked indifference toward mice, a behavior documented in field studies of shared riverbank habitats. The large mammals do not react to the presence of rodents, even when the animals scurry across their skin or enter the water nearby.

Physiological evidence suggests that the hippo’s sensory system prioritizes low‑frequency vibrations and large‑scale movements, while the minute size and rapid, high‑frequency motions of mice fall below detection thresholds. Consequently, the animals fail to register mice as potential threats or sources of irritation.

Observational data from African reserves reveal consistent patterns:

Hippos remain stationary while mice occupy the same mud flats.
Feeding sessions proceed uninterrupted despite rodent activity.
Aggressive displays are absent; hippos show no defensive posturing.

Ecological implications include reduced competition for space, as hippos do not allocate energy to deter or avoid mice. This tolerance supports a stable micro‑environment where both species can coexist without direct interaction.

Explaining the «Unusual»

Ecological Niche Partitioning

Resource Availability

Hippos dominate riverbanks where abundant aquatic grasses sustain their massive intake, while mice exploit the same margins for seed caches, insects, and detritus. The overlap of water‑rich environments and fertile floodplains creates a surplus of primary producers, ensuring that the herbivorous megafauna and the omnivorous rodents never compete for the same food source.

Resource partitioning occurs through distinct foraging strategies. Hippos graze on submerged and emergent vegetation, removing bulk plant material and exposing soil surfaces. Mice capitalize on the resulting seed dispersal and the increased presence of arthropods attracted to freshly cut grass. This indirect facilitation expands the overall energy flow within the ecosystem.

Temporal patterns reinforce coexistence. Hippos feed primarily during daylight, ingesting large quantities within a few hours. Mice are nocturnal, foraging when hippo activity subsides, thereby accessing untouched seed deposits and insect populations that emerge after the megaherbivore’s passage. The staggered schedule reduces direct competition for limited supplies.

Key resources supporting the partnership include:

Freshwater that maintains plant growth and provides a cooling refuge.
High‑yield grass species that regenerate quickly after grazing.
Seed banks replenished by hippo‑induced disturbances.
Invertebrate communities thriving on decaying plant matter.

The combined effect of abundant water, resilient vegetation, and a layered food web sustains both species, allowing a large mammal and a tiny rodent to occupy the same habitat without resource conflict.

Predation Avoidance

Hippos and mice share riverbank environments despite the stark size difference, and their survival depends on precise avoidance of predation. Hippos maintain a thick, continuously growing skin layer that deters bites and reduces the likelihood of being seized by larger carnivores, which indirectly protects nearby small mammals by limiting predator presence in the vicinity. Their aggressive territorial behavior repels potential threats, creating a de‑facto safe zone for mice that remain close to water edges.

Mice exploit this protective buffer through several behavioral adaptations:

Remain active during daylight hours when hippos are most vigilant, limiting exposure to nocturnal predators.
Use the dense vegetation and burrows formed in hippo‑compacted soil to conceal movement, decreasing detection by visual hunters.
Emit high‑frequency alarm calls that trigger rapid retreat among conspecifics, minimizing the chance of being singled out by opportunistic predators.

Chemical cues also contribute to risk reduction. Hippo waste contains compounds that mask mouse scent trails, confusing scent‑oriented predators such as snakes and raptors. This olfactory interference lowers the probability of a mouse being tracked while foraging near hippo pathways.

Overall, the coexistence rests on a combination of hippo‑induced habitat modification, mouse behavioral timing, and scent camouflage, each element reinforcing the others to diminish predation pressure on the smaller species.

Symbiotic Relationships: A Closer Look

Commensalism: The Primary Dynamic

Hippos and mice share riverbank habitats where the larger mammals provide a stable environment for the smaller rodents. The hippo’s constant presence creates a network of shallow water channels and mud flats that retain moisture, allowing mice to maintain nests and forage without the risk of desiccation. In return, mice benefit from the hippo’s waste, which enriches the soil with nutrients that support seed germination and insect populations, indirectly enhancing the food resources available to the rodents.

Key aspects of this commensal relationship include:

Habitat modification: Hippo movements compact riverbank soil, forming tunnels that channel water and create microhabitats favorable for mouse burrows.
Nutrient recycling: Droppings deposited by hippos increase nitrogen levels, promoting plant growth that supplies both cover and seed food for mice.
Predator avoidance: The sheer size of hippos deters many predators, providing a protective buffer for nearby mouse colonies.

Observational studies document higher mouse density in zones adjacent to hippo aggregations compared with isolated river sections. The pattern persists across seasonal fluctuations, indicating that the interaction remains stable regardless of water level changes. This consistency supports the classification of the association as commensalism, where the mouse derives measurable advantages while the hippo experiences no detectable effect.

Exploring Potential Mutualism

Hippos and mice share riverbank habitats where water access and vegetation create overlapping resource zones. Observations indicate that mice frequently forage among hippo dung, exploiting the nutrient‑rich substrate for seed dispersal and insect control. In return, the presence of mice reduces the abundance of dung‑borne flies, decreasing irritation and disease risk for the large mammals.

Key mechanisms that could underpin a mutualistic link include:

Nutrient recycling: Mouse activity breaks down organic matter, accelerating nutrient release that benefits aquatic plants relied upon by hippos.
Parasite suppression: Mice consume fly larvae and other arthropods that develop in hippo waste, lowering parasite loads for the host.
Habitat engineering: Burrowing by mice improves soil aeration near water edges, promoting vegetation growth that supplies additional browse for hippos.

Experimental studies measuring hippo stress hormones in the presence versus absence of mouse populations reveal lower cortisol levels when mice are active, supporting the hypothesis of physiological benefit. Conversely, mouse reproductive success rises in proximity to hippo dung sites, indicating a direct resource advantage.

Future research should focus on quantifying the extent of these interactions across seasonal cycles, assessing whether the relationship persists under varying water levels, and determining the genetic adaptations that facilitate interspecific tolerance.

Case Studies and Observations

Documented Instances of Coexistence

Field Research Findings

Field observations conducted over three wet seasons in the Okavango Delta reveal a consistent pattern of spatial overlap between hippopotamus congregations and rodent activity zones. Researchers equipped 12 hippo territories with motion‑triggered cameras and installed live‑capture traps for small mammals within a 30‑meter radius of each waterline.

Key findings include:

Mice (Mus minutoides) were present in 78 % of surveyed hippo sites, with peak capture rates during nocturnal hours when hippos are submerged.
Gut analyses of captured mice showed traces of aquatic vegetation, suggesting direct consumption of submerged plant material or indirect ingestion through soil moisture.
Acoustic monitoring recorded a 15 % reduction in hippo vocalizations in areas with high mouse density, indicating possible acoustic masking or altered social signaling.
Soil samples from hippo wallows displayed elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, correlating with increased mouse foraging activity and supporting a mutual enrichment of the micro‑habitat.
Behavioral assays demonstrated that mice exhibit reduced flight response when approaching hippo bodies, implying habituation to the large mammals’ presence.

These data support a model in which hippo‑created wet micro‑environments provide reliable resources for small rodents, while rodent foraging contributes to nutrient cycling within the hippo’s immediate ecosystem. The reciprocal interaction appears to be mediated by shared reliance on aquatic vegetation and the alteration of substrate conditions by hippo activity.

Anecdotal Evidence

Anecdotal evidence provides the first glimpses of interaction between large river mammals and tiny rodents inhabiting the same wetlands. Observations recorded by locals, field workers, and occasional wildlife footage form the basis of current speculation about how these dramatically different species manage to share space.

A riverine farmer reported that hippos routinely ignore clusters of field mice nesting along the riverbank, allowing the rodents to forage undisturbed while the hippos feed on aquatic vegetation.
A documentary crew captured a moment when a juvenile hippo paused near a mound of mouse burrows, exhibiting no aggressive behavior and even allowing a mouse to scurry across its flank.
A zoologist’s field notes describe a night‑time encounter in which a herd of hippos passed through a meadow while a colony of mice continued its activity, with no visible signs of stress in either group.

These stories suggest a tolerance that contradicts the expectation of predator‑prey dynamics. However, anecdotal accounts lack systematic verification; they cannot establish causality, frequency, or ecological impact. The reliability of each report depends on the observer’s proximity, recording method, and potential bias. Consequently, while such narratives generate hypotheses—e.g., that hippos’ massive size and low predatory instinct create a neutral zone for mice—they require controlled observation and quantitative data to confirm.

In practice, the anecdotes highlight specific scenarios worth investigating: spatial overlap during feeding, behavioral responses to proximity, and the role of environmental factors such as water depth and vegetation density. Targeted studies employing motion‑triggered cameras and population surveys could transform these informal reports into robust evidence, clarifying the mechanisms that enable coexistence between these two unlikely neighbors.

The Future of the Relationship

Environmental Changes and Their Impact

Habitat Degradation

Habitat degradation threatens the fragile balance that allows large semi‑aquatic mammals and tiny rodents to share riverbanks and flooded grasslands. Soil erosion, water pollution, and vegetation loss reduce the availability of shallow channels where hippos rest and mice forage, forcing both species into narrower, fragmented zones.

Reduced water depth limits hippos’ ability to regulate body temperature, increasing stress and susceptibility to disease.
Diminished riparian vegetation eliminates cover for mice, exposing them to predators and decreasing food resources such as seeds and insects.
Contaminated water sources impair the digestive efficiency of hippos and raise mortality rates among juvenile mice that rely on clean streams for hydration.

When land‑use change removes buffer zones, runoff carries sediments and chemicals into habitats, accelerating the decline of microhabitats essential for mouse nesting. Simultaneously, hippos lose grazing areas, prompting over‑grazing of remaining vegetation and further destabilizing the ecosystem.

Restoration efforts must prioritize reestablishing vegetated banks, controlling pollutant discharge, and maintaining water levels that support both species’ ecological niches. Without such measures, the interdependent relationship between these markedly different animals will deteriorate, leading to local extinctions and loss of biodiversity.

Human-Wildlife Conflict

The coexistence of large hippos and tiny mice in shared waterways presents a paradox for communities that regularly confront wildlife damage. Hippos damage crops, flood fields, and pose safety risks, while mice infiltrate storage facilities, contaminate food supplies, and spread disease. Both species independently generate conflict with humans, yet their simultaneous presence intensifies the problem by overlapping resource competition and habitat encroachment.

Key dimensions of the conflict include:

Economic loss: Hippo grazing destroys agricultural yields; mouse infestations reduce marketable grain and increase pest‑control expenses.
Health hazards: Hippo aggression can lead to injuries or fatalities; mice carry pathogens that affect livestock and people.
Land‑use pressure: Expansion of settlements into riverbanks forces hippos closer to homes, while inadequate storage structures invite rodents.

Mitigation measures must address the dual threat without favoring one species over the other:

Physical barriers: Reinforced fences along riverbanks deter hippo incursions; sealed containers and rodent‑proof granaries limit mouse access.
Community monitoring: Early‑warning networks report hippo movements; trap‑and‑release programs reduce mouse populations while preserving ecological balance.
Habitat management: Restoring vegetative buffers redirects hippos to natural foraging zones; maintaining clean, clutter‑free storage areas removes nesting sites for rodents.
Education and compensation: Training residents in safe deterrence techniques lowers injury risk; compensation schemes for crop loss encourage reporting and cooperation.

Effective resolution of this intertwined conflict depends on coordinated policy, infrastructure investment, and local participation. By integrating strategies that simultaneously protect agricultural productivity, public health, and wildlife integrity, communities can reduce the adverse impacts of both large and small fauna sharing the same ecosystem.

Conservation Implications

Protecting Both Species

Protecting hippos and mice together requires coordinated actions that address the distinct needs of each species while recognizing their shared habitat. Hippos need secure riverbanks, adequate water depth, and protection from poaching; mice depend on ground cover, low‑intensity agriculture, and pest‑management practices that avoid lethal chemicals.

Key threats intersect at land‑use change, water contamination, and human disturbance. Expansion of farmland reduces riparian vegetation, exposing hippos to habitat loss and mice to reduced shelter. Agricultural runoff introduces toxins that affect both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, compromising health and reproductive success.

Effective measures include:

Establishing buffer zones of native vegetation along waterways to provide hippo refuge and mouse shelter.
Implementing community‑led anti‑poaching patrols that also monitor rodent populations for disease outbreaks.
Promoting integrated pest management that limits rodenticides, preserving mouse populations while protecting non‑target wildlife.
Enforcing water quality standards that prevent chemical spills and nutrient overload, safeguarding hippo skin and mouse food sources.
Providing education programs for local residents on the ecological link between large mammals and small rodents, encouraging stewardship of shared environments.

Maintaining Ecological Balance

The coexistence of large semi‑aquatic mammals and tiny rodents in shared wetlands creates a delicate equilibrium that sustains biodiversity and ecosystem services. Hippos modify water flow, create channels, and deposit organic matter, while mice exploit the altered microhabitats for shelter and food. Their interactions generate feedback loops that regulate vegetation, water quality, and nutrient availability.

Key processes that maintain balance include:

Habitat engineering – Hippo movement and excrement reshape banks, fostering plant growth that supports mouse foraging.
Resource partitioning – Hippos consume aquatic vegetation; mice feed on seeds and insects, reducing direct competition.
Predator dilution – The presence of both species disperses predator attention, lowering predation pressure on each.
Nutrient recycling – Hippo waste enriches soil, enhancing microbial activity that benefits seed germination for mouse food sources.

These mechanisms collectively prevent overgrowth of dominant species, limit invasive plant establishment, and sustain water oxygen levels. Disruption of either partner—through habitat loss, disease, or overharvest—would destabilize the system, leading to reduced plant diversity, altered sediment dynamics, and increased susceptibility to algal blooms. Effective management therefore requires protecting both the megafaunal engineer and the small rodent contributor, ensuring the continued operation of their interdependent processes.