From: Possibilities and limits for using the gut microbiome to improve captive animal health
 | Author | Year | Citation | Sample type | Species | Difference in captive/wild microbial diversity? | Difference in captive/wild microbial composition? | Functional implications discussed? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mammals | Edenborough et al. | 2020 | [145] | Fecal | Angolan free-tailed bat | Higher in captivity | Y | Not discussed |
Kohl and Dearing | 2014 | [46] | Fecal | Desert woodrat | No difference | N | Not discussed | |
Kohl et al. | 2014 | [19] | Fecal | White-throated and Stephen's woodrat | Lower in captivity | Y | Assessed (metabolic function—monitored ability to digest natural diet) | |
Schmidt et al. | 2019 | [146] | Fecal | Deer mouse | Lower in captivity | Y | Discussed (metabolic function) | |
Other | Dhanasiri et al. | 2010 | [147] | mid and posterior large intestine | Atlantic cod | No difference | Y | Discussed (immune function) |
Kohl et al. | 2017 | [47] | Fecal | 3 lizard species | No difference | Y | Discussed (metabolic function) |