Possibilities and limits for using the gut microbiome to improve captive animal health

Table 2 Papers comparing gut microbiota before and after experimental transplantation from the wild to captivity

	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)
Other	Kohl et al.	2017	[47]	Fecal	3 lizard species	No difference	Y	Discussed (metabolic function)

Included is whether the paper reported an increase or decrease in microbial diversity and microbial composition, as well as whether functional implications of these differences were discussed or assessed. Papers were found with a directed review of existing literature including a Google Scholar search and consulting references cited in each paper collected. We retained only those studies which include a wild population brought into captivity within a single lifetime

ISSN: 2524-4671