Hubbry Logo
List of feeding behavioursList of feeding behavioursMain
Open search
List of feeding behaviours
Community hub
List of feeding behaviours
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
List of feeding behaviours
List of feeding behaviours
List of feeding behaviours
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Circular dendrogram of feeding behaviours
A mosquito drinking blood (hematophagy) from a human (note the droplet of plasma being expelled as a waste)
A rosy boa eating a mouse whole
A red kangaroo eating grass
The robberfly is an insectivore, shown here having grabbed a leaf beetle
An American robin eating a worm
Hummingbirds primarily drink nectar
A krill filter feeding
A Myrmicaria brunnea feeding on sugar crystals

Feeding is the process by which organisms, typically animals, obtain food. Terminology often uses either the suffixes -vore, -vory, or -vorous from Latin vorare, meaning "to devour", or -phage, -phagy, or -phagous from Greek φαγεῖν (phagein), meaning "to eat".

Evolutionary history

[edit]

The evolution of feeding is varied with some feeding strategies evolving several times in independent lineages. In terrestrial vertebrates, the earliest forms were large amphibious piscivores 400 million years ago. While amphibians continued to feed on fish and later insects, reptiles began exploring two new food types, other tetrapods (carnivory), and later, plants (herbivory). Carnivory was a natural transition from insectivory for medium and large tetrapods, requiring minimal adaptation (in contrast, a complex set of adaptations was necessary for feeding on highly fibrous plant materials).[1]

Evolutionary adaptations

[edit]

The specialization of organisms towards specific food sources is one of the major causes of evolution of form and function, such as:

Classification

[edit]

By mode of ingestion

[edit]

There are many modes of feeding that animals exhibit, including:

  • Filter feeding: A form of food procurement in which food particles or small organisms are randomly strained from water.
  • Fluid feeding: obtaining nutrients by consuming other organisms' fluids
  • Bulk feeding: obtaining nutrients by eating all of an organism.

By mode of digestion

[edit]
  • Extra-cellular digestion: excreting digesting enzymes and then reabsorbing the products
  • Myzocytosis: one cell pierces another using a feeding tube, and sucks out cytoplasm
  • Phagocytosis: engulfing food matter into living cells, where it is digested

By food type

[edit]
"Polyphagy" redirects here. For increased appetite as a medical symptom, see polyphagia.

Polyphagy is the habit in an animal species, of eating and tolerating a relatively wide variety of foods, whereas monophagy is the intolerance of every food except for one specific type (see generalist and specialist species). Oligophagy is a term for intermediate degrees of selectivity, referring to animals that eat a relatively small range of foods, either because of preference or necessity.[2]

Another classification refers to the specific food animals specialize in eating, such as:

The eating of non-living or decaying matter:

There are also several unusual feeding behaviours, either normal, opportunistic, or pathological, such as:

An opportunistic feeder sustains itself from a number of different food sources, because the species is behaviourally sufficiently flexible.

Storage behaviours

[edit]

Some animals exhibit hoarding and caching behaviours in which they store or hide food for later use.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

List of feeding behaviours

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Feeding behaviours encompass the diverse strategies and methods animals employ to locate, , and resources, which are critical for individual survival, growth, and reproduction while shaping ecological interactions such as predator-prey dynamics and nutrient cycling. These behaviours vary widely across taxa, influenced by environmental conditions, physiological adaptations, and evolutionary pressures, and can be broadly classified by dietary categories (e.g., herbivory, carnivory, omnivory), modes of (e.g., filter feeding, bulk feeding), and (e.g., solitary versus group ). In dietary terms, herbivores consume material through specialized strategies like on grasses or on leaves and shoots, often requiring extensive and microbial for , as seen in ruminants such as . Carnivores, by contrast, pursue prey via active or tactics, exemplified by stealth feeding in where individuals exploit or sudden dives to capture vulnerable targets. Omnivores exhibit flexible diets incorporating both and matter, allowing adaptability in variable environments, while more specialized modes include feeding—sucking liquids like or —and deposit feeding, where organisms extract nutrients from or particles, common in earthworms and certain . Social dimensions further diversify these behaviours: solitary foraging, as in elephant seals or certain ants, minimizes competition but limits access to larger prey, whereas group foraging enhances efficiency through cooperative hunting or information sharing, observed in chimpanzees using vocalizations during pursuits or lions coordinating attacks on herds. posits that animals balance energy intake against costs like search time and predation risk, leading to innovations such as tool use in birds or spatio-temporal learning in bees to exploit resource patches. Overall, this array of feeding behaviours underscores the adaptive diversity enabling animals to thrive in complex ecosystems.

Evolutionary Foundations

Historical Evolution

The emergence of feeding behaviors traces back to the earliest forms of on , with prokaryotes employing simple absorption mechanisms around 3.5 billion years ago. Microfossils, , and chemical biosignatures from this period indicate that these single-celled organisms primarily acquired nutrients through osmotrophy, involving the passive uptake of dissolved organic compounds across their cell membranes, as well as limited for particulate matter. This foundational mode of nutrient acquisition supported the proliferation of microbial mats in ancient oceans, laying the groundwork for more complex trophic interactions. During the period (approximately 635–541 million years ago), the first multicellular organisms of the Ediacara biota exhibited diverse rudimentary feeding strategies. Modular, soft-bodied forms such as likely relied on osmotrophy, absorbing nutrients directly from the surrounding water column via a large surface area-to-volume ratio. In contrast, bilateral forms like may have been mobile and potentially predatory or scavenging, while actively scraped microbial mats using a and possessed a gut for internal of and . This range of strategies reflected an environment dominated by low-energy, nutrient-scarce conditions that favored both passive absorption and early active foraging. The , beginning around 541 million years ago, marked a pivotal shift toward complex predation and diverse feeding behaviors among early metazoans. This rapid diversification saw the rise of carnivorous predators with specialized appendages for capturing prey, such as the anomalocaridids, which used frontal appendages to grasp and manipulate food, fundamentally altering marine ecosystems by introducing active hunting dynamics. The proliferation of such behaviors coincided with the evolution of hard parts like exoskeletons, driven by escalating predator-prey arms races that promoted ecological complexity. A key evolutionary transition occurred with the advent of metazoans, shifting from passive in single-celled organisms to active capture mechanisms in multicellular lineages. In early animals, this involved the development of and ciliary or muscular structures for prey interception, as seen in choanoflagellate-like ancestors that prefigured feeding. This change enabled more efficient nutrient extraction from particulate sources, facilitating the expansion of animal body plans during the era. The evolution of jaws in s around 420 million years ago, during the Silurian-Devonian transition, dramatically expanded ingestion capabilities and dietary diversity. Jawless ancestors, such as ostracoderms, relied on or filter feeding, but the emergence of gnathostomes repurposed pharyngeal arches into hinged jaws, allowing for , tearing, and processing of larger, motile prey. This innovation unlocked new niches, from predation to scavenging, and persisted as a core feature in subsequent radiations. In the period (419–358 million years ago), early jawed fishes like sarcopterygians and actinopterygians further refined feeding through pharyngeal jaws specialized for grinding. These secondary jaws, located in the throat, featured robust, tooth-like structures that crushed shelled invertebrates and plant matter, enhancing digestive efficiency in diverse aquatic habitats. For instance, fossils of relatives show pharyngeal adapted for pulverizing hard foods, illustrating how such mechanisms supported the invasion of freshwater and terrestrial-adjacent environments. Mass extinctions profoundly influenced feeding behavior evolution, with the Permian-Triassic event (252 million years ago) accelerating herbivory diversification among surviving tetrapods. This catastrophe, which eliminated over 90% of species, created vacant niches that favored the rapid evolution of specialized herbivorous jaws for processing tougher, fibrous plants that dominated post-extinction floras. In the aftermath, synapsids and early diapsids developed occluding and muscular enhancements, driving a burst in plant-animal interactions and stabilizing terrestrial ecosystems.

Adaptive Innovations

Adaptive innovations in feeding behaviors encompass a range of morphological, physiological, and sensory modifications that enhance efficiency in prey capture, processing, and nutrient extraction across animal taxa. These adaptations often arise through pressures tied to specific ecological niches, enabling diverse species to exploit varied food resources effectively. Morphological adaptations include specialized and beak structures tailored to dietary demands. In mammals, teeth—modified upper and lower molars or premolars—facilitate shearing of tough tissues like meat and hide, as seen in carnivores such as felids and canids, where the occluding edges act like scissors to process prey post-capture. Similarly, birds exhibit beak variations that optimize feeding; raptors, for instance, possess hooked, sharp s with a tomial edge for tearing flesh from carcasses or live prey, allowing precise dissection without grinding capabilities. Physiological innovations further refine feeding efficacy by integrating biochemical and microbial processes. production in predators, such as snakes and spiders, represents an evolutionary for immobilizing prey rapidly, with cocktails evolving to disrupt neuromuscular function or induce , thereby reducing expenditure in subduing larger or evasive targets. In herbivores, symbiotic gut microbes enable the breakdown of recalcitrant materials like , which host enzymes cannot degrade alone; for example, cellulolytic in ruminants and hindgut fermenters produce volatile fatty acids from fiber, providing up to 70% of the host's needs. Sensory enhancements allow precise localization of food sources, often in challenging environments. Sharks employ electroreception via , gel-filled pores that detect bioelectric fields generated by prey muscle contractions, enabling strikes in murky waters where vision fails. In snakes, pit organs in vipers and pythons function as detectors, sensing from prey to track and target hidden or nocturnal victims with high accuracy, even in complete darkness. Convergent evolution illustrates how similar selective pressures yield analogous structures for filter-feeding. whales developed keratinous baleen plates hanging from the upper jaw to sieve and from seawater, a innovation that evolved independently from toothed ancestors around 30 million years ago. , distantly related birds, exhibit parallel lamellae—fine, comb-like fringes in their beaks—for straining and from shallow waters, demonstrating morphological convergence driven by planktivorous diets despite vast phylogenetic differences.

Classification Frameworks

Ingestion Techniques

Ingestion techniques refer to the mechanical processes by which organisms acquire food particles or prey into their digestive systems, distinct from or post-ingestion breakdown. These methods have evolved to suit diverse environments and prey types, enabling efficient nutrient capture across taxa from to vertebrates. Key categories include bulk feeding, fluid feeding, suspension feeding, and deposit feeding, each involving specialized anatomical adaptations for physical intake. Bulk feeding involves the engulfing or tearing of solid food items, often whole prey, using jaws, teeth, or extensible mouths to facilitate ingestion. This technique is prevalent among predators that consume large, intact organisms, allowing for substantial nutrient intake in a single event. For instance, snakes employ highly flexible jaws and skulls to swallow large prey whole, often up to 75% of their body mass in some species like pythons, accommodating items several times wider than their head through sequential muscle contractions. Raptorial feeding, a specialized form of bulk feeding, utilizes rapid strikes from club-like appendages to stun or impale prey before ingestion; mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda) exemplify this with their spring-loaded raptorial claws, achieving acceleration speeds exceeding 20 m/s to capture crustaceans and fish. Fluid feeding entails the extraction of liquid nutrients, such as or , via piercing or sucking mechanisms that minimize energy expenditure on solid processing. Insects like butterflies uncoil a long to nectar from flowers, creating through cibarial contractions that draw fluids at rates of approximately 20 nl per second. Similarly, female mosquitoes pierce skin with a serrated bundle, employing a burst-mode pharyngeal to ingest meals averaging 2-3 μL, essential for production. Suspension feeding captures particulate matter suspended in water currents using structures, optimizing intake in dilute environments like oceans or lakes. Bivalves such as clams (e.g., Mercenaria mercenaria) draw through incurrent siphons, trapping and on mucus-covered gills with ciliary action that propels particles to the at clearance rates of approximately 7-8 L/hour for adults. (Euphausiacea) employ branched setae on thoracic appendages to form a filtering basket, retaining particles as small as 1-10 μm while expelling , thus processing large volumes of relative to their body size daily. Deposit feeding consists of ingesting or to extract embedded , , or through non-selective bulk consumption followed by selective . Earthworms () burrow and swallow at rates of up to 6.7 g dry per gram of body weight daily, grinding it in a muscular aided by ingested grit to release nutrients from decaying plant material. This aerates while recycling organics, with assimilation efficiencies reaching 10-40% of ingested organics.

Digestion Processes

Digestion processes encompass the biochemical mechanisms by which organisms break down ingested into absorbable , primarily through enzymatic and structural adaptations in the digestive tract. These processes occur post-ingestion and vary widely across taxa, enabling efficient nutrient extraction from diverse food sources. In general, digestion involves the of enzymes that target macromolecules like proteins, carbohydrates, and , often in specialized compartments to optimize breakdown and prevent autolysis. Extracellular digestion, the predominant mode in many multicellular animals, involves the of hydrolytic enzymes into a digestive cavity or onto the source outside the cells, allowing bulk breakdown before absorption. For instance, spiders inject digestive fluids containing proteases and lipases into their prey, liquefying tissues into a soluble that is subsequently ingested. Similarly, in humans and other vertebrates, in the release pepsinogen, which activates to in the acidic environment, initiating protein extracellularly in the lumen. This approach facilitates the processing of larger particles without requiring initial cellular uptake. Intracellular digestion, in contrast, occurs within cells via , where food particles are engulfed into vesicles and degraded by lysosomal enzymes. This is the primary method in unicellular organisms like amoebae, which use to internalize or organic debris, fusing phagosomes with lysosomes for enzymatic . In multicellular sponges ( Porifera), choanocytes capture particles via collar cells and transfer them to archaeocytes for intracellular breakdown, as these animals lack a true gut. This process suits smaller prey sizes and emphasizes cellular-level nutrient processing. Symbiotic digestion relies on mutualistic microorganisms within the gut to perform or assist in breaking down recalcitrant compounds that host enzymes cannot efficiently handle. , for example, harbor symbionts in their that produce cellulases to ferment lignocellulose from wood, converting it into usable sugars and for the host. In mammals like cows, in the involves bacterial and protozoal communities that hydrolyze plant polysaccharides via microbial enzymes, producing volatile fatty acids absorbed across the rumen wall. These symbioses expand dietary range, particularly for herbivores. Digestive enzyme variations reflect adaptations to diet and , notably in pH optima. In vertebrates, operates in the highly acidic (pH 1.5–2.5), denaturing proteins for cleavage into peptides. Conversely, insect amylases function in alkaline midguts (pH around 8), efficiently hydrolyzing starches in herbivorous like beetles. Such differences optimize stability and activity in specific gut environments. A striking example of extracellular digestion is seen in sea stars (class Asteroidea), which evert their cardiac stomach through the mouth to envelop bivalve prey, secreting enzymes that digest soft tissues externally before retracting the nutrient-rich chyme. This adaptation allows predation on armored mollusks without mechanical fragmentation.

Dietary Categories

Dietary categories in feeding behaviors classify organisms based on the primary composition of their food sources, reflecting evolutionary adaptations to exploit specific nutritional niches in ecosystems. These categories encompass a spectrum from exclusive consumption of plant material to animal prey, mixed diets, and more specialized forms involving fungi or decaying matter. Such classifications highlight how dietary specialization influences ecological roles, energy acquisition, and interactions within food webs. Herbivory involves the consumption of material as the dominant source, enabling herbivores to derive energy from cellulose-rich tissues through symbiotic microbial in many cases. herbivores, such as (Bos taurus), primarily feed on grasses and low-lying vegetation in open habitats, cropping shoots close to the ground to promote regrowth. In contrast, browsing herbivores like giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) target leaves, twigs, and fruits from taller woody plants, accessing resources unavailable to shorter species. A notable subset of herbivory is frugivory, where animals such as monkeys (e.g., spider monkeys, Ateles spp.) preferentially consume fruits, aiding while obtaining high-energy sugars and . Carnivory entails feeding on animal prey, which provides concentrated proteins and fats but requires strategies to overcome defensive behaviors in victims. Predatory carnivores, exemplified by lions (Panthera leo), actively hunt and kill vertebrates like ungulates through cooperative ambushes, securing substantial caloric intake from muscle tissue. represents a form of carnivory where organisms like ticks ( family) attach to hosts and extract or fluids over extended periods without immediately killing the host, balancing nutrient acquisition with host survival for sustained feeding. Omnivory describes flexible feeding behaviors that incorporate both plant and animal matter, allowing organisms to opportunistically switch diets based on availability and nutritional needs. Humans (Homo sapiens) exemplify omnivory through diverse consumption of fruits, , meats, and grains, supported by cultural and technological adaptations that broaden resource use. Similarly, bears (Ursidae family, e.g., brown bears, Ursus arctos) maintain omnivorous diets heavy in berries, roots, fish, and small mammals, with seasonal shifts toward higher plant intake during hyperphagia to build fat reserves. Specialized dietary categories extend beyond broad trophic levels to include exploitation of less conventional sources like fungi or detritus. Mycophagy, the consumption of fungi, occurs in species such as wild boars (Sus scrofa), which root up subterranean truffles (Tuber spp.) for their nutrient-dense sporocarps, inadvertently dispersing spores via feces. Detritivory involves feeding on decomposing organic matter, with dung beetles (Scarabaeinae subfamily) specializing in herbivore feces to extract residual nutrients and microbial proteins, thereby recycling nutrients and reducing pathogen loads in soils. These specialized behaviors often involve morphological adaptations, such as robust molars for grinding tough fungal tissues, enhancing efficiency in nutrient-poor substrates.

Behavioural Strategies

Foraging Methods

Foraging methods encompass the diverse active strategies employed by animals to locate, pursue, and capture resources, shaped by ecological pressures such as prey , predation , and demands. These behaviors range from independent efforts to minimize to collaborative tactics that enhance success rates in challenging environments. , which posits that animals select strategies to maximize net intake relative to costs, underpins many of these adaptations, as seen in various taxa balancing search time against reward potential. Solitary foraging involves individuals hunting or gathering alone, allowing for territorial control and reduced sharing of resources, though it heightens personal risk from predators or failed pursuits. Tigers ( ), as classic solitary carnivores, exemplify this by prey independently within large home ranges, relying on stealth and to capture ungulates like deer without conspecific interference. This strategy suits ambush predators in dense habitats where group coordination would be inefficient, enabling efficient energy use for a single hunter. In contrast, group foraging leverages cooperative dynamics among multiple individuals to improve detection, encirclement, or distraction of prey, often boosting overall success in open or unpredictable settings. Wolves (Canis lupus) hunt in packs, using coordinated tactics such as encircling large herbivores like to increase capture rates beyond what solitary efforts could achieve, with pack size optimizing per capita energy gains despite shared rewards. Similarly, mixed-species bird flocks, such as those formed by insectivorous species in forests, flock together to flush and capture more effectively, reducing individual vigilance needs and enhancing efficiency through collective scanning of foliage. Trap-based foraging represents a passive-active hybrid, where animals construct structures to lure and immobilize prey, minimizing pursuit energy while awaiting opportunistic captures. Web-building spiders, such as orb-weavers (Araneidae family), spin traps tuned to vibrate on prey contact, allowing precise localization and minimal movement for venomous strikes, an refined over evolutionary time for high-reward, low-cost interception in aerial pathways. Antlions ( spp.), larval , dig conical pit traps in loose sand, positioning themselves at the bottom to detect and engulf falling or beetles, with pit geometry optimized for prey retention and escape prevention based on substrate stability. Opportunistic scavenging entails exploiting carrion or abandoned kills rather than active , capitalizing on unpredictable but nutrient-rich resources with lower energy investment in pursuit. Vultures (e.g., spp.) soar over landscapes to spot carcasses from avian cues, arriving rapidly to consume soft tissues before mammalian competitors, a strategy that sustains populations in carcass-scarce by minimizing hunting risks. Spotted hyenas ( crocuta) similarly scavenge opportunistically, using keen olfactory senses to locate kills, often kleptoparasitizing other predators, which supports their role as ecosystem recyclers while supplementing hunted meals. Applications of illustrate how these methods align with energy maximization; for instance, honeybees (Apis mellifera) assess flower patches by volume and handling time, prioritizing high-reward blooms within a patch before depleting and departing, thereby optimizing trip profitability amid variable floral densities. This patch-choice model predicts bees' decisions to stay or leave based on , a empirically validated in field observations of colony-level efficiency.

Storage Mechanisms

Storage mechanisms in feeding behaviors refer to strategies employed by animals to preserve surplus food for future use, mitigating risks associated with environmental variability such as seasonal shortages. These behaviors enhance survival by buffering against periods of food scarcity, allowing organisms to maintain energy reserves without constant foraging. Caching involves hiding or burying food items in dispersed locations to protect them from competitors and environmental degradation. Squirrels, such as fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), exhibit scatter-hoarding, where they assess nut value through head flicks and paw manipulations before burying them individually, often carrying higher-value nuts farther to reduce pilferage density. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) cache excess kills by partially burying them under soil or leaves, a behavior more prevalent in winter when food availability declines, safeguarding surplus for later consumption. This strategy minimizes immediate predation risks but exposes caches to theft by other animals. Internal storage primarily occurs through fat deposition, converting excess energy into adipose tissue for prolonged sustenance. Camels (Camelus dromedarius) store fat in their humps, which can be metabolized to yield both energy and metabolic water—approximately 1.07 grams of water per gram of fat—enabling survival without food or water for up to six weeks in arid conditions. Hibernating bears, like black bears (Ursus americanus), accumulate substantial fat reserves during hyperphagia in late summer and fall, losing 15-30% of body weight over winter while relying on these stores to fuel torpor without eating, drinking, or defecating. This adaptation supports extended dormancy in seasonal environments with limited winter resources. Colonial storage is prevalent in social insects, where communities collectively amass in centralized depots. Harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.) create underground granaries to store harvested seeds, maintaining humidity to prevent and supporting nutrition during dry periods; these granaries can hold seeds for up to a year. Honeybees (Apis mellifera) store as in combs within , capping cells to seal in and properties, providing a stable energy source for the through winter when ceases. Notable examples include acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), which drill thousands of holes in trees to form granaries for storing acorns, cooperatively defending these sites against pilferers to ensure group survival during lean seasons. In seed-caching birds like chickadees (Poecile spp.), individuals scatter seeds but face high pilferage risks from group mates, leading to selfish caching strategies where dominant birds prioritize their own hides over communal ones. Evolutionarily, these mechanisms confer advantages in seasonal habitats by increasing food availability during scarcity, thereby boosting survival rates, extending lifespan, and enhancing ; for instance, caching has independently evolved in multiple taxa to counter fluctuating resources. Such behaviors reflect adaptations to predictable environmental cycles, reducing risk without anatomical specialization alone.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/feeding-ecology
  2. https://bio.libretexts.org/Courses/Gettysburg_College/01:_Ecology_for_All/11:_Behavioral_Ecology/11.02:_Foraging_Ecology
  3. https://extension.umn.edu/dairy-nutrition/ruminant-digestive-system
  4. https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AnimalSciences/instruction/asc684/PDF/ZooBiol15_455.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4484972/
  6. https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/life-science/early-life-earth-animal-origins
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2732876/
  8. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04195-8
  9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36417903/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215004984
  11. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/cambrian-period.htm
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7147346/
  13. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0036
  14. https://elifesciences.org/articles/84118
  15. https://phys.org/news/2011-07-vertebrate-jaw-early.html
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8299565/
  17. https://news.umich.edu/bite-by-bite-how-jaws-drove-fish-evolution/
  18. https://scitechdaily.com/after-mass-extinctions-herbivores-developed-powerful-jaws-to-digest-tougher-plants/
  19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0801913105
  20. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/carnivora/carnivoramm.html
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28181377/
  22. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1602683113
  23. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12890
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534725001557
  25. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13120
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8865330/
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28310-y
  28. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/even-sharks-electrical-sixth-sense-may-be-tuned-attack
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2855400/
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40466-0
  31. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1957.0004
  32. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/ingestion-animals
  33. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/10/floridas-invasive-pythons-can-eat-bigger-prey-than-we-realized.html
  34. https://pateklab.biology.duke.edu/research/mechanics-of-ultrafast-movement/mechanics-of-movement-mantis-shrimp/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4040413/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5861067/
  37. https://shellfish.ifas.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/Hard-Clam-Hatchery-and-Nursery-Production.pdf
  38. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0741
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021005493
  40. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/415511
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6820690/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5553785/
  43. https://opentext.uoregon.edu/animalphysiology/chapter/12-1-digestive-systems/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6750737/
  45. https://pressbooks.umn.edu/introbio/chapter/animalssponges/
  46. https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Termite_gut
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4458075/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7349008/
  49. https://www.nps.gov/glba/learn/nature/starfish-sea-urchin.htm
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4100522/
  51. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-18923-4_8
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6549983/
  53. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/predation-herbivory-and-parasitism-13261134/
  54. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2022.1062
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305674048_Interrelationships_Between_Wild_Boars_Sus_scrofa_and_Truffles
  56. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12832
  57. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/283467
  58. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83262-5
  59. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.12976
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347209002176
  61. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00163.x
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6452065/
  63. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2656.12663
  64. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-26858-9
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765721001320
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11846726/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3966826/
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1007654/
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304376280901364
  70. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/natural-history/animals-the-extremes-the-desert-environment/content-section-3.4
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9043729/
  72. https://go.nps.gov/YELLBear
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5125654/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4999132/
  75. https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/animals/bird/mefo/all.html
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2907166/
  77. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/283489
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.