Modeling Animal Guts as Chemical Reactors

Chemical-reactor theory recognizes three ideal reactor types: batch reactors, which are filled with reactants, continuously stirred during the reaction, and then emptied of products after a given reaction period; plug-flow reactors (PFR's), in which reactants continuously enter and products continuously exit with no mixing along the flow path; and continuous-flow, stirred-tank reactors (CSTR's), in which reactants continuously enter and products continuously leave a stirred vessel. Performance equations for these reactors, together with kinetic models for simple enzymatic catalysis and microbially mediated (autocatalytic) digestive fermentation, reveal necessary functional relationships among initial concentrations of the limiting food component, gut volume, throughput time or gut holding time, and digestive reaction kinetics. We use these models to suggest optimization constraints for digestion, analogous to those of optimal foraging theory. Two general predictions are possible. To sustain the greatest digestive production rate in minima of throughput time and gut volume, an animal dependent on its own digestive enzymes should function as a PFR. Animals fermenting refractory materials should combine a CSTR and a PFR in series at all but the slowest throughput rates, when a PFR will suffice. We make specific predictions for deposit feeders because they digest little of the ingested volume, greatly simplifying digestive performance equations and making them ideal subjects for initial tests of our models. The majority conform to the prediction of PFR guts, but some deposit feeders apparently use CSTR-PFR series (terebellimorph polychaetes) and batch processing (asteroids and ophiuroids). We suggest that terebellimorph polychaetes may use the CSTR to overcome digestive-rate constraints imposed by diffusion limitations; asteroids and ophiuroids may use a variety of foraging modes to obtain the highest-quality foods available. We also apply reactor theory to mammalian fermenters because empirical feeding information is extensive. Specifically, we compare the dynamics of foregut versus hindgut fermentation. Foregut fermenters should optimize fermentation with respect to ingested foods and optimize subsequent catalytic digestion with respect to fermentation products. In contrast, hindgut fermenters should optimize foregut catalytic digestion and then optimize fermentation of the residue. According to the principles of dynamic programming, the first digestive stage in each case sets the pace of digesta throughput: slower in foregut fermenters than in hindgut fermenters of similar size. Hindgut fermentation is seen to be competitive, especially for small animals, when food quality is high or variable or when body size is large and throughput rate set in the foregut is slow enough for hindgut fermentation to yield high conversion. Coprophagy and caecotrophy, tactics used by small hindgut fermenters to increase throughput time and utilization of fermentation digesta, are easily understood in terms of industrial recycle-reactor equivalents. A great advantage in deriving models of digestion from reactor theory is that many foreseeable modifications (e.g., explicit incorporation of volume changes during digestion or of coprophagy) to ideal models have analogues in diverse industrial reactor configurations already modeled and tested.

[1]  J. Shick,et al.  Physiological Ecology of the Deposit-Feeding Sea Star Ctenodiscus crispatus: Ciliated Surfaces and Animal-Sediment lnteractions , 1981 .

[2]  J Christensen,et al.  Fluid Mechanics of the Duodenum , 1980 .

[3]  R. Dales,et al.  The nature of the peritrophic membrane in the gut of the terebellid polychaete Neoamphitrite figulus , 1970 .

[4]  C. Smith Food for the deep sea: utilization, dispersal, and flux of nekton falls at the Santa catalina basin floor , 1985 .

[5]  C. Balch Factors affecting the utilization of food by dairy cows; the rate of passage of food through the digestive tract. , 1950, The British journal of nutrition.

[6]  P. Tyler Deep-sea ophiuroids , 1980 .

[7]  G. Froment,et al.  Chemical Reactor Analysis and Design , 1979 .

[8]  R. Scheibling Optimal foraging movements of Oreaster reticulatus (L.) (Echinodermata: Asteroidea) , 1981 .

[9]  David F. Ollis,et al.  Biochemical Engineering Fundamentals , 1976 .

[10]  W. Grovum,et al.  Rate of passage of digesta in sheep , 1977, British Journal of Nutrition.

[11]  P. Jumars,et al.  Abyssal community analysis from replicate box cores in the central North Pacific , 1974 .

[12]  N. Owen‐Smith,et al.  What Should a Clever Ungulate Eat? , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[13]  V. Weekman,et al.  Chemical Reaction Engineering , 1974 .

[14]  Montague W. Demment,et al.  A Nutritional Explanation for Body-Size Patterns of Ruminant and Nonruminant Herbivores , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[15]  Peter Calow,et al.  Physiological Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach to Resource Use , 1983 .

[16]  Douglas C. Miller,et al.  Mechanical post-capture particle selection by suspension- and deposit-feeding Corophium , 1984 .

[17]  C. Janis,et al.  THE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY OF THE EQUIDAE AND THE ORIGINS OF RUMEN AND CECAL DIGESTION , 1976, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  M. Longbottom The distribution of Arenicola marina (L.) with particular reference to the effects of particle size and organic matter of the sediments , 1970 .

[19]  F. Møhlenberg,et al.  Bioenergetics of the planktonic copepod Acartia tonsa: relation between feeding, egg production and respiration, and composition of specific dynamic action , 1985 .

[20]  John A. Allen,et al.  The adaptations and radiation of deep-sea bivalves , 1979 .

[21]  P. Jumars,et al.  Abyssal community analysis from replicate ☐ cores in the central North Pacific , 1974 .

[22]  O. Tendal Aspects of the biology of komokiagea and xenophyophoria , 1979 .

[23]  P. Jumars,et al.  Digestion Theory Applied to Deposit Feeding , 1989 .

[24]  G. Briggs,et al.  A Note on the Kinetics of Enzyme Action. , 1925, The Biochemical journal.

[25]  E. Southward,et al.  Uptake and Incorporation of Labelled Glycine by Pogonophores , 1968, Nature.

[26]  O. Vahl,et al.  On the biology of the polychaete Glycera alba, especially its burrowing and feeding , 1970 .

[27]  J. Buchanan A Comparative Study of Some Features of the Biology of Amphiura Filiformis and Amphiura Chiajei [Ophiuroidea] Considered in Relation to their Distribution , 1964, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

[28]  K. Milton Food Choice and Digestive Strategies of Two Sympatric Primate Species , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[29]  W. Karasov,et al.  Digestive adaptations for fueling the cost of endothermy. , 1985, Science.

[30]  M. Westoby An Analysis of Diet Selection by Large Generalist Herbivores , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[31]  L. Cammen The significance of microbial carbon in the nutrition of the deposit feeding polychaete Nereis succinea , 1980 .

[32]  James J. Carberry,et al.  Chemical and catalytic reaction engineering , 1976 .

[33]  Peter A. Jumars,et al.  Chemical Reactor Analysis and Optimal DigestionAn optimal digestion theory can be readily derived from basic principles of chemical reactor analysis and design , 1986 .

[34]  S. Hubbell,et al.  Radiotracer, gravimetric and calorimetric studies of ingestion and assimilation rates of an isopod. , 1965, Health physics.

[35]  Kenneth B. Bischoff,et al.  Optimal continuous fermentation reactor design , 1966 .

[36]  K. Fauchald The diet of worms : A study of polychaete feeding guilds , 1979 .

[37]  C. Stevens,et al.  Digesta flow through the rabbit large intestine. , 1972, American Journal of Physiology.

[38]  G. Taghon Beyond Selection: Optimal Ingestion Rate as a Function of Food Value , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[39]  J. Waterbury,et al.  Prokaryotic Cells in the Hydrothermal Vent Tube Worm Riftia pachyptila Jones: Possible Chemoautotrophic Symbionts. , 1981, Science.

[40]  P. Jumars,et al.  GUT-MARKER AND GUT-FULLNESS METHODS FOR ESTIMATING FIELD AND LABORATORY EFFECTS OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ON INGESTION RATES OF DEPOSIT-FEEDERS' , 1986 .

[41]  C. Balch Factors Affecting the Utilization of Food by Dairy Cows , 1950, British Journal of Nutrition.

[42]  G. Montgomery The ecology of arboreal folivores. , 1978 .

[43]  R. P. Dales Feeding and digestion in terebellid polychaetes , 1955, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

[44]  W. Wieser Consumer strategies of terrestrial gastropods and isopods , 2004, Oecologia.

[45]  C. Stevens,et al.  Microbial digestion: rumen versus large intestine , 1980 .

[46]  Richard M. Sibly,et al.  Strategies of digestion and defecation , 1981 .

[47]  R. Aller,et al.  Quantifying solute distributions in the bioturbated zone of marine sediments by defining an average microenvironment , 1980 .

[48]  H. Hörnicke,et al.  Coprophagy and related strategies for digesta utilization , 1980 .

[49]  R. Larson Cubomedusae: Feeding — Functional Morphology, Behavior and Phylogenetic Position , 1976 .

[50]  J. T. Staley,et al.  Baleen whales: preliminary evidence for forestomach microbial fermentation , 1984, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[51]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment , 1978 .

[52]  G. Taghon,et al.  Variable ingestion rate and its role in optimal foraging behavior of marine deposit feeders , 1984 .

[53]  H. L. Sanders,et al.  Adaptations to abyssal life as shown by the bivalve Abra profundorum (Smith) , 1966 .

[54]  Thomas J. Marrie,et al.  Phenomena of Bacterial Adhesion , 1985 .