The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling Animal Guts as Chemical Reactors
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bellman, R. E. (2010) · doi:10.1515/9781400835386 · Cited by 14,588
Levenspiel, O. (1999) · Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · doi:10.1021/ie990488g · Cited by 9,970
Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment
Pearson, T. H., & Rosenberg, R. (1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · doi:10.2983/035.034.0121u1.10 · Cited by 3,464
Chemical Reactor Analysis and Design
Froment, G. F., Bischoff, K. B., & Wilde, J. D. (1979) · Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) · Cited by 2,715
Biochemical engineering fundamentals
Bailey, J. E., & Ollis, D. F. (1977) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 2,420
The ecology of arboreal folivores.
Montgomery, G. G. (1978) · Cited by 1,422
A Nutritional Explanation for Body-Size Patterns of Ruminant and Nonruminant Herbivores
Demment, M. W., & Van Soest, P. J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284369 · Cited by 1,350
A Note on the Kinetics of Enzyme Action
Briggs, G. E., & Haldane, J. B. S. (1925) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bj0190338 · Cited by 1,327
Chemical and catalytic reaction engineering
Carberry, J. J. (1976) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 729
Cavanaugh, C. M., Gardiner, S. L., Jones, M. L., Jannasch, H. W., & Waterbury, J. B. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.213.4505.340 · Cited by 675
Cited by
Separating the grain from the chaff: particle selection in suspension- and deposit-feeding bivalves
Evan Ward, J., & Shumway, S. E. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2004.03.002 · Cited by 734
Diet of Worms Emended: An Update of Polychaete Feeding Guilds
Jumars, P. A., Dorgan, K. M., & Lindsay, S. M. (2015) · Annual Review of Marine Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-020007 · Cited by 688
Self-citationOu, J., Carbonero, F., Zoetendal, E. G., DeLany, J. P., Wang, M., Newton, K., Gaskins, H. R., & O’Keefe, S. J. (2013) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.056689 · Cited by 646
Jumars, P. A., Penry, D. L., Baross, J. A., Perry, M. J., & Frost, B. W. (1989) · Deep Sea Research Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers · doi:10.1016/0198-0149(89)90001-0 · Cited by 454
Self-citationEcological Physiology of Diet and Digestive Systems
Karasov, W. H., Martínez del Rio, C., & Caviedes-Vidal, E. (2011) · Annual Review of Physiology · doi:10.1146/annurev-physiol-012110-142152 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Penry, D. L., & Jumars, P. A.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1987-01
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-96
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W1967711892
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 14.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modeling Animal Guts as Chemical Reactors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284623
- The paper
- Penry, D. L., & Jumars, P. A. (1987). Modeling Animal Guts as Chemical Reactors. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284623
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.