Captivity changes the gut bacteria of pandas and bears

Captive life does more than change routines for bears and pandas. It also changes the microscopic communities living in their guts, and for giant pandas in zoos, those communities shrink in variety compared to wild pandas.

A new cross-species project led by Wei Guo of Chengdu Medical College (CMC) compared gut bacteria from giant pandas, red pandas, and Asiatic black bears living in nature and in captivity. 

The team used 16S rRNA sequencing, a genetic method that identifies bacteria by reading a small region of their ribosomal RNA gene, to map the microbes present and track how they changed across habitats.

Why gut microbes matter

Your gut is home to a microbiome, the mix of bacteria, archaea, and fungi living inside the digestive tract that help break down food, train the immune system, and keep pathogens in check. Shifts in that mix can affect energy use and resilience to disease.

Microbiome studies often report two kinds of diversity. Alpha diversity, a measure of how many kinds of microbes live inside a single animal, reflects richness and balance. 

Beta diversity, a comparison of how different microbial communities are between animals, shows how much those ecosystems overlap or diverge.

Captivity changes panda bacteria

The researchers report a clear split between wild and captive cohorts across all three species.

Captive giant pandas had lower alpha diversity than wild pandas, while captive red pandas and black bears had higher diversity than their wild counterparts.

The biggest driver of community structure was the environment. Using PERMANOVA, a statistical test that partitions variation among factors like diet, species, and habitat, the team found that environment explained 21.6 percent of variation, host lineage explained 12.3 percent, and diet explained 3.9 percent.

There was also a sharp difference in beta diversity patterns. Within each species, the gap between wild and captive individuals was larger than the gap between species living in the same habitat.

Zoo diets alter panda bacteria

Captive animals in all three species were dominated by Firmicutes, a group of bacteria known for fermenting sugars and starches into short-chain fatty acids that the body can absorb. 

Wild animals were dominated by Proteobacteria, a large bacterial group that includes species able to break down complex plant materials and survive in diverse environments.

The genus-level picture showed the same theme. In captivity, pandas had more bacteria often linked to carbohydrate-rich diets and gut inflammation, while wild pandas carried more bacteria capable of digesting complex plant fibers. 

Captive black bears and red pandas also showed more starch-loving bacteria that thrives on easily digestible foods. A machine learning screen separated habitats cleanly so that these bacteria groups could be studied.

Why pandas buck the trend

Across mammals, living in zoos has often been linked to reduced microbial richness. A broad review points to diet shifts, medications, and less contact with environmental microbes as common reasons.

Giant pandas specialize on bamboo, yet their digestive tract resembles that of a carnivore, meaning it lacks the long fermentation chambers typical of herbivores. 

In the wild, constant exposure to fresh plants and soils likely seeds a wide set of fiber-associated microbes that help process woody compounds.

Captive diets sometimes include refined carbohydrates for calories and consistency. A menu like that can boost Firmicutes that ferment simple sugars, reduce microbial groups tied to plant fiber, and shrink alpha diversity in giant pandas even as other bears gain new taxa.

How pandas regain gut bacteria

Some of the genera that rose in captivity include opportunistic microbes, organisms that can cause infections when the immune system is stressed.

The study’s pattern suggests a need to limit refined foods and to provide more complex plant matter to favor fiber-processing bacteria.

Wild pandas often carry Pseudomonas, a bacterial genus known for breaking down lignin, a tough component of plant cell walls, and other aromatic compounds in bamboo. That function could be crucial for nutrition in the wild and might fade in standardized zoo diets.

Husbandry interventions could include more bamboo species, careful antibiotic use, and trials of targeted probiotics, live beneficial microbes that can help restore balance. Each approach should be tested with clear health metrics to avoid unintended effects.

Captivity affects many species

A 2016 paper on nonhuman primates reported that captivity often pushes gut communities to resemble human-like profiles. The pattern did not erase species differences entirely, yet captivity status stood out as a strong organizing factor.

“What is new here is that we find many different primates all losing their natural microbes in captivity and getting colonized by the same microbes that we humans have in our guts,” said Dan Knights, Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota (UM), one of the authors on that earlier primate study.

Putting the panda and bear results next to primate data highlights a common thread. Standardized diets, fewer environmental inputs, and human contact can steer very different hosts toward similar microbial setups.

How scientists studied microbes

The researchers compared fecal samples from wild reserves to samples from zoo settings during the same season.

They filtered and sequenced bacterial DNA, then used principal coordinates analysis, a method that visualizes how similar or different samples are in multivariate data, to map beta-diversity differences.

The team also used a random forest classifier, an algorithm that builds many decision trees and averages their predictions, to identify genera that best separate captive from wild individuals. 

That approach yielded a ranked list of microbial markers that can be monitored during husbandry changes or before release. The method focuses on which microbes are present, not what they can do. 

Follow-up work using metagenomics, a technique that reads all the genes in a community to reveal its potential functions, and metabolomics, the study of small molecules made by metabolism, will be needed to connect these shifts to health and digestion.

Keeping wild microbes alive

One avenue is to keep wild-like functions intact in captivity. If specific fiber-degradation pathways are lost in panda cubs raised on simplified diets, those functions may be difficult to rebuild later.

Another avenue is to track health links directly. If shifts toward specific bacteria that correlate with inflammation or infections, managers could adjust diets quickly and measure whether those taxa retreat.

Reintroduction programs may need microbiome checkpoints, small-scale tests that compare gut profiles to wild baselines before animals are released.

Recreating wild-associated communities could support feeding efficiency and resilience once animals move back to complex habitats.

The study is published in the journal PLOS ONE.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–