Can Plecos Digest Wood?

Ulu

Potamotrygon
MFK Member
Dec 13, 2018
1,843
3,135
164
The Sunny San Joaquin
I didn't read McCauley et al yet, but This is what I believe I've been seeing with my various plecos.

They don't go for the wood until it has aged, and they like it well aged the best. Put a newish piece in a tank along with one well aged, and you will see which they prefer. I've been using only LFS bogwood, and local manzanita.

In my imagination this is because they're sucking up the wood that's already digested by the inhabiting micro "digesters". Bacteria, or whomever.
It's not so much wood as CHON soup.

When they eat veggies, they tend to leave woody fibers behind or until last.
 

TwoTankAmin

Aimara
MFK Member
Oct 2, 2008
365
699
130
New York
One of the reasons I really like Planetcatfish is because of the number of active posters who are degreed scientists. there have a forum for Taxonomy & Science there you will find this: https://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=49153&p=324889&hilit=wood+eat#p324889

And there you would see

Mark McCauley Donovan P. German Nathan K. Lujan Colin R. Jackson. (2020). Gut microbiomes of sympatric Amazonian wood‐eating catfishes (Loricariidae) reflect host identity and little role in wood digestion. Ecology and Evolution. First published: 25 May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6413
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /ece3.6413

Abstract
Neotropical wood‐eating catfishes (family Loricariidae) can occur in diverse assemblages with multiple genera and species feeding on the same woody detritus. As such, they present an intriguing system in which to examine the influence of host species identity on the vertebrate gut microbiome as well as to determine the potential role of gut bacteria in wood digestion. We characterized the gut microbiome of two co‐occurring catfish genera and four species:
Panaqolus albomaculatus ', WIDTH, 320)" onmouseout="UnTip()" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Panaqolus albomaculatus ,
Panaqolus gnomus ', WIDTH, 320)" onmouseout="UnTip()" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Panaqolus gnomus ,
Panaqolus nocturnus ', WIDTH, 320)" onmouseout="UnTip()" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Panaqolus nocturnus, and
Panaque bathyphilus ', WIDTH, 320)" onmouseout="UnTip()" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Panaque bathyphilus , as well as that of submerged wood on which they feed. The gut bacterial community did not significantly vary across three gut regions (proximal, mid, distal) for any catfish species, although interspecific variation in the gut microbiome was significant, with magnitude of interspecific difference generally reflecting host phylogenetic proximity. Further, the gut microbiome of each species was significantly different to that present on the submerged wood. Inferring the genomic potential of the gut microbiome revealed that the majority of wood digesting pathways were at best equivalent to and more often depleted or nonexistent within the catfish gut compared to the submerged wood, suggesting a minimal role for the gut microbiome in wood digestion. Rather, these fishes are more likely reliant on fiber degradation performed by microbes in the environment, with their gut microbiome determined more by host identity and phylogenetic history.
and

Inferring the genomic potential of the gut microbiome revealed that the majority of wood digesting pathways were at best equivalent to and more often depleted or nonexistent within the catfish gut compared to the submerged wood, suggesting a minimal role for the gut microbiome in wood digestion. Rather, these fishes are more likely reliant on fiber degradation performed by microbes in the environment, with their gut microbiome determined more by host identity and phylogenetic history.
The rest of the thread says the above in simple plain English.

"It ain't the wood it's the microbes.........."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poseidon2.0 and RD.

RD.

Gold Tier VIP
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
13,183
12,541
3,360
65
Northwest Canada
Thanks for those links, I missed them when you posted. They appear to support what I have previously posted regarding these various fish, when kept in captivity. More readily digestible fiber can and has been easily supplied in captivity, to no known detriment to the fish.
 

RD.

Gold Tier VIP
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
13,183
12,541
3,360
65
Northwest Canada
This topic seems to have jumped to another thread, so I wanted to bring it back here where it belongs.

Regarding Mark McCauley Donovan P. German Nathan K. Lujan Colin R. Jackson. (2020). Gut microbiomes of sympatric Amazonian wood‐eating catfishes (Loricariidae) reflect host identity and little role in wood digestion. Ecology and Evolution. First published: 25 May 2020

The topic and understanding of microbiomes found in the gut of a fish, let alone genus/species specific fish, is pretty much in its infancy. Speculation and assumptions is what lead previous researchers to assume that wood eating plecos, digested nutrients from wood. It seems that those early researchers and hobbyists from years ago, were wrong.

If we are going to assume things, I would assume that in the wild plecos rasp on wood to promote & grow certain bacteria in their microbiome, with those gut microbiota bacteria that are found in nature assisting them with the digestion and assimilation of the nutrients found in foods of low nutritional matter, that these fish consume (in nature) on a regular basis. In captivity all bets are off. Not only would the bacteria be different, and found at different levels if at all in their guts, but with captive diets those bacteria payloads that are typically found in wild fish, would no longer be required. The microbiome of a captive fish, would simply not match that of a fish freshly collected in the wild. Wood eating, or otherwise.

There appears to be various examples of the above.

Habitat and indigenous gut microbes contribute to the plasticity of gut microbiome in oriental river prawn during rapid environmental change (plos.org)


Discussion

"In recent years, studies on the interaction between hosts and their gut microbiota have drawn much attention in microbiome research. In humans, it is known that the diversity and richness of gut microbiota are established mainly in early childhood, and family members tend to harbor more similar microbiota, which could be due to a shared living environment and may also reflect host genetic relatedness [34]. In aquatic animals, host populations exposed to different microbial communities may exhibit divergent microbiota. For instance, fish gut microbiota differ between fresh and marine populations [31], and even between river and lake populations [21]. Moreover, an entirely different gut microbial composition has been shown in lab-reared fish compared with wild fish [18], providing more evidence of the effects of diet and environment on gut bacterial communities."


This all seems quite logical to me. I would not be surprised to find the gut microbiota to be different from a wild fish, vs a captive raised fish, or to even that same wild fish after years in captivity. In captivity, the need to consume wood, for bacteria or otherwise, would simply not match the needs of a fish found in the wild.
 

Ulu

Potamotrygon
MFK Member
Dec 13, 2018
1,843
3,135
164
The Sunny San Joaquin
Anecdotally, I have two 13” high-fin plecos, which were raised together and are almost identical, but I have been keeping them in different tanks for 2 years. In my show tank I have removed all of the wood, but the other fish is in a breeding tank and there is plenty of wood in it.

Both tanks have live algae in them and plus I supplement with algae wafers.

The fish that has lived in the tank without wood is slightly larger than the other fish, which is an a tank that actually has much wood, more sun, and more live algae.

They both seem healthy and happy and well fed. I don’t intend to ever put wood in my Show tank, but the Pleco will stay in there as long as he lives. Those tanks both share the same water system and filtration, so we will see how they compare over the years.

They are about five years old now. Will the one who sucks wood have the same gut microbiology as the one without access to wood, because they are in the very same waters? I’ll probably never know the answer to those questions but at least we will see which one gets bigger.
 

SaburaiAquatics

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Apr 26, 2022
11
30
3
Charlotte, NC
www.facebook.com
New member here... I saw someone had mentioned the possibility that eating the wood could have a similar purpose to that of humans eating roughage. I am not aware of the exact numbers, but roughage is soluble or insoluble, which is similar to what the paper described with the lignins.

As with human diets, it is possible that fish are capable of surviving without wood (or with a prepared substitute) even if it is better for them to have it in their environment. In many cases, fiber intake has been shown to correlate with better health. Would it be much of a stretch to consider that a similar correlation can be made with loricariids and wood?
 

tlindsey

Silver Tier VIP
MFK Member
Aug 6, 2011
23,371
24,284
1,660
Ohio
New member here... I saw someone had mentioned the possibility that eating the wood could have a similar purpose to that of humans eating roughage. I am not aware of the exact numbers, but roughage is soluble or insoluble, which is similar to what the paper described with the lignins.

As with human diets, it is possible that fish are capable of surviving without wood (or with a prepared substitute) even if it is better for them to have it in their environment. In many cases, fiber intake has been shown to correlate with better health. Would it be much of a stretch to consider that a similar correlation can be made with loricariids and wood?
Welcome aboard
RD. RD.
 

neutrino

Goliath Tigerfish
MFK Member
Jan 22, 2013
2,400
2,640
179
Mid-Atlantic, US
Interesting thread. There are quite a few studies on the subject. I've read but stayed out it while it's progressed, primarily because imo the subject is still being studied and I'm not ready to reach conclusions. However, I will point out hazards in certain comments.

The simple one first-- comparing two individual fish in different tanks is reasonable but may or may not mean anything. Differences could be down to the individual fish, you'd need to do a larger scale comparison to approach anything that's statistically meaningful. So it's interesting but doesn't prove much, though I'd say similar results reported by numbers of hobbyists would suggest something significant.

Second-- applying a conclusion drawn from the study of one genus to another genus, or even one species to another. Conclusions drawn from a study of Panaqolus species don't necessarily apply to Panaque species-- or a study of one Panaque species doesn't necessarily prove conclusions about another Panaque species. By contrast with the Panaqolus study there was the following. For the sake of (relative) brevity I've condensed excerpts considerably from the full text. But of course the full text is there if you want to take the time:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048018
Panaque nigrolineatus imbibes large quantities of wood as part of its diet... However, the hindgut was dominated almost exclusively by phylotypes with the highest 16S rRNA sequence similarity to the Cytophaga-Flavobacterium-Bacteroides phylum... indicating the presence of a specialized microbial community. Using 16S rRNA gene phylogeny, we report that the P. nigrolineatus gastrointestinal tract possesses a microbial community closely related to microorganisms capable of cellulose degradation and nitrogen fixation. Further studies are underway to determine the role of this resident microbial community in Panaque nigrolineatus.

Analysis of the gut content of several species of Panaque indicates that wood constitutes the majority (up to 75%) of the digesta from fish in the field [8], [9], [10]. However, recent studies examining gut transit time, digestive enzyme activity levels, and concentration of fermentative end-products have determined that Panaque are detritivores and do not obtain energy from the digestion of wood [9], [10]. Although the fish cannot digest wood directly, they imbibe microbes associated with the wood and microbial by-products produced during wood breakdown within the GI tract [6]. However, the inability to detect a resident microbial community using microscopy [9] raised interesting questions about this ecological niche and its colonization. Panaque contain a long GI tract, which is as much as ten times body length [11], providing many different microenvironments. Highly enriched in cellulose and other wood components, the P. nigrolineatus GI tract provides a novel environment with the potential to yield new cellulose degrading microorganisms and pathways.

... The nitrogen-limiting nature of wood also poses a physiological challenge to xylivorous organisms. The nitrogen content of mature structural wood is significantly less (0.5–1.5% as litter) [17] than that of primary consumers (5.6–12.6% dry weight) [18]. Therefore, xylivorous organisms must supplement their diet with additional nitrogen sources or selectively eliminate carbonaceous compounds from their body. For all well characterized xylophagic systems, including marine wood-boring bivalves and lower termites, the former scenario holds true, with each possessing at least one endosymbiotic bacterial species capable of nitrogen fixation [19], [20]. These symbionts reduce atmospheric molecular nitrogen to ammonia that can be assimilated by the host. The nature of these symbioses are highly variable... Previous studies examining the nitrogen balance in P. nigrolineatus revealed higher levels of nitrogen in the waste than the ingested wood [9] and an increase in microbially fixed nitrogen within fish tissue...

... P. nigrolineatus imbibe wood in their natural environment and in a laboratory setting, providing a long GI tract with many microenvironments suitable for bacterial colonization enriched with cellulose and other wood components.

P. nigrolineatus examined in this study were imported without routine antibiotic treatment and conditions (temperature, light) were provided similar to those found in their natural environment. We recognize that the collection, transport, and maintenance in laboratory aquaria play a role in affecting the indigenous microbial communities present in comparison to wild animals. However, the detection of specialized microbial communities in different regions of the Panaque GI tract, strongly supports a view that a core microbiome selected by the intestinal habitat exists. This result is similar to a recent study in zebrafish, which showed that although differences could be detected in the microbial communities within wild vs. laboratory-reared fish, there was a shared core gut microbiota that was not affected by domestication. [43].

Our results demonstrate the presence of a resident enteric microbial community of P. nigrolineatus that is unique amongst fish characterized to date and consistent with a highly enriched cellulose diet.
Note the different results from the examination of Panaqolus. Not surprising, it's basic biology. One species can have different adaptations from another in the same genus, not to mention animals from different genera.
 

neutrino

Goliath Tigerfish
MFK Member
Jan 22, 2013
2,400
2,640
179
Mid-Atlantic, US
There's also this, again I've condensed:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02687/full
The Amazonian catfish Panaque nigrolineatus consumes large quantities of wood as part of its diet, a trait shared among a limited number of related fish species (Schaefer and Stewart, 1993). Depending on environmental conditions, P. nigrolineatus can adjust its feeding behavior, switching between xylivorous (“wood-eating”), detritivorous, and herbivorous feeding behaviors. While jaw and tooth morphologies appear to be well adapted for wood consumption (Geerinckx et al., 2007; Adriaens et al., 2008), other features such as GI tract length, microvilli surface area, and gut retention times are inconsistent with a diet dependent primarily on wood consumption (German, 2009; German et al., 2010). It has been hypothesized that wood intake may serve a selective advantage during the Amazonian dry season (Araujo-Lima et al., 1986), or a consequence of epiphyte or fungal hyphae consumption. The nutritional benefits of wood feeding and subsequent digestion by P. nigrolineatus are, as yet, unknown.

... With a few exceptions, nutrient acquisition by wood-eaters is mediated by their enteric microbial community, which liberates assimilatory sugars and generates nitrogenous compounds (Tokuda et al., 2014; Cragg et al., 2015).

Much later in the article:
Discussion
Diet has been shown to have a major impact on enteric bacterial communities of a variety of animals. P. nigrolineatus provides a unique opportunity to examine the effects of diet change on a wood-consuming organism. Unlike other xylivorous animals, P. nigrolineatus is capable of shifting between diets with seemingly minimal deleterious health effects.

And again, much later:
Results demonstrated the functional resiliency of the P. nigrolineatus enteric bacterial community. Despite large, diet-induced, shifts in community composition, little change was observed in the predicted relative abundance of genes related to lignocellulose degradation. Our findings suggest that the enteric community composition is altered by the metabolic capacity of the microorganisms, with the GI tract environment selecting for overall community function and not specific microbial lineages. Selection based on function may serve as an advantage for wood-feeding organisms like P. nigrolineatus that switch between feeding habits as it insures the presence of essential metabolic pathways even after prolonged feeding on less refractory foods. How the P. nigrolineatus GI tract selects for lignocellulose-degrading microorganisms despite changing diets is unclear and the focus of future investigations.
Come to your own conclusions but I see a few things. 1) It appears P. nigrolineatus does derive some nutrition from wood. At a minimum nutritional compounds are made biologically available in the process. 2) It appears their survival does not require eating wood, they can switch feeding strategies, but I strongly suspect this does not mean any old diet will do. It also doesn't prove the complete absence of specialized nutritional needs that might be filled either by wood or without directly consuming wood. 3) Even when they switch primary food sources their "core" gut bacteria don't change much. 4) "The nutritional benefits of wood feeding and subsequent digestion by P. nigrolineatus are, as yet, unknown." It does say "digestion" but also says the benefits are unknown. There's more study to be done.

5) Can plecos digest wood? The answer appears to depend on which species you're talking about, even among "wood eating" species.
 
Last edited:

RD.

Gold Tier VIP
MFK Member
May 9, 2007
13,183
12,541
3,360
65
Northwest Canada
Unless further studies prove different, I’m going to stick with my original assumption, that being
While sucking/chewing on wood is a natural feeding behaviour, I do not believe that any species of pleco actually requires wood as part of their diet.
Years ago here on MFK many members were of the belief that certain species of plecos would suffer nutritionally, even become sickly and die, sans wood. Some members most likely still believe that, hence the reason I started this thread. Short of some serious data proving otherwise I will continue to believe that wood can be replaced with other foodstuffs, including various raw ingredients that are found in commercial foods.

Thanks for the links!
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store