What Is the Strongest Animal in the World? Relative vs Absolute Strength

The strongest animal in the world depends entirely on how strength is measured. In absolute terms, the African elephant is the strongest land animal, capable of moving loads that exceed any other living creature. In relative terms, when strength is compared to body weight, the dung beetle holds the title, with the ability to pull objects many times its own mass. This distinction matters for students, researchers, and life-science professionals because the two measures answer different biological questions. Absolute strength reveals raw physical capacity and ecological role, while relative strength exposes evolutionary adaptations in muscle physiology, exoskeleton mechanics, and behavioral strategies. This article explains both measures, provides a comparison framework, and clarifies why the answer changes depending on the metric used.

Defining Strength in Biological Terms

Strength in animals is not a single measurable property. Biologists and comparative physiologists typically distinguish between absolute strength, which is the maximum force an animal can exert regardless of its size, and relative strength, which is the maximum force exerted per unit of body weight or muscle mass. Both measures are valid, but they serve different analytical purposes.

Absolute strength is relevant for understanding ecological interactions such as predation, competition for resources, and habitat modification. An elephant that pushes over trees or a gorilla that bends steel bars demonstrates absolute force that shapes its environment. Relative strength is more useful for studying evolutionary adaptations, because it controls for body size and reveals how muscle architecture, leverage, and metabolic systems have been optimized in different lineages.

The distinction also appears in neuroscience research. Studies of stimulus selection in barn owls show that the brain categorizes competing stimuli based on relative strength instead of absolute magnitude, with the category boundary shifting adaptively to track changes in the strongest stimulus. This principle, documented in the optic tectum of owls, demonstrates that relative comparisons are a fundamental neural strategy across species. The same logic applies to physical strength comparisons: relative measures often reveal more about biological design than absolute numbers.

At a Glance: Strength Comparison Table

The following table compares representative animals across both strength metrics. Values for lifting or pulling capacity relative to body weight are approximate and drawn from comparative biology literature. Absolute lifting capacity estimates are based on documented observations of working animals and behavioral studies.

This table illustrates the core problem in answering the question of the strongest animal. The elephant wins on absolute measures, while the dung beetle wins on relative measures. Neither answer is incorrect, but each reflects a different definition of strength.

Absolute Strength: The Case for the Elephant

The African elephant is widely recognized as the strongest land animal in absolute terms. A mature bull elephant can weigh up to 7,000 kilograms and stand over three meters at the shoulder. The sheer mass of the animal, combined with its muscular trunk and powerful limbs, allows it to perform feats of strength that no other land animal can match.

Documented observations of working elephants in Asia and Africa show that a single elephant can pull logs weighing up to 9,000 kilograms. This capacity comes from the animal's total muscle mass, which constitutes a substantial portion of its body weight. The trunk alone contains an estimated 40,000 muscles and can lift objects weighing several hundred kilograms. The combination of trunk strength, neck muscle power, and leg drive enables elephants to push over trees, move boulders, and clear paths through dense vegetation.

Absolute strength in elephants serves clear ecological functions. Elephants are ecosystem engineers that modify their habitats by knocking down trees, creating clearings, and maintaining water holes. These behaviors depend on the capacity to exert force far beyond what smaller herbivores can achieve. The ecological impact of elephant strength is so significant that their presence or absence can alter entire landscapes.

For comparative purposes, the elephant's absolute strength exceeds that of other large mammals. Rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and large bovids are powerful animals, but none can match the elephant's combination of mass, muscle distribution, and dexterous trunk. The elephant's strength is a function of both size and muscle architecture specifically adapted for force production.

Relative Strength: The Case for the Dung Beetle

The dung beetle is the strongest animal in the world when strength is measured relative to body weight. Certain species of dung beetles can pull loads that are over 1,000 times their own body weight. This remarkable capacity has made the dung beetle a subject of intense scientific interest in biology and in engineering and optimization research.

The dung beetle's strength comes from its exoskeleton, which provides a rigid framework for muscle attachment, and from its muscle physiology, which generates high force per unit of muscle mass. The beetle's legs are arranged to maximize mechanical advantage, allowing it to roll dung balls that are many times heavier than its own body. The rolling behavior itself is an adaptation for moving large food resources away from competition at the dung pat.

The dung beetle's relative strength has inspired computational research. Multiple studies have used dung beetle optimization algorithms to solve engineering problems, including predicting the compressive strength of high-performance concrete, planning robot paths, and estimating pile bearing capacity. These algorithms are named for the beetle's efficient search and rolling behaviors, which mirror optimization strategies in mathematics. The beetle's physical strength and its behavioral efficiency have both proven useful as models for human engineering challenges.

The dung beetle also produces chitosan, a biopolymer with biomechanical properties that researchers have investigated for food preservation applications. A 2022 study examined the biomechanical characteristics of novel chitosan derived from dung beetles and its application potential for stored tomato fruit. This research demonstrates that the dung beetle's biological materials, beyond its muscular strength, have practical value for human applications.

The Problem of Measurement: Why the Answer Depends on the Metric

The question of the strongest animal cannot be answered without specifying the measurement framework. This is a reflection of how strength operates in living systems. Different animals have evolved different solutions to the problem of generating force, and no single metric captures all aspects of strength.

Absolute strength measurements favor large animals because muscle force scales with muscle cross-sectional area, which increases with body size. A larger animal has more muscle fibers in parallel, allowing it to generate more total force. However, body weight also increases with size, so the ratio of force to weight tends to decrease as animals get larger. This is why small insects can lift many times their body weight while large mammals can only lift a fraction of theirs.

The scaling relationship between body size and strength is well documented in comparative physiology. Muscle force is proportional to cross-sectional area, which scales with the square of linear dimensions, while body weight scales with the cube of linear dimensions. This means that as an animal gets larger, its weight increases faster than its muscle cross-sectional area, reducing its relative strength. The dung beetle's small size is therefore an advantage in relative strength terms, because its muscle cross-section is large relative to its body mass.

Measurement methods also affect the answer. Pulling force, lifting force, biting force, and carrying capacity are all different measures of strength, and animals rank differently on each. A gorilla has exceptional upper body strength for lifting and pulling, but its bite force is less remarkable relative to its size. A crocodile has one of the strongest bite forces in the animal kingdom but cannot lift objects with its limbs. The question of the strongest animal therefore requires specifying which type of strength is being measured.

Muscle Physiology and Force Production

Understanding animal strength requires knowledge of how muscles generate force. Skeletal muscle produces force through the interaction of actin and myosin filaments within muscle fibers. The maximum force a muscle can produce is proportional to its physiological cross-sectional area, which is the sum of the cross-sectional areas of all muscle fibers arranged in parallel.

Muscle architecture varies across species and affects force production. Pennate muscles, in which fibers are arranged at an angle to the muscle's line of action, pack more fibers into a given volume and can produce more force than parallel-fibered muscles of the same mass. This architectural variation explains why some animals can produce remarkable force relative to their muscle mass.

The dung beetle's muscle architecture is particularly efficient for force production. Its leg muscles are arranged to maximize mechanical advantage, and its exoskeleton provides a rigid attachment point that prevents energy loss through deformation. The beetle's small size also means that its muscles have short diffusion distances for oxygen and nutrients, allowing for rapid energy delivery during forceful contractions.

Research on muscle strength in humans provides a useful comparison point. A 2026 study of handgrip strength among Taiwanese university students found that men had significantly higher average handgrip strength than women, with upper arm circumference showing the strongest correlation with grip strength in both sexes. This finding illustrates the general principle that muscle cross-sectional area, reflected in limb circumference, is a primary determinant of force production.

Comparative Strength Across Animal Groups

Beyond the elephant and the dung beetle, other animals demonstrate remarkable strength in specific contexts. The gorilla is often cited as the strongest primate, with an estimated lifting capacity of 800 to 1,000 kilograms, roughly four to seven times its body weight. Gorilla strength is concentrated in the upper body, with powerful arms and shoulders adapted for climbing, knuckle-walking, and defense.

The leafcutter ant is another notable example of relative strength. These ants carry leaf fragments that weigh 30 to 50 times their own body weight, using specialized mandibles and neck muscles. The ant's strength is remarkable for the load-to-weight ratio and for the precision with which it carries and cuts leaf material.

The rhinoceros beetle, like the dung beetle, demonstrates exceptional relative strength. Male rhinoceros beetles use their horns in combat over mating opportunities, and the muscles that drive the horns can generate forces many times the beetle's body weight. This strength is directly tied to sexual selection, as larger and stronger males win more fights and gain more mating opportunities.

The concept of strength also applies to non-muscular systems. Bone strength, for example, is a critical factor in fracture risk and overall physical capacity. A 2023 study in Nature Genetics identified genetic determinants of forearm fracture, finding that tall stature and low body mass index were causal risk factors for fractures. The study also identified loci that regulate bone quality parameters independent of bone mineral density, highlighting the complexity of skeletal strength.

Strength in the Context of Sexual Selection

Strength in many animal species is shaped by sexual selection, the evolutionary process by which traits that improve mating success become more common in a population. Male animals often compete for access to females through physical contests, and strength is a key determinant of contest outcomes.

Research on sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences has shown that female mate preferences, like male ornaments, are condition dependent. High-quality females show the strongest mate preferences, and this variation in female choice affects the strength of sexual selection on male traits. In species where males fight for mating opportunities, strength is a primary target of sexual selection because it directly determines contest outcomes.

The rhinoceros beetle provides a clear example of strength under sexual selection. Males use their horns in contests over access to females, and horn size and the associated muscle strength are reliable indicators of male quality. Females may prefer males with larger horns because horn size signals genetic quality and the ability to win contests.

Strength can also be a condition-dependent trait that reflects an animal's overall health and nutritional status. Animals in poor condition may have weaker muscles and be less able to compete for resources or mates. This relationship between condition and strength creates a feedback loop in which strong animals gain access to better resources, further improving their condition and strength.

Strength and Site Fidelity in Ungulates

Strength in large herbivores is closely tied to movement ecology and habitat use. A 2021 study of site fidelity in ungulates found that mule deer and moose exhibited relatively strong site fidelity, while wildebeest and barren-ground caribou had relatively weak fidelity. Site fidelity was strongest in predictable landscapes where vegetative greening occurred at regular intervals.

The relationship between strength and site fidelity is indirect but important. Stronger animals can defend territories and return to preferred foraging sites, while weaker animals may be displaced by competitors or forced to range more widely. The study also found that elk employed a win-stay, lose-switch strategy, in which successful resource tracking in the spring resulted in strong site fidelity the following spring.

For farmers and wildlife managers, understanding the relationship between strength and movement ecology is relevant for predicting how animals will respond to habitat changes. Animals with strong site fidelity may be more vulnerable to habitat degradation because they are reluctant to move to new areas. Conversely, animals with weak site fidelity may adapt more readily to changing conditions.

Practical Assessment: Measuring Strength in Working Animals

For farmers and animal handlers, assessing the strength of working animals requires practical methods that are safe and reliable. The following steps provide a framework for evaluating strength in cattle, horses, donkeys, and other working animals.

Step 1: Establish a baseline weight measurement. Accurate body weight is essential for calculating relative strength. Use a livestock scale when available, or estimate weight using heart-girth tape measurements calibrated for the species and breed.

Step 2: Assess pulling capacity under controlled conditions. Use a dynamometer or load cell attached to a harness to measure pulling force. Begin with light loads and increase gradually, monitoring the animal's gait, respiration, and willingness to pull. Stop the test if the animal shows signs of distress or refuses to pull.

Step 3: Document muscle condition scores. Use a standardized muscle condition scoring system to assess muscle mass over the back, ribs, and hindquarters. Record scores on a regular basis to track changes over time.

Step 4: Monitor work output over time. Keep records of the loads moved, distances traveled, and time required for each work session. Declining work output may indicate fatigue, illness, or inadequate nutrition.

Step 5: Compare individual animals within the herd. Relative strength comparisons between animals of similar size can identify individuals that are particularly strong or weak. This information is useful for matching animals to appropriate work tasks.

Step 6: Escalate to veterinary assessment when strength declines. A sudden or progressive decline in strength may indicate musculoskeletal injury, metabolic disease, or nutritional deficiency. Consult a veterinarian for a thorough examination and diagnostic testing.

Records and Measurements for Strength Monitoring

Maintaining accurate records is essential for tracking strength changes over time and identifying problems early. The following records are recommended for working animal operations.

Individual animal records should include identification number, breed, age, sex, body weight, and baseline strength measurements. Update these records at least quarterly or whenever significant changes occur.

Work performance logs should document each work session, including the date, task performed, load weight, distance, duration, and any observations about the animal's effort or behavior. These logs provide the data needed to detect trends in work capacity.

Health and nutrition records should track feed intake, body condition scores, veterinary treatments, and any injuries or illnesses. Strength is closely tied to nutrition and health, so these records are essential for interpreting strength measurements.

Environmental records should note temperature, humidity, and weather conditions during work sessions. Heat stress and other environmental factors can significantly affect work capacity and strength.

Comparison charts that plot strength measurements over time for each animal can reveal patterns that individual records may obscure. A decline in strength that coincides with a change in feed or a health event provides valuable diagnostic information.

Common Failure Patterns in Strength Assessment

Several common errors can undermine the accuracy and usefulness of strength assessment in working animals.

Confusing absolute and relative strength. An animal that is strong in absolute terms may be weak relative to its body weight, and vice versa. Always specify which measure is being used and interpret results accordingly.

Failing to account for body weight changes. Strength measurements are only meaningful when interpreted in the context of body weight. An animal that maintains its pulling capacity while losing weight is actually becoming relatively stronger, while an animal that gains weight while maintaining pulling capacity is becoming relatively weaker.

Using inconsistent measurement methods. Pulling force measurements are affected by harness type, ground conditions, and measurement equipment. Use the same equipment and procedures for all measurements to ensure comparability.

Ignoring behavioral indicators of fatigue. Animals may continue to pull loads even when fatigued, but their gait, posture, and willingness to work change. Pay attention to these behavioral indicators and stop work before the animal becomes exhausted.

Neglecting regular reassessment. Strength changes over time due to growth, aging, training, and health status. Regular reassessment is necessary to maintain accurate records and detect problems early.

Limitations of Strength Comparisons

Comparing strength across species is inherently limited by differences in body size, measurement methods, and the types of strength being assessed. The following limitations should be considered when interpreting strength comparisons.

Scaling effects complicate cross-species comparisons. Because muscle force scales with cross-sectional area while body weight scales with volume, relative strength tends to decrease with body size. This scaling relationship means that small animals will generally have higher relative strength than large animals, regardless of their specific adaptations.

Different strength types are not directly comparable. Lifting strength, pulling strength, biting force, and carrying capacity involve different muscle groups and mechanical systems. An animal that excels at one type of strength may be average or below average on another.

Measurement conditions vary across studies. Strength measurements are affected by the animal's motivation, training, health status, and environmental conditions. Studies that use different protocols may produce results that are not directly comparable.

Published strength values are often estimates. Many strength values in the popular literature are based on limited observations or extrapolations instead of controlled measurements. Treat published values with appropriate caution.

Strength is not the only determinant of performance. Endurance, agility, and behavioral traits also affect an animal's ability to perform work. A strong animal that tires quickly may be less useful than a moderately strong animal with greater endurance.

Welfare and Safety Considerations

Assessing animal strength carries welfare and safety implications that must be considered carefully.

Never push animals beyond their safe capacity. Strength testing and work assignments should always account for the animal's age, health status, and conditioning level. Overexertion can cause musculoskeletal injuries, heat stress, and behavioral problems.

Use appropriate equipment and techniques. Harnesses, yokes, and other equipment should be properly fitted and maintained to prevent injury. Use gradual loading protocols that allow the animal to warm up and adapt to the load.

Monitor for signs of distress. Rapid breathing, excessive sweating, stumbling, reluctance to move, and changes in behavior are all indicators that the animal is being pushed too hard. Stop work immediately if these signs appear.

Provide adequate recovery time. Working animals need sufficient rest between work sessions to recover from exertion and repair muscle damage. Inadequate recovery time leads to cumulative fatigue and increased injury risk.

Consult professionals for health concerns. Sudden or unexplained changes in strength may indicate underlying health problems that require veterinary attention. Do not attempt to diagnose or treat health conditions without professional guidance.

Strength and Body Composition in Health and Disease

The relationship between strength and body composition is relevant for both animal and human health. Research on GLP-1 medicines for weight loss has examined whether these treatments cause disproportionate loss of muscle mass. A 2026 study found that GLP-1 medicines predominantly reduce body fat alongside a small but significant decrease in lean body mass. While absolute muscle mass and strength decreased, relative muscle mass and strength improved, resulting in better running performance.

This finding has implications for understanding strength in any context. Absolute strength measurements can be misleading when body composition changes, because a decrease in absolute strength may be accompanied by an improvement in relative strength and functional performance. The same principle applies to working animals: an animal that loses weight may show decreased absolute strength but improved strength-to-weight ratio and better work efficiency.

The study also found that GLP-1 medicines had a distinct effect on the muscle proteome compared to calorie restriction, suggesting that different weight loss methods have different effects on muscle biology. This research underscores the complexity of the relationship between body composition, strength, and health.

Strength and Neural Control

Strength is not solely a function of muscle mass and architecture. The nervous system plays a critical role in force production by recruiting muscle fibers and coordinating their activation. Research on long-term potentiation has established that synaptic strength can increase with use, providing a cellular mechanism for learning and memory. The same principle applies to motor learning: repeated practice strengthens the neural pathways that control muscle activation, allowing for more efficient force production.

Studies of stimulus selection in the barn owl optic tectum have shown that the brain categorizes stimuli based on relative strength, with the category boundary shifting adaptively to track changes in the strongest stimulus. This neural mechanism for relative comparison may have parallels in motor control, where the nervous system must compare the forces produced by different muscles and adjust activation patterns accordingly.

For working animals, training is as important as raw muscle mass. A well-trained animal can produce more effective force than an untrained animal of the same size because its nervous system has learned to coordinate muscle activation efficiently. This is why consistent training and conditioning programs are essential for developing working animals.

Strength in the Context of Species Interactions

Strength plays a central role in species interactions, including predation, competition, and mutualism. Predators must be strong enough to subdue their prey, while prey animals must be strong enough to escape or defend themselves. Competition between species for resources often involves physical contests in which strength determines the outcome.

The species-energy relationship, which describes how environmental energy availability affects species richness, may also be related to strength. A 2005 study of British breeding birds found that the strength of the species-energy relationship depends on the energy metric used, with species richness more closely correlated with temperature than with vegetation productivity. While this study did not directly address animal strength, it illustrates how environmental factors shape the distribution and abundance of species.

For farmers and wildlife managers, understanding the role of strength in species interactions is important for predicting the effects of management interventions. Introducing or removing a strong species can have cascading effects on other species through changes in competition and predation dynamics.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Certain observations related to animal strength warrant professional consultation. The following criteria indicate when to seek veterinary or other professional advice.

Sudden loss of strength. A working animal that suddenly cannot perform tasks it previously handled may have a musculoskeletal injury, neurological problem, or metabolic disease. Consult a veterinarian promptly.

Progressive weakness over weeks or months. Gradual loss of strength may indicate chronic disease, nutritional deficiency, or age-related muscle loss. A veterinary examination can identify the underlying cause.

Asymmetrical weakness. Weakness that affects one side of the body or one limb more than others may indicate a neurological problem or localized injury. This pattern requires professional evaluation.

Strength loss accompanied by other signs. Weight loss, decreased appetite, fever, lameness, or behavioral changes that accompany strength loss suggest a systemic health problem. Veterinary consultation is recommended.

Strength loss in multiple animals. If several animals in a herd or flock show decreased strength, a common cause such as contaminated feed, infectious disease, or environmental toxin should be suspected. Professional investigation is warranted.

Strength loss during or after training. Animals that lose strength during a training program may be overworked or inadequately nourished. A review of the training program and consultation with a livestock specialist or veterinarian is recommended.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the strongest animal in the world in absolute terms?

The African elephant is the strongest land animal in absolute terms. A mature bull elephant can weigh up to 7,000 kilograms and can pull loads of approximately 9,000 kilograms. The elephant's strength comes from its massive muscle mass, powerful trunk, and skeletal structure adapted for force production. No other land animal can match the elephant's total force output.

What is the strongest animal relative to its body weight?

The dung beetle is the strongest animal relative to its body weight. Certain species can pull loads that are over 1,000 times their own body weight. This remarkable relative strength comes from the beetle's exoskeleton, efficient muscle architecture, and small body size, which gives it a favorable muscle cross-section to body weight ratio.

Why do small animals tend to be stronger relative to their body weight?

Muscle force is proportional to muscle cross-sectional area, which scales with the square of linear dimensions, while body weight scales with the cube of linear dimensions. As animals get larger, their weight increases faster than their muscle cross-sectional area, reducing their relative strength. Small animals like insects have a large muscle cross-section relative to their body mass, allowing them to lift or pull many times their own weight.

How is animal strength measured?

Animal strength is measured using dynamometers, load cells, or behavioral observations. Pulling force is measured by attaching a harness to a load cell and recording the maximum force the animal can exert. Lifting force can be measured similarly. Bite force is measured using specialized transducers. All measurements must account for the animal's body weight to calculate relative strength.

Is the gorilla stronger than the elephant?

No, the gorilla is not stronger than the elephant in absolute terms. A gorilla can lift an estimated 800 to 1,000 kilograms, while an elephant can pull approximately 9,000 kilograms. However, the gorilla has higher relative strength, lifting roughly four to seven times its body weight compared to the elephant's one to two times its body weight.

What is the deadliest animal in the world?

The deadliest animal in the world depends on the metric used. Mosquitoes are responsible for more human deaths per year than any other animal because they transmit diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and Zika virus. In terms of direct attacks, snakes, crocodiles, and hippopotamuses cause significant numbers of human deaths annually. The question of deadliness is separate from the question of strength.

Does strength affect animal behavior and ecology?

Yes, strength affects many aspects of animal behavior and ecology. Stronger animals can defend territories, win contests over mates, and access resources that weaker animals cannot. Strength also influences site fidelity, as stronger animals can return to preferred foraging sites and defend them from competitors. In working animals, strength determines the tasks they can perform and their economic value.

How can farmers assess the strength of their working animals?

Farmers can assess strength by measuring pulling capacity with a dynamometer or load cell, monitoring work output over time, and using muscle condition scoring systems. Regular records of body weight, work performance, and health status are essential for tracking strength changes and identifying problems early. Consult a veterinarian if strength declines suddenly or progressively.

Related Articles

• Animal Biology
• Animal Research
• Rna World Hypothesis
• Rna World Hypothesis
• Rna World Hypothesis

References and Further Reading

• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences.. Current biology : CB, 2006.
• An atlas of genetic determinants of forearm fracture.. Nature genetics, 2023.
• Flexible categorization of relative stimulus strength by the optic tectum.. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2011.
• Auditory Competition and Stimulus Selection across Spatial Locations from Midbrain to Forebrain in Barn Owls.. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2024.
• Drivers of site fidelity in ungulates.. The Journal of animal ecology, 2021.
• Long-term potentiation and learning.. Annual review of psychology, 1996.
• Transcriptional Interference Regulates the Evolutionary Development of Speech.. Genes, 2022.
• Dissecting the species-energy relationship.. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2005.
• Integration of resting-state and stimulus-fMRI uncovers reduced network flexibility in post-surgical pain.. 2026.
• Low Handgrip strength and its lifestyle and physiological correlates among Taiwanese University Students: A cross-sectional study.. 2026.
• Serum as a surrogate for salivary IgG: comparison of antigen-specific serum and salivary IgG in sheep.. 2026.
• Prediction of Maximum Amplitude With Citrated Rapid Thromboelastography Reaction Time in Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Study.. 2025.
• Building an auxiliary diagnostic and treatment efficacy prediction model for adolescent depression using machine learning based on electroencephalography technology.. 2026.
• Weight loss with GLP-1 medicines does not result in a disproportionate loss of muscle mass or function in obese mice and humans.. 2026.
• Mitochondrial Metabolic Biomarkers in Periodontitis: Discovery and Clinical Validation.. 2026.
• The Oxygen Imperative: Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Dose-Dependent Exercise Thresholds, and Longevity-A Narrative Review. 2026.
• Optimized bp Neural Network Based on Improved Dung Beetle Optimization Algorithm to Predict High-Performance Concrete Compressive Strength. Buildings, 2024.
• An enhanced dung beetle optimizer with multiple strategies for robot path planning. Scientific Reports, 2025.
• A multi-strategy enhanced dung beetle algorithm for solving real-world engineering problems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2025.
• Enhanced Dung Beetle Optimizer-Optimized KELM for Pile Bearing Capacity Prediction. Buildings, 2025.
• Investigation of biomechanical characteristics of novel chitosan from dung beetle and its application potential on stored tomato fruit. Journal of Food Measurement & Characterization, 2022.
• Paternal Relatedness Predicts the Strength of Social Bonds among Female Rhesus Macaques. Plos One, 2013.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.