Editing Moa (section)

===Diet===
Their diet has been deduced from [[fossil]]ised contents of their [[gizzard]]s<ref>Burrows, et al. (1981)</ref><ref name="autogenerated3">Wood (2007)</ref> and [[coprolite]]s,<ref>Horrocks, et al. (2004)</ref> as well as indirectly through morphological analysis of skull and beak, and [[Isotope analysis|stable isotope analysis]] of their bones.<ref name="WH" /> Moa fed on a range of plant species and plant parts, including fibrous twigs and leaves taken from low trees and shrubs. The beak of ''[[Pachyornis]] elephantopus'' was analogous to a pair of [[secateur]]s, and could clip the fibrous leaves of New Zealand flax (''[[Phormium]] tenax'') and twigs up to at least 8&nbsp;mm in diameter.<ref name="autogenerated3" />

Moa filled the [[ecological niche]] occupied in other countries by large browsing mammals such as [[antelope]] and [[llamas]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Ghosts of Gondwana: the history of life in New Zealand|last=Gibbs|first= George W.|date=2006|publisher=Craig Potton Pub|isbn=978-1877333484|location=Nelson, N.Z.|oclc=83611783}}</ref> Some biologists contend that a number of plant species evolved to avoid moa browsing.<ref name=":1" /> Divaricating plants such as ''[[Pennantia corymbosa]]'' (the kaikōmako), which have small leaves and a dense mesh of branches, and ''[[Pseudopanax crassifolius]]'' (the horoeka or lancewood), which has tough juvenile leaves, are possible examples of plants that evolved in such a way. Likewise, it has been suggested that [[heteroblasty]] might be a response to moa browsing.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fadzly|first1=N|last2=Jack|first2=C|last3=Schaefer|first3=HM|last4=Burns|first4=KC|title=Ontogenetic colour changes in an insular tree species: signalling to extinct browsing birds?|journal=New Phytologist|year=2009|volume=184|issue=2|pages=495–501|doi=10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02926.x|pmid=19674327|bibcode=2009NewPh.184..495F}}</ref>

Like many other birds, moa swallowed gizzard stones ([[gastrolith]]s), which were retained in their muscular [[gizzards]], providing a grinding action that allowed them to eat coarse plant material. This grinding action suggests that moa were not effective seed dispersers, with only the smallest seeds passing through their gut intact.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carpenter |first1=Joanna K. |last2=Wood |first2=Jamie R. |last3=Wilmshurst |first3=Janet M. |last4=Kelly |first4=Dave |date=2018-04-25 |title=An avian seed dispersal paradox: New Zealand's extinct megafaunal birds did not disperse large seeds |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |language=en |volume=285 |issue=1877 |pages=20180352 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2018.0352 |issn=0962-8452 |pmc=5936733 |pmid=29669903}}</ref> These stones were commonly smooth rounded quartz pebbles, but stones over {{convert|110|mm|in|0}} long have been found among preserved moa gizzard contents.<ref name="autogenerated3" /> ''Dinornis'' gizzards could often contain several kilograms of stones.<ref name="WH" /> Moa likely exercised a certain selectivity in the choice of gizzard stones and chose the hardest pebbles.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Smalley | first1 = I.J. | year = 1979 | title = Moas as rockhounds | journal = Nature | volume = 281 | issue = 5727| pages = 103–104 | doi = 10.1038/281103b0 | bibcode = 1979Natur.281..103S | s2cid = 33405428 }}</ref>