Copromicroscopic study of gastrointestinal parasites in captive mammals at Central Zoo, Lalitpur, Nepal

Abstract

Background Zoological gardens (Zoo) provide abode to various threatened animals or trafficked animals seized by the authorities, and injured and orphaned animals. Captive animals are more susceptible to infection as they are under significant stress due to diet and space which further dwindle their resistance to parasitic infections. Objectives This study was conducted to determine the prevalence and burden of gastrointestinal parasites in captive mammals housed at Central Zoo. Methods Fresh faecal samples from three orders of mammals including carnivora ( n = 24), rodentia ( n = 28) and artiodactyla ( n = 35) were examined by direct smear, faecal floatation and sedimentation techniques, and the McMaster technique was applied to quantify parasite eggs per gram (EPG)/oocysts per gram (OPG) of a faecal sample. Results One or more parasite taxa were detected in 19.54% of the examined samples and five types of GIPs including one protozoon ( Eimeria spp.) and four helminths ( Strongyloides spp., Haemonchus spp. and Trichostrongylus spp. and hookworm) were recorded. The protozoan prevalence (6.89 %) was lower than helminths (12.64%). The Eimeria spp. was the most prevalent parasite (6.89%) with the highest OPG (427.77 ± 25.45SD) in spotted deer ( Axis axis) , and the highest prevalence was noticed among artiodactyla (34.28%) followed by carnivora (12.5%) and rodentia (7.14%). Artiodactyla had both single infection (25.71%) and double (8.57%) infection. The percentage of single infection (16.09%) was found to be higher than double infection (3.44%) among the captive mammals. The wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) had the highest EPG of 383.33 ± 76.37SD ( Strongyloides spp.), while the spotted deer had the lowest EPG of 216.66 ± 76.37SD (hookworm). Conclusions Despite careful management practices, the parasitic infection may be attributed to the narrow enclosure, group housing and environmental contamination. The present finding provides baseline information on the parasitic infection in captive mammals, and can be used by zoo managers for the better life of captive animals.

Parasitological examination results of zoo animals in Germany between 2012 and 2022

“…Amphibia can be infected by multiple species of Eimeria, Isospora and Goussia , and in Pisces several species of Eimeria and also Goussia may occur ( Schnieder 2006 ). However, in this study, coccidia were detected most frequently in the order Artiodactyla (34.6%) followed by Rodentia (10.5%), Marsupialia (9.4%) and Carnivora (8.1%) which is in accordance with Dhakal et al (2023) and Pérez Cordón et al (2008) who also found coccidia most prevalent in Artiodactyla at 34.28% and 31.8%, respectively. In our study, ruminants (Moschidae and Bovidae) were most frequently infected with coccidia.…”

“…It has been suggested that the simplicity of their lifecycle, as they do not need an intermediate host and some of them are immediately infective after excretion, contributes to a parasitic infection. Moreover, the high environmental tenacity of excreted stages, low infection doses and short prepatent periods make transmission very effective, especially in confined spaces ( Levecke et al, 2007 ; Dhakal et al, 2023 ). This may also be the case for the parasites found in this study, as the protozoans (e.g., coccidia , Cryptosporidium spp.)…”

Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in captive mammals at Khon Kaen Zoo, Thailand

“…The significant finding of a considerable range of GI parasitic infections (62.6% of animals infected) among captive mammals at Khon Kaen Zoo raises concerns. Comparable prevalence values have been reported from zoo populations in other countries, such as Nepal (19.5%) [ 33 ], Malaysia (56.3%) [ 34 ], and Bangladesh (60.5%) [ 35 ]. Higher prevalence has been reported in some cases, such as 68.3% in the Rio de Janeiro Zoo [ 36 ], 72.5% in Spain [ 5 ], and 71.8% and 74.2% in Brazil [ 37 , 38 ].…”

Wild Animals in Captivity: An Analysis of Parasite Biodiversity and Transmission among Animals at Two Zoological Institutions with Different Typologies

“…In other comparative studies between zoos [ 34 , 104 ], differences among centres were attributed to the type of facility, the possibility of herbivore grazing, and the frequency of faeces collection and cleaning. Other important factors include possible water or food contamination (animal carcasses for carnivores, grass and herbaceous material for herbivores) [ 37 , 113 , 114 ]. In the present study, control over water and food provided to the animals is similar in both zoos, so the differences in the observed results between them must have another origin.…”