Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Medicine and Science logoLink to Veterinary Medicine and Science
. 2023 Feb 6;9(3):1385–1394. doi: 10.1002/vms3.1093

Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in wild mammals of a safari park and a zoo in Bangladesh

Sabrina Ferdous 1,2, Joya Chowdhury 1,2, Tanjila Hasan 2, Pronesh Dutta 2, Md Mizanur Rahman 2, Mohammad Mahmudul Hassan 3, Md Rayhan Faruque 2, Mohammad Abdul Alim 4,✉
PMCID: PMC10188080  PMID: 36745465

Abstract

In safari parks and zoos, wild animals are kept mainly for recreational purposes. Animals in these enclosures are also crucial for the education, research, and conservation aspect. To ensure better management and good health of wild animals in captivity, it is essential to monitor the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) parasitic (helminths and protozoa) infections. The current investigation was undertaken to investigate the prevalence of GI parasitic infections in wild mammals at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh. A total of 72 individual faecal samples were collected from 25 species of wild mammals. Routine qualitative (e.g. direct smear, sedimentation, and flotation) and quantitative (e.g. McMaster technique) tests were performed to identify the eggs or oocysts of helminths and protozoa. Results demonstrated that wild mammals of both BSM safari park and CTG zoo were infected with a total of 17 genera/species of helminths and protozoa. The overall prevalence of GI parasitic infections in wild mammals of both zoological parks was 65.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53.14–76.12), whereas it was 72.4% (95% CI: 52.76–87.27) in the BSM safari park and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.41–75.02) in the CTG zoo. In both zoological parks, infection with nematodes was more frequent compared to other helminth into the wild mammals. The herbivores were more infected with GI parasites than carnivores and omnivores of both BSM safari park and CTG zoo. The mean eggs/oocysts per gram of faeces was the highest in the carnivores compared to herbivores and omnivores of both enclosures. The findings of the current study demonstrated that wild mammals of both BSM safari park and CTG zoo suffered from various GI parasitic infections. Regular monitoring along with proper therapeutic measures may reduce the severe consequences of GI parasitic infections in captive wild animals.

Keywords: Bangladesh, gastrointestinal parasitic infections, prevalence, safari park, wild mammals, zoo

The study provides scientific evidence that gastrointestinal helminth and protozoan infections are very common in wild mammals of BSM safari park and CTG zoos in Bangladesh. Monitoring of these infections is very important for ensuring the better health of the animals.

graphic file with name VMS3-9-1385-g004.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

Safari parks and zoos usually differ in their structure and principles. In these premises, wild animals are kept mainly for recreation and preservation of endangered species (Mir et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2014). In safari parks, wild animals are allowed to roam freely in their specific territories, having a resemblance to their natural habitats. On the contrary, in zoos, animals are generally kept in enclosures that are entirely different from their natural habitats (Da Silva Barbosa et al., 2019). When wild animals are brought from wild to captivity (e.g. safari parks, zoos), the biology of those animals is altered due to the sudden exposure to an unfavourable and stressful environment. This kind of alteration increases the susceptibility to various infectious diseases (e.g. viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitic), and among those, gastrointestinal (GI) parasitic (helminths and protozoa) infections are the most common in captive wild animals (Adeniyi et al., 2015; Carrera‐Játiva et al., 2018; Kolapo & Jegede, 2017; Moudgil et al., 2015). In the natural habitat, animals might have a natural resistance against parasitic infections because of an ecological balance with their parasites. Furthermore, wild animals are less exposed to parasitic infections due to free‐roaming in ample areas and low density of animals (Da Silva Barbosa et al., 2019; Mir et al., 2016; Moudgil et al., 2015; Thawait et al., 2014). However, these infections induce negative impacts on the status, behaviour, reproduction, and survival of wild animals (Kvapil et al., 2017; Thawait et al., 2014).

An understanding of GI parasitic infections in captivity is vital for their documentation as these animals were brought from different countries and also collected from the local or wild territories. Furthermore, it is essential to know the mode of transmission and zoonotic potentiality of existing parasites within the wild animals of zoos and safari parks. In Bangladesh, there are two safari parks and six zoos. Unfortunately, there is no such extensive documentation of parasitic infections of wild mammals in these parks and zoos. Only a few studies have been conducted in zoos (e.g. Rangpur zoo, Bangladesh national zoo) and in Dulahazra safari park to identify the GI parasitic infections (Hossain et al., 2021; Khatun et al., 2014; Rahman et al., 2014; Raja et al., 2014). Therefore, the current investigation was designed to study the occurrence of GI parasitic infections in wild mammals of the most popular Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Ethical approval

All procedures were reviewed and approved by zoo and safari park authorities before conducting the research. The samples in this study were opportunisticall y collected from the territories or cages of wild mammals. Non‐invasive method was used during the collection of faecal samples.

2.2. Study periods and sites

The study was conducted on wild mammals of BSM safari park, Gazipur and Chattogram (CTG) zoo, Chattogram district of Bangladesh, between September 2018 and March 2019. The BSM safari park was established in 2003 and is the largest safari park in Bangladesh. It comprises a total of 15,418,523 m2 of open natural and closed enclosures. There were a total of 220 animal species including birds, reptiles, and 25 species of wild mammals that roam freely in their specified territories (Table S1). Deworming was practiced twice a year with broad‐spectrum anthelmintic drugs on a rotation basis. On the other hand, the CTG zoo is the smallest zoo occupying an area of 242,812 m2. It was established in 1988 in the Chattogram district of the country and has become the most popular zoo in Bangladesh. There were about 300 animals belonging to 53 species, including 25 species of wild mammals. The zoo was consisted of both semi‐open and closed enclosures. Herbivores were kept in open‐top enclosures, and all carnivores were kept in closed enclosures (Table S2). Zoo enclosures were cleaned regularly, and anthelmintics were provided two to three times in a year. In both parks, carnivores were fed with beef or chicken, having a daybreak per week; omnivores were fed mainly with fruits, vegetables, beef, eggs, bread, so forth, whereas herbivorous animals were regularly provided with grass, cereal grains, vegetables, wheat bran, gram, so forth (Tables S1 and S2). Animals were monitored by the animal caretakers and treated by veterinarians.

2.3. Study animals, sample collection, and preservation

A total of 72 faecal samples were collected from 25 species of wild mammals of both safari park and zoo (Tables S1 and S2). Among those, 29 samples were collected from the wild mammals of the safari park (20 herbivores, seven carnivores, and two omnivores) and 43 from the zoo (22 herbivores, seven carnivores, and 14 omnivores). Approximately 5–10 g of individual faecal samples were collected from each animal species. Samples from carnivores and omnivores were collected in fresh condition, before cleaning the cages in the early morning. Samples from herbivores, housed in open‐natural (the BSM safari park) and open‐top (the CTG zoo) enclosures, were collected soon after the defecation. Immediately after collection, samples were placed in dry, clean, and labelled plastic sample containers and preserved with 10% formalin. All the samples were then transported to the parasitology laboratory of the department of pathology and parasitology of Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chattogram, Bangladesh. Samples were kept at 4°C until laboratory examination.

2.4. Examination of faecal samples

Faecal samples were homogenized, and undigested faecal materials were removed through straining. Direct smears were prepared by taking a drop of faecal suspension on a glass slide. For the test tube floatation technique, approximately 3 g of faeces was thoroughly mixed with 50 ml of flotation fluid (saturated salt solution). The resulting faecal suspension was poured through a strainer to remove coarse faecal materials. The filtrate was then poured into a test tube and kept stand‐still for 15 min after placing a coverslip on top of each test tube touching the convex meniscus. The coverslip was lifted off and immediately placed on a glass slide for examination. For the simple sedimentation technique, the faecal suspension was kept stand‐still for about 15 min, and a drop of sediment was examined after discarding the supernatant. The intensity of infections was determined using the McMaster technique (Soulsby, 1982; Urquhart, 1996). Briefly, 4 g of faeces was mixed thoroughly with 56 ml of saturated salt solution. Then, both chambers of the McMaster slide were filled with the diluted suspension and allowed to stand for 5 min before microscopic examination. The eggs and oocysts were then counted. The morphological features of the eggs of helminths and oocysts of protozoa were identified using the published literature (Arjun et al., 2017; Berentsen et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2014). Micrometry was performed to estimate the size of eggs and oocysts (Cable, 1950) (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Eggs and oocysts of helminths and protozoa of wild mammals of the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh.

2.5. Statistical analysis

The raw data were compiled, sorted in a spreadsheet using Microsoft Excel 2016, and then imported into STATA‐13® (STATA Crop, 4905, Lake Way Drive, College Station, TX, USA) to conduct data analysis. Descriptive analysis with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was performed to estimate the prevalence of parasitic infections in animals based on their categories. Egg/oocyst per gram (EPG/OPG) of faeces was expressed by mean ± standard errors of the mean (SE). A chi‐square test was performed to calculate the presence of parasitic infections with associated risk factors in animal species. Analysis of variance was carried out to compare the parasitic load in faecal samples of animals. Results were considered significant when p ≤ 0.05.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Overall prevalence of helminth and protozoan infections in animals of both BSM safari park and CTG zoo

The overall prevalence of GI parasitic infections (helminths and protozoa) was 65.3% (95% CI: 53.14–76.12, N = 72) in the wild mammals of both BSM safari park and CTG zoo. The overall helminths infections (91.5%; 95% CI: 79.62–97.63) prevailed over protozoan infections (17%; 95% CI: 7.65–30.81) in the wild mammals of the BSM safari park and the CTG zoo. Nematodes were the most prevalent helminths (76.6%; 95% CI: 61.97–87.7), followed by trematodes (19.2%) and cestodes (12.8%). Between the infection types, overall single (either of helminths or protozoa) infection (61.7%; 95% CI: 46.38–75.49) was higher than mixed (more than one helminths or protozoa) infections (38.3%; 95% CI: 24.51–53.62) in wild mammals of safari park and zoo (Figures 2 and 3).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Overall prevalence of helminth and protozoan infections in animals of the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and the Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Overall prevalence of helminth and protozoan infections in different animals groups of the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh.

3.2. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitic infections among the animal groups of both BSM safari park and CTG zoo

Among the animal groups, overall parasitic infections of helminths and protozoa were recorded highest in herbivores (78.6%; 95% CI: 63.19–89.7), followed by carnivores (50%; 95% CI: 23.04–76.96) and omnivores (43.7%; 95% CI: 19.75–70.12) (Table 1). The mixed infections of both helminths and protozoa were prominent in carnivores (71.5%; 95% CI: 29.04–96.33), whereas the single infection was predominant in omnivores (71.4%; 95% CI: 29.04–96.33). Among the identified parasites, helminths were more prevalent than the protozoa (p = 0.09) in all animal groups. The presence of protozoa was higher in carnivores (42.9%; 95% CI: 9.9–81.59), whereas helminths were higher in omnivores (100%; 95% CI: 59.04–100) (Table 1). Among the helminth parasites, nematodes (85.7%) and cestodes (42.9%, p = 0.007) were detected higher in carnivores than the other animal groups. Trematodes were detected only in herbivores (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Overall prevalence of helminth and protozoan infections in different animal groups of wild mammals of both Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh.

Carnivores (N = 14) Herbivores (N = 42) Omnivores (N = 16)
Variables Categories Prevalence (n) 95% CI Prevalence (n) 95% CI Prevalence (n) 95% CI p‐Value
Presence of parasites Yes 50 (7) 23.04–76.96 78.6 (33) 63.19–89.7 43.7 (7) 19.75–70.12 0.018
No 50 (7) 23.04–76.96 21.4 (9) 10.29–36.81 56.2 (9) 29.88–80.25
Types of infections Single 28.6 (2) 3.67–70.96 66.7 (22) 48.17–82.04 71.4 (5) 29.04–96.33 0.144
Mixed 71.4 (5) 29.04–96.33 33.3 (11) 17.96–51.83 28.6 (2) 3.67–70.96
Types of parasites Helminths 85.7 (6) 42.13–99.64 90.9 (30) 75.67–98.08 100 (7) 59.04–100 0.617
Protozoa 42.9 (3) 9.9–81.59 15.1 (5) 5.11–31.9 0 0–40.96 0.09
Types of helminths Cestodes 42.9 (3) 9.9–81.59 3 (1) 0.8–15.8 28.6 (2) 3.7–70.96 0.007
Nematodes 85.7 (6) 42.13–99.64 75.8 (25) 57.74–88.81 71.4 (5) 29.04–96.33 0.802
Trematodes 0 0–40.96 27.3 (9) 13.3–45.52 0 0–40.96 0.094
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

3.3. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in the BSM safari park and CTG zoo

Between the two study sites, the overall prevalenc of GI parasitic infections was higher in the BSM safari park (72.4%; 95% CI: 52.76–87.27) than the CTG zoo (60.5%; 95% CI: 44.41–75.02) (Table 2). Among the positive samples, the mixed infection was prominant in the BSM safari park (42.9%; 95% CI: 21.82–65.98) than the CTG zoo (34.6%). Helminths were detected comaparatively higher in the animals of the BSM safari park (95.2%; 95% CI: 76.18–99.88) than the animals of the CTG zoo (88.5%; 95% CI: 69.84–97.55) (Table 2), whereas the occurrence was opposite in the case of protozoa. Among the helminths, nematodes and cestodes were detected higher in the animals of the CTG zoo (80.8% vs. 15.4%) than the animals of the safari park (71.4% vs. 9.5%), whereas the occurrence of trematodes (42.9%) was found only in the BSM safari park (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Overall prevalence of helminth and protozoan infections in wild mammals of the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh.

BSM safari park (N = 29) CTG zoo (N = 43)
Variables Categories Prevalence (n) 95% CI Prevalence (n) 95% CI p‐Value
Presence of parasites Yes 72.4 (21) 52.76–87.27 60.5 (26) 44.41–75.02 0.296
No 27.6 (8) 12.73–47.24 39.5 (17) 24. 98–55.59
Types of infections Single 57.1 (12) 34.02–78.18 65.4 (17) 44.33–82.79 0.563
Mixed 42.9 (9) 21.82–65.98 34.6 (9) 17.21–55.67
Types of parasites Helminths 95.2 (20) 76.18–99.88 88.5 (23) 69.84–97.55 0.408
Protozoa 14.3 (3) 3.05–36.34 19.2 (5) 6.55–39.35 0.654
Types of helminths Cestodes 9.5 (2) 1.17–30.38 15.4 (4) 4.36–34.87 0.549
Nematodes 71.4 (15) 47.82–88.72 80.8 (21) 60.65–93.44 0.452
Trematodes 42.9 (9) 21.82–65.98 0 0–13.23 0.000
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

3.4. Prevalence of helminth and protozoan infections in wild mammals of the BSM safari park and CTG zoo

A total of 17 genera of helminths and protozoa were identified in the samples of wild mammals. Among the positive samples, Strongylus spp. (38.3%) was the most frequent parasites in herbivores, followed by Strongyloides spp. (23.4%), Fasciola spp. (17%), and Ancylostoma spp. (12.8%) (Table 3). Accroding to locations, the presence of Strongylus spp. was almost similar in the animals of the both zoological parks. Strongyloides spp., T. cati, and Toxascaris leolina were higher in mammals of the CTG zoo than the BSM safari park. The occurrence of Oesophagostomum spp. and Trichostrongylus spp. was found only in the animals of the BSM safari park, whereas Ancylostoma spp., Triodontophorus spp., and Trichuris spp. were found in the CTG zoo (Table 3). We also observed the presence of trematodes only in the animals of the BSM safari park where the occurrence of Fasciola spp. (38.1%) was notable than other trematodes (Table 3). Between the detected cestodes in wild animals, Spirometra spp. (15.4%) was the most frequent in the animals of the CTG zoo than the BSM safari park. Between the two identified protozoan parasites, Isospora spp. (14.3%) was detected only in the animals of the BSM safari park, whereas Eimeria spp. (19.2%) infection was recorded in the animals of CTG zoo (Table 3).

TABLE 3.

Prevalence of helminth and protozoan infections in wild mammals of the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib (BSM) safari park and Chattogram (CTG) zoo of Bangladesh.

Prevalence percentage (positive samples)
Helminths and protozoa Infected animal species BSM safari park (21) CTG zoo (26) Overall (47)
Cestodes
Spirometra spp. Fishing cat, leopard cat, lion, Bengal fox 4.8 (1) 15.4 (4) 10.6 (5)
Taenia spp. Wildebeest 4.8 (1) 0 2.1 (1)
Nematodes
Toxocara cati Lion, tiger, jungle cat, fishing cat 9.5 (2) 11.5 (3) 10.6 (5)
Toxascaris leolina Lion, jungle cat 4.8 (1) 7.7 (2) 6.4 (3)
Strongyloides spp. Large Indian civet jungle cat, blackbuck, wildebeest, zebra 19 (4) 26.9 (7) 23.4 (11)
Strongylus spp. Zebra, horse, pony, giraffe, elephant 38.1 (8) 38.5 (10) 38.3 (18)
Ancylostoma spp. Leopard cat, large Indian civet, gibbon, rhesus macaque 0 23.1 (6) 12.8 (6)
Triodontophorus spp. Zebra 0 3.8 (1) 2.1 (1)
Trichuris spp. Indian crested porcupine 0 7.7 (2) 4.3 (2)
Oesophagostomum spp. Giraffe 4.8 (1) 0 2.1 (1)
Trichostrongylus spp. Giraffe 9.5 (2) 0 4.3 (2)
Trematodes
Fasciola spp. Gayal, zebra, nyala, wildebeest, kangaroo, spotted deer 38.1 (8) 0 17 (8)
Paramphistomum spp. Gaur, blesbuk 9.5 (2) 0 4.3 (2)
Schistosoma spp. Wildebeest, nyala 9.5 (2) 0 4.3 (2)
Dicrocoelium spp. Wildebeest 4.8 (1) 0 2.1 (1)
Protozoa
Isospora spp. Tiger, lion 14.3 (3) 0 6.4 (3)
Eimeria spp. Indian crested porcupine, gayal 0 19.2 (5) 10.6 (5)
Open in a new tab

3.5. Gastrointestinal helminth and protozoan infections load in wild mammals of the BSM safari park and CTG zoo

The mean EPG/OPG was measured in animal groups though there were some single samples and the number of the positive cases was one or two. The mean EPG/OPG of GI parasites in the wild mammals of both BSM safari park and CTG zoo was not statistically significant (5385.7 ± 4741.4 and 5326.9 ± 3416.3, respectively) (Tables S3 and S4). The mean EPG/OPG was higher in carnivores (19,785.7 ± 13978.6) followed by herbivores (3124.2 ± 2588.46), and omnivores (1428.6 ± 620.9) (Tables S3 and S4). Between the locations, the mean EPG/OPG in herbivores was higher in the CTG zoo (6466.7 ± 21982.68) than the BSM safari park (338.9 ± 403.13), but it was completely opposite in the carnivores where it was higher in the animals of BSM safari park (35,666.7 ± 55,811.95) than in the animals of the CTG zoo (7875 ± 14751.58) (Tables S3 and S4).

4. DISCUSSION

Gastrointestinal (GI) parasitic infections have adverse effects on the survival of wild animals and their welfare. It is very important to monitor the GI parasitism (helminths and protozoa) to ensure a better management and good health of animals in captivity. The occurrence of GI parasitic infections has been reported in various zoos and national parks of the world (Lim et al., 2008; Mir et al., 2016; Maske et al., 1990; Opara et al., 2010; Parsani et al., 2001; Rahman et al., 2014; Raja et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2006; Thawait et al., 2014). The current investigation has documented the occurrence of GI parasitic infections in BSM safari park and CTG zoo. The overall prevalence of GI parasitic infections in wild mammals of safari park and zoo was consistent with previously published reports (Da Silva Barbosa et al., 2019; Kolapo & Jegede, 2017). Higher (71%–77%) (Cordón et al., 2008; Holsback et al., 2013; Opara et al., 2010; Rahman et al., 2014) and lower prevalences (40%–60%) (Chakraborty et al., 2016; Lim et al., 2008; Parsani et al., 2001; Thawait et al., 2014) of GI parasitic infections were also recorded in wild mammals in captivity. These differences might be due to the variations in geography, captivity conditions, feed and feeding management, sources of water, use of anthelmintics, and husbandry practices (Fagiolini et al., 2010). In the BSM safari park, most of the animals (e.g. herbivores) shared the same habitat, and it was hard to maintain the effective anthelmintic dose for each individual, and this leads to higher occurrence of GI parasites. In addition, active transmission may also takes place in wild or semi‐wild habitats, and regular cleaning and dung removal may not possible on a regular basis. Environmental contamination facilitates the transmission of different stages of parasites through contaminated water or fodder, and even mechanically with the zoo workers (Adetunji, 2014; Mir et al., 2016; Otegbade & Morenikeji, 2014).

Helminth infections were more common than protozoan infections in the animals of both study sites, which was consistent with the prior studies (Adeniyi et al., 2015; Lim et al., 2008; Mir et al., 2016; Opara et al., 2010; Rahman et al., 2014; Raja et al., 2014). This finding suggested that the nature of the life cycle of helminths facilitates their survival in the parks or zoos, contributing to more helminth infections. Higher helminth infections in safari parks than in the zoo might be due to the favourable climatic conditions that favour the transmission and survival of helminths in the areas (Rahman et al., 2014). In contrast, protozoan infections were higher in zoo animals, which can be explained by the favourable factors required for the completion of life cycle, lower infective doses, and ease of transmission in zoo environment (Cordón et al., 2008; Levecke et al., 2007). Among the helminths, the prevalence of infections with nematodes was higher than other types of helminths in both sites, and this was accordant with previous studies (Rahman et al., 2014; Shemshadi et al., 2015). Higher occurrence of infections caused by nematodes was because of their direct life cycle with no involvement of intermediate hosts and being able to be transmitted through contaminated feed, water, and soil (Mir et al., 2016). On the other hand, trematodes and most of the cestodes require at least one intermediate host to complete their life cycle and for potential transmission. This might be the reason for lower occurrence of trematodes and cestodes infections in all animal groups of both study sites (Atanaskova et al., 2011; Mir et al., 2016).

Of all nematodes, Strongylus spp. had a higher occurrence in herbivores, which was consistent with previous studies (Aviruppola et al., 2016; Garijo et al., 2004; Rahman et al., 2014). This could be explained by its proliferative life cycle and survival capacity in the harsh environment (Aviruppola et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2014). In both study sites, all the samples were collected from zebra, and horses were found infected by helminths, which indicated the active transmission of the parasite in grouped animals. Strongylus spp. have already been reported in most herbivores, for example, horses (Hinney et al., 2011; Umar et al., 2013; Uslu & Guclu, 2007), zebras (Fagiolini et al., 2010; Wambwa et al., 2004), giraffes (Nosal et al., 2016; Varadharajan & Pythal, 1999), and elephants (Fagiolini et al., 2010; Shahi & Gairhe, 2019; Varadharajan & Pythal, 1999). The presence of Strongyloides spp. in zebras, wildebeests, blackbucks, and blesbucks was also reported in previous studies (Mir et al., 2016; Varadharajan & Pythal, 1999). Oesophagostomum spp. and Trichostrongylus spp. were found in giraffes, and this was considered the first report from Bangladesh. Both parasites have been reported most commonly in ruminants and wild herbivores, which might get the infections through grazing in the same pasture along with other livestock of the safari park (Abuessailla et al., 2011; Farooq et al., 2012). Triodontophorus spp. in zebras were reported by prior studies, and these studies stated that the parasite has a higher prevalence in free‐ranging zebras (Wambwa et al., 2004). Trichuris spp. was found in captive porcupines and was not reported in Bangladesh before. The presence of Trichuris spp. in bristle‐spined porcupines was reported by Kuniy and Brasileiro (2006). Among carnivores, the presence of T. cati and T. leolina in jungle cats of the zoo and lions of both sites was consistent with previous studies (Acharjyo, 2004; Adeniyi et al., 2015; Fagiolini et al., 2010; Raja et al., 2014; Tabaripour et al., 2018). Carnivores usually get these infections through ingesting the intermediate hosts directly (Sepalage & Rajakaruna, 2020). Some literature indicated the co‐occurrence of both Toxocara spp. and T. leonina in canids and felids (Dalimi et al., 2006; Labarthe et al., 2004) and suggested that the occurrence is highly variable and depends on factors such as seasonal variability, age of an individual, climate change, and environmental conditions (Okulewicz et al., 2012). The presence of T. cati in fishing cats, Strongyloides spp. in jungle cats, and Ancylostoma spp. in leopard cats reported previously in several studies (Acharjyo, 2004; Moudgil et al., 2015). Ancylostoma spp. was also detected from gibbons, rhesus macaques, and from large Indian civets of the CTG zoo, and this was also reported by previous studies (Adedokun et al., 2002; Habtamu et al., 2017; Pourrut et al., 2011). Infections by Ancylostoma spp. may occur when infective larval stages are ingested directly by the host or through penetrating the skin (percutaneous route) while coming in direct contact with contaminated soil (Colon & Patton, 2012).

This study found a higher occurrence of Fasciola spp. infections in herbivores, which was consistent with previous studies (Khatun et al., 2014; Rahman et al., 2014). The occurrence of Fasciola spp. infections in the animals of the BSM safari park was suspected to be connected with the intermediate host (e.g. mud snails) that was observed near the water bodies. The herbivores that were infected by Fasciola spp. (e.g. nyalas, zebras, wildebeests, spotted deers, and gayals) shared the same habitats that might facilitate the cross‐transmission of parasites’ eggs. Trematodes found in gayals, blesbucks, nyalas, and wildebeests in our study were supported by findings of the previous studies (Boomker et al., 1991; Rahman et al., 2014). Two species of cestodes were identified, and all Spirometra spp. were more frequently identified from carnivores. Spirometra spp. in lions, jungle cats, and leopard cats in our study was consistent with the findings of previous studies (Berentsen et al., 2012; Khatun et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2008; Moudgil et al., 2015; Raja et al., 2014). Though there was no record of finding Spirometra spp. in Bengal foxes, Scioscia et al. (2014) reported the first finding of Spirometra erinacei in Pampas fox as a new definitive host.

Among the protozoa, Isospora spp. and Eimeria spp. infections were found in carnivores (lions and tigers) of the BSM safari park and herbivores (gayals and porcupines) of the CTG zoo. Isospora spp. in tigers and lions were reported by several prior studies (Berentsen et al., 2012; Bjork et al., 2000; Chauhan et al., 1973; Fagiolini et al., 2010; González et al., 2007; Mahali et al., 2010; Muraleedharan & Iswaraiah, 1984). Tigers or lions might get the infections by ingesting the infective oocysts from the environment or through an intermediate host that contains the infective tissue stage of the parasite (Colon & Patton, 2012).

Some of the helminths isolated from wild mammals such as Trichiuris spp., T. cati, Ancylostoma spp., Strongyloides spp., Fasciola spp., Schistosoma spp., and Taenia spp. are also important for public health (Mohd‐Shaharuddin et al., 2019; Youn, 2009). In human, Trichiuris spp. infect intestinal mucosa, and this leads to various symptoms such as bloody diarrhoea, typhlitis, and colitis (Cooper et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2018). Toxocara cati causes visceral larva migrans, ocular larva migrans, and covert toxocariasis, whereas Ancylostoma spp. causes cutaneous larva migrans (Marques et al., 2012; Overgaauw and van Knapen, 2013). Strongyloides spp. has also been reported for cutaneous, intestinal, pulmonary, or disseminated human infections (Fagiolini et al., 2010; Jaleta et al., 2017). Schistosoma spp. causes various diseases in humans including inflammatory and obstructive disease in the urinary system (Schistosoma haematobium) or liver fibrosis, hepatosplenic, and intestinal infections (Schistosoma mansoni and Schistosoma japonicum) (Colley et al., 2014; Gryseels et al., 2006; Kebede et al., 2020). In this study, we did not examine the samples from the animals caretakers which might determine and confirm the potential cross‐transmission of parasites to human population. This limitation could be addressed by future studies.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the scientific evidence that gastrointestinal helminths and protozoan infections are very common in wild mammals of the BSM safari park and CTG zoos in Bangladesh. Monitoring of these infections is very important for ensuring better health of animals. This is also important from public health aspects. As animal caretakers are in close contact with wild mammals, there are risks of cross‐transmission of infections. Furthermore, these animals may act as reservoir hosts for many of such zoonotic parasites which may ultimately result in active transmission to the human population. We recommend further detailed molecular and epidemiological investigation on the occurrence of parasitic infections in the animals of safari parks and zoos in Bangladesh with the identification of their associated risk factors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Investigation, methodology, formal analysis, resources visualization, writing–original draft, and writing–review and editing: Sabrina Ferdous. Investigation, methodology, and visualization: Joya Chowdhury. Investigation, methodology, and validation: Tanjia Hasan. Data curation, formal analysis, software, and validation: Pronesh Dutta. Data curation, formal analysis, software, validation, visualization, and writing–review and editing: Mohammad Mahmudul Hassan. Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, and supervision: Md. Mizanur Rahman. Data curation, formal analysis, software, validation, visualization, and writing–review and editing: Md. Rayhan Faruque. Conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing–original draft, and writing–review and editing: Md. Abdul Alim.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

All procedures were reviewed and approved by zoo and safari park authorities before conducting the research. The samples in this study were opportunistically collected from the territories or cages of wild mammals. No invasive method was used during the collection of feacal samples.

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/vms3.1093.

Supporting information

Table S1

Click here for additional data file. (39.2KB, docx)

Table S2

Click here for additional data file. (39.2KB, docx)

Table S3

Click here for additional data file. (39.7KB, docx)

Table S4

Click here for additional data file. (40.4KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Dr. Krisna Roy, Former Professor, Department of Pathology and Parasitology, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chattogram, Bangladesh; Dr. Md. Sahadat Hossain Suvo, Deputy Curator (in‐charge) of Chattogram Zoo of Chattogram district; Dr. Md. Nizam Uddin, Veterinary Surgeon of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib safari park of Gazipur district, Bangladesh, for their help and supports during this investigation. In addition, special thanks to Dr. D. S. Abdullah Al Maruf, Post‐doctoral Research assistant, Department of Head & Neck Surgery AND Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, NSW, Australia for helping in checking plagiarism.

Ferdous, S. , Chowdhury, J. , Hasan, T. , Dutta, P. , Rahman, M. M , Hassan, M. M. , Faruque, M. R , & Alim, M. A. (2023). Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in wild mammals of a safari park and a zoo in Bangladesh. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 9, 1385–1394. 10.1002/vms3.1093

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data files associating this research are available at https://figshare.com/s/1d0c620beeb2a0e38f97.

REFERENCES

  1. Abuessailla, A. A. , Ismail, A. A. , & Agab, H. M. (2011). Investigation of gastrointestinal parasites in wild and domestic animals in Radom National Park. South Darfur State. [Google Scholar]
  2. Acharjyo, L. N. (2004). Helminthiasis in captive wild carnivores and its control in India. Zoos’ Print Journal, 19(7), 1540–1543. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adedokun, O. A. , Adedokun, R. A. M. , Emikpe, B. O. , Ohore, O. G. , Oluwayelu, D. O. , & Ajayi, O. L. (2002). Concurent fatal helminthosis and balantidosis in red monkey (Erythrocebus patas) in Ibadan, Nigeria. Nigerian Veterinary Journal, 23(2), 56–59. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adeniyi, I. C. , Morenikeji, O. A. , & Emikpe, B. O. (2015). The prevalence of gastro‐intestinal parasites of carnivores in university zoological gardens in South West Nigeria. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health, 7(4), 135–139. [Google Scholar]
  5. Adetunji, V. E. (2014). Prevalence of gastro‐intestinal parasites in primates and their keepers from two zoological gardens in Ibadan, Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 12(2), 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arjun, M. S. , Ravindran, R. , Zachariah, A. , Ashokkumar, M. , Varghese, A. , Deepa, C. K. , & Chandy, G. (2017). Gastrointestinal parasites of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(8), 2502–2509. [Google Scholar]
  7. Atanaskova, E. , Kochevski, Z. , Stefanovska, J. , & Nikolovski, G. (2011). Endoparasites in wild animals at the zoological garden in Skopje, Macedonia. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 3(7), 1955–1958. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aviruppola, A. J. M. , Rajapakse, R. P. V. , & Rajakaruna, R. (2016). Coprological survey of gastrointestinal parasites of mammals in Dehiwala National Zoological Gardens, Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science, 45(1), 83–96. [Google Scholar]
  9. Berentsen, A. R. , Becker, M. S. , Stockdale‐Walden, H. , Matandiko, W. , McRobb, R. , & Dunbar, M. R. (2012). Survey of gastrointestinal parasite infection in African lion (Panthera leo), African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) and spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. African Zoology, 47(2), 363–368. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bjork, K. E. , Averbeck, G. A. , & Stromberg, B. E. (2000). Parasites and parasite stages of free‐ranging wild lions (Panthera leo) of northern Tanzania. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 31(1), 56–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boomker, J. , Horak, I. G. , & Flamand, J. R. (1991). Parasites of South African wildlife. XII. Helminths of nyala, Tragelaphus angasii, in Natal. The Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 58(4), 275–280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cable, R. M. (1950). An illustrated laboratory manual of parasitology. An illustrated laboratory manual of parasitology (revised edition). Burgess Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  13. Carrera‐Játiva, P. D. , Morgan, E. R. , Barrows, M. , & Wronski, T. (2018). Gastrointestinal parasites in captive and free‐ranging birds and potential cross‐transmission in a zoo environment. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 49(1), 116–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chakraborty, D. , Tiwari, S. , Reddy, D. M. , & Umapathy, G. (2016). Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in civets of fragmented rainforest patches in Anamalai Hills, Western Ghats, India. Journal of Parasitology, 102(4), 463–468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chauhan, P. P. S. , Bhatia, B. B. , Arora, G. S. , Agrawal, R. D. , & Ahluwalia, S. S. (1973). A preliminary survey of parasitic infections among mammals and birds at Lucknow and Delhi Zoos. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 43, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  16. Colley, D. G. , Bustinduy, A. L. , Secor, W. E. , & King, C. H. (2014). Human schistosomiasis. The Lancet, 383(9936), 2253–2264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Colon, C. P. , & Patton, S. (2012). Parasites of civets (Mammalia, Viverridae) in Sabah, Borneo: A coprological survey. Malayan Nature Journal, 64(2), 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooper, P. , Walker, A. W. , Reyes, J. , Chico, M. , Salter, S. J. , Vaca, M. , & Parkhill, J. (2013). Patent human infections with the whipworm, Trichuris trichiura, are not associated with alterations in the faecal microbiota. PLoS One, 8(10), e76573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cordón, G. P. , Prados, A. H. , Romero, D. , Moreno, M. S. , Pontes, A. , Osuna, A. , & Rosales, M. J. (2008). Intestinal parasitism in the animals of the zoological garden “Peña Escrita” (Almuñecar, Spain). Veterinary Parasitology, 156(3‐4), 302–309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. da Silva Barbosa, A. , Pinheiro, J. L. , Dos Santos, C. R. , de Lima, C. S. C. C. , Dib, L. V. , Echarte, G. V. , Augusto, A. M. , Bastos, A. C. M. P. , Uchôa, C. M. A. , & Bastos, O. M. P. (2019). Gastrointestinal parasites in captive animals at the Rio de Janeiro Zoo. Acta Parasitologica, 65, 237–249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dalimi, A. , Sattari, A. , & Motamedi, G. H. (2006). A study on intestinal helminthes of dogs, foxes and jackals in the western part of Iran, Veterinary Parasitology, 142(1–2), 129–133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fagiolini, M. , Lia Riccardo, P. , Laricchiuta, P. , Cavicchio, P. , Mannella, R. , Cafarchia, C. , Otranto, D. , Finotello, R. , & Perrucci, S. (2010). Gastrointestinal parasites in mammals of two Italian zoological gardens. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 41(4), 662–670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Farooq, Z. , Mushtaq, S. , Iqbal, Z. , & Akhtar, S. (2012). Parasitic helminths of domesticated and wild ruminants in Cholistan desert of Pakistan. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 14(1), 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  24. Garijo, M. M. , Ortiz, J. M. , & Ruiz de Ibanez, M. R. (2004). Helminths in a giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa) from a zoo in Spain: Research communication. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 71(2), 153–156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. González, P. , Carbonell, E. , Urios, V. , & Rozhnov, V. V. (2007). Coprology of Panthera tigris altaica and Felis bengalensis euptilurus from the Russian Far East. Journal of Parasitology, 93(4), 948–950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gryseels, B. , Polman, K. , Clerinx, J. , & Kestens, L. (2006). Human schistosomiasis. The Lancet, 368(9541), 1106–1118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Habtamu, T. , Bekele, A. , Mohammed, A. , Tolemariam, T. , Birlie, B. , & Belay, B. (2017). Parasites of wild and captive African Civets (Civettictis civetta) from Limmu, Southwestern Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences, 11, 194–201. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hinney, B. , Wirtherle, N. C. , Kyule, M. , Miethe, N. , Zessin, K.‐H. , & Clausen, P.‐H. (2011). Prevalence of helminths in horses in the state of Brandenburg, Germany. Parasitology Research, 108(5), 1083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Holsback, L. , Cardoso, M. J. L. , Fagnani, R. , & Patelli, T. H. C. (2013). Natural infection by endoparasites among free‐living wild animals. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária, 22(2), 302–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hossain, M. N. , Dey, A. R. , Begum, N. , & Thahsin, F. (2021). Parasitic infection in captive wild mammals and birds in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Safari Park, Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 13(3), 17889–17894. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jaleta, T. G. , Zhou, S. , Bemm, F. M. , Schär, F. , Khieu, V. , Muth, S. , Odermatt, P. , Lok, J. B. , & Streit, A. (2017). Different but overlapping populations of Strongyloides stercoralis in dogs and humans—Dogs as a possible source for zoonotic strongyloidiasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11(8), e0005752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kebede, T. , Bech, N. , Allienne, J.‐F. , Olivier, R. , Erko, B. , & Boissier, J. (2020). Genetic evidence for the role of non‐human primates as reservoir hosts for human schistosomiasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 14(9), e0008538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Khatun, M. M. , Begum, N. , Mamun, M. A. A. , Mondal, M. M. H. , & Azam, M. S. U. (2014). Coprological study of gastrointestinal parasites of captive animals at Rangpur Recreational Garden and Zoo in Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 6(8), 6142–6147. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kolapo, T. U. , & Jegede, O. H. (2017). A survey of gastrointestinal parasites of captive animals at the University of Ilorin zoological garden. Vom Journal of Veterinary Science, 12, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuniy, A. A. , & Brasileiro, M. T. R. (2006). Occurrence of helminths in bristle‐spined porcupine (Chaetomys subspinosus) (Olfers, 1818), Salvador, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 66(1B), 379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kvapil, P. , Kastelic, M. , Dovč, A. , Bártová, E. , Čížek, P. , Lima, N. , & Štrus, Š. (2017). An eight‐year survey of the intestinal parasites of carnivores, hoofed mammals, primates, ratites and reptiles in the Ljubljana zoo in Slovenia. Folia Parasitologica, 64, 1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Labarthe, N. , Serrão, M. L. , Ferreira, A. M. R. , Almeida, N. K. O. , & Guerrero, J. (2004). A survey of gastrointestinal helminths in cats of the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Veterinary Parasitology, 123(1–2), 133–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Levecke, B. , Dorny, P. , Geurden, T. , Vercammen, F. , & Vercruysse, J. (2007). Gastrointestinal protozoa in non‐human primates of four zoological gardens in Belgium. Veterinary Parasitology, 148(3‐4), 236–246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lim, Y. A. L. , Ngui, R. , Shukri, J. , Rohela, M. , & Naim, H. R. M. (2008). Intestinal parasites in various animals at a zoo in Malaysia. Veterinary Parasitology, 157(1–2), 154–159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mahali, A. K. , Panda, D. N. , Panda, M. R. , Mohanty, B. N. , & Sahoo, N. (2010). Incidence and seasonal variation of gastro‐intestinal parasitic infections in captive carnivores in Nandankanan zoological park Orissa. Journal of Veterinary Parasitology, 24(2), 111–115. [Google Scholar]
  41. Marques, J. P. , de Rezende Guimarães, C. , Boas, A. V. , Carnaúba, P. U. , & de Moraes, J. (2012). Contamination of public parks and squares from Guarulhos (São Paulo State, Brazil) by Toxocara spp. and Ancylostoma spp. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 54(5), 267–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Maske, D. K. , Sardey, M. R. , & Bhilegaonkar, N. G. (1990). Helminth parasites in zoo animals of Maharaj Bag, Nagpur, Maharashtra State. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 60(8), 277–278. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mir, A. Q. , Dua, K. , Singla, L. D. , Sharma, S. , & Singh, M. P. (2016). Prevalence of parasitic infection in captive wild animals in Bir Moti Bagh mini zoo (Deer Park), Patiala, Punjab. Veterinary World, 9(6), 540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mohd‐Shaharuddin, N. , Lim, Y. A. L. , Hassan, N.‐A. , Nathan, S. , & Ngui, R. (2019). Molecular characterization of Trichuris species isolated from humans, dogs and cats in a rural community in Peninsular Malaysia. Acta Tropica, 190, 269–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Moudgil, A. D. , Singla, L. D. , & Pallavi (2015). Parasitosis in wild felids of India: An overview. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 7(10), 7641–7648. [Google Scholar]
  46. Muraleedharan, K. , & Iswaraiah, V. (1984). Coccidial infection in tiger (P. tigris) cubs. Indian Journal of Parasitology, 8, 285–286. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nosal, P. , Kowal, J. , Kornas, S. , Wyrobisz, A. , Skotnicki, J. , Basiaga, M. , & Plucinska, N. E. (2016). Endoparasites of exotic ungulates from the Giraffidae and Camelidae families kept ex situ. Annals of Parasitology, 62(1), 67–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Okulewicz, A. , Perec‐Matysiak, A. , Buńkowska, K. , & Hildebrand, J. (2012). Toxocara canis, Toxocara cati and Toxascaris leonina in wild and domestic carnivores. Helminthologia, 49(1), 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  49. Opara, M. N. , Osuji, C. T. , & Opara, J. A. (2010). Gastrointestinal parasitism in captive animals at the zoological garden, Nekede Owerri, Southeast Nigeria. Ostrich, 1(1), 100. [Google Scholar]
  50. Otegbade, A. C. , & Morenikeji, O. A. (2014). Gastrointestinal parasites of birds in zoological gardens in south‐west Nigeria. Tropical Biomedicine, 31(1), 54–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Overgaauw, P. A. M. , & van Knapen, F. (2013). Veterinary and public health aspects of Toxocara spp. Veterinary Parasitology, 193(4), 398–403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Parsani, H. R. , Momin, R. R. , Maradia, M. G. , & Singh, V. (2001). A survey of gastrointestinal parasites of captive animals at Rajkot Municipal Corporation Zoo, Rajkot, Gujarat. Zoos’ Print Journal, 16(10), 604–606. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pourrut, X. , Diffo, J. L. D. , Somo, R. M. , Bilong Bilong, C. F. , Delaporte, E. , LeBreton, M. , & Gonzalez, J. P. (2011). Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in primate bushmeat and pets in Cameroon. Veterinary Parasitology, 175(1–2), 187–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rahman, S. M. , Dey, A. R. , Kundu, U. K. , & Begum, N. (2014). Investigation of gastrointestinal parasites of herbivores at Dhaka National Zoological Garden of Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, 12, 79–85., 79. [Google Scholar]
  55. Raja, M. , Dey, A. R. , Begum, N. , Kundu, U. K. , & Ashad, F. A. (2014). Coprological prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in carnivores and small mammals at Dhaka zoo, Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 6(3), 5574–5579. [Google Scholar]
  56. Scioscia, N. P. , Petrigh, R. S. , Beldomenico, P. M. , & Denegri, G. M. (2014). The Pampas fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus) as new definitive host for Spirometra erinacei (Cestoda: Diphyllobothriidae). Acta Tropica, 133, 78–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sepalage, C. S. , & Rajakaruna, R. S. (2020). Gastrointestinal helminth and protozoan infections of wild mammals in four major national parks in Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 12(15), 17093–17104. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shahi, M. K. , & Gairhe, K. P. (2019). Prevalence of helminths in wild Asian elephant and Indian rhinoceros in Chitwan and Bardia National Park, Nepal. Nepalese Veterinary Journal, 36, 60–74. [Google Scholar]
  59. Shemshadi, B. , Shahrokh, R.‐B. , & Siavash, J. (2015). Prevalence and intensity of intestinal helminths in carnivores and primates at Vakilabad Zoo in Mashhad, Iran. Comparative Clinical Pathology, 24(2), 387–391. [Google Scholar]
  60. Singh, P. , Gupta, M. P. , Singla, L. D. , Singh, N. , & Sharma, D. R. (2006). Prevalence and chemotherapy of gastrointestinal helminthic infections in wild carnivores in Mahendra Choudhury Zoological Park, Punjab. Journal of Veterinary Parasitology, 20(1), 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  61. Soulsby, E. J. L. (1982). Helminths, arthropods and protozoa of domesticated animals. Bailliere Tindall. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tabaripour, S. R. , Youssefi, M. R. , & Hosseini, S. M. (2018). Endoparasites of jungle cats (Felis chaus) and their pathologic lesions. Iranian Journal of Parasitology, 13(3), 480. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Thawait, V. K. , Maiti, S. K. , & Dixit, A. A. (2014). Prevalence of gastro‐intestinal parasites in captive wild animals of Nandan Van Zoo, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Veterinary World, 7(7), 448–451. [Google Scholar]
  64. Umar, Y. A. , Maikaje, D. B. , Garba, U. M. , & Alhassan, M. A. F. (2013). Prevalence of gastro‐intestinal parasites in horses used for cadets training in Nigeria. Journal of Advanced Veterinary, 3(2), 43–48. [Google Scholar]
  65. Urquhart, G. M. , Armour, J. , Duncan, J. L. , Dunn, A. M. , & Jennings, F. W. (1996). Veterinary parasitology. Blackwell Science. [Google Scholar]
  66. Uslu, U. , & Guclu, F. (2007). Prevalence of endoparasites in horses and donkeys in Turkey. Bulletin‐Veterinary Institute in Pulawy, 51(2), 237. [Google Scholar]
  67. Varadharajan, A. , & Pythal, C. (1999). Parasites of wildlife‐I. A preliminary investigation on the parasites of wild animals at the Zoological Garden, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. Zoos’ Print Journal, 14(12), 159–164. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wambwa, E. N. , Ogara, W. O. , & Mudakha, D. (2004). A comparative study of gastrointestinal parasites between ranched and free ranging Burchell's zebra (Equus burchelli antiquorum) in Isiolo district, Kenya. Journal of Veterinary Science, 5(3), 215–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Xie, Y. , Zhao, B. , Hoberg, E. P. , Li, M. , Zhou, X. , Gu, X. , Lai, W. , Peng, X. , & Yang, G. (2018). Genetic characterisation and phylogenetic status of whipworms (Trichuris spp.) from captive non‐human primates in China, determined by nuclear and mitochondrial sequencing. Parasites & Vectors, 11(1), 516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Youn, H. (2009). Review of zoonotic parasites in medical and veterinary fields in the Republic of Korea. The Korean Journal of Parasitology, 47(Suppl), S133–S141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1

Click here for additional data file. (39.2KB, docx)

Table S2

Click here for additional data file. (39.2KB, docx)

Table S3

Click here for additional data file. (39.7KB, docx)

Table S4

Click here for additional data file. (40.4KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data files associating this research are available at https://figshare.com/s/1d0c620beeb2a0e38f97.

Articles from Veterinary Medicine and Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES