Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária / Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology logoLink to Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária / Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology
. 2025 Jun 13;34(2):e000825. doi: 10.1590/S1984-29612025030

Gastrointestinal parasites of captive and free-ranging wild animals in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul

Parasitos gastrointestinais de animais silvestres cativos e de vida livre do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul

Angela Maria da Silva 1,2, Jordana Toqueto 3, Nayara Carvalho 4, Dirceu Guilherme de Souza Ramos 5,6,7,*, Andréia Lima Tomé Melo 1
PMCID: PMC12164656  PMID: 40531704

Abstract

Wild animals are hosts for many species of parasites which act as opportunistic or primary agents of disease. This study investigated the presence of endoparasites in the gastrointestinal tracts of wild animals from the State of Mato Grosso do Sul in the Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, and Pantanal biomes. From October 2022 to June 2024, fecal samples were collected from wild animals at two locations: Wildlife Rehabilitation Center (CRAS) in Campo Grande and the Paragem Municipal Natural Park (PNMP) in Dourados. A total of 109 fecal samples were collected: 96 from CRAS and 13 from PNMP and techniques of flotation and sedimentation were used. The prevalence of parasitism was 51.04% and 23.07% in the captive and free-living animals, respectively. The parasites found were nematodes (Strongyloidea, Ancylostomatidae, Ascaridida, Ascaropsinae, Toxocara spp., Capillarinae, Trichuris spp., Ascaris suum, Oxyurida, and nematode larvae), cestodes (Dipylidium spp. and Spirometra spp.), trematodes (Paragonimus spp.), and protozoa (Entamoeba spp., Eimeria spp., Cystoisospora spp., and Coccidia). The highest prevalence was observed for helminths of the Strongyloidea and Ancylostomatidae, followed by Coccidia and Entamoeba spp.. We highlight the importance of such studies to better understand the circulation of etiological agents that may pose a risk to animal and human health.

Keywords: Wild animals, conservation, Helminths, Protozoa

Introduction

Wild animals are hosts for a wide variety of parasites that can act as opportunistic or primary agents of disease (Freitas et al., 2001, 2002; Godoy & Cubas, 2011). More than 120 parasitic diseases caused by arthropods, insects, helminths, and/or protozoa have been reported in wild, domestic, and human animals; some of these parasites are known for their impact on human health and the health of parasitized animals (CDC, 2024a). Despite considerable technological and scientific advances in veterinary medicine, parasitic diseases are still considered a serious health problem for animals and humans, especially zoonotic parasitic species (Joy et al., 2008).

Parasitism results from the presence of macro-and microparasites and constitutes one of the most serious problems in conservation veterinary medicine (Zapalski & Hubert, 2011). It also threatens carnivore populations, because parasites can actively act in the structuring of animal communities, affecting the relative abundance of different species in the same way that a predator can affect them. This justifies the inclusion of parasitism as a biotic force capable of determining the biodiversity of communities (Poulin, 1999).

In contrast, parasites can play a beneficial role in the ecosystem, generating a balance between host and parasite, and can be an indicator of the health of a location. The use of soil fauna as a bioindicator of soil quality is recent (Pulleman et al., 2012) and the environmental impact and evidence of environmental health through species that affect habitat changes by altering their numbers, physiology or chemical composition are being extensively studied (Sures, 2003). For example, helminths, which are parasites of terrestrial and aquatic organisms, are considered useful bioindicators because they are affected by both natural and anthropogenic environments (Vidal-Martínez et al., 2006).

Identifying feces in the environment of some rare animal species makes it difficult to observe them, and this, together with other factors such as the behavior of burying feces or defecating in water or on tree branches, represents a great challenge (Chame, 2003; Chame & Sianto, 2014) Even so, it is worth noting that feces are the most evident and easily recognizable sign (Liebenberg, 2014). Therefore, to obtain more information about the biological and pathological processes of parasitism, it is necessary to know, correctly identify and categorize the species of parasites (Vieira, 2011).

To obtain more information about the biological and pathological processes of parasitism, it is necessary to know, correctly identify, and categorize parasite species (Vieira, 2011). Given the importance of understanding the parasites that affect wild animals and the scarcity of studies on this subject, this study investigated the presence of endoparasites in the gastrointestinal tracts of captive and free-living animals in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul in the Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, and Pantanal biomes, thus generating relevant information about the parasitic ecology of the specimens sampled in this study.

Material and Methods

Study locations

Fecal samples were collected from two locations in Mato Grosso do Sul. Those from captive wild animals were collected at the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center (CRAS) (20°27’05”S and 54°33’54”W), located in Campo Grande, coming from 18 municipalities, while those from free-living animals were obtained from the Paragem Municipal Natural Park (22°15’21”S and 54°47’39”W) in the municipality of Dourados. The animals sampled at CRAS were rescued from various locations in the state, such as Dourados, Rio Verde, Campo Grande, Bataguassu, Rio Brilhante, Nova Andradina, Sidrolândia, Inocência, Aquidauana, São Gabriel do Oeste, Corguinho, Anastácio, Caarapó, Fátima do Sul, Jateí, Nova Alvorada do Sul, Bonito, and Corumbá.

Parasitological sampling and diagnosis

Samples were collected from the enclosure in which the animals were kept, in the morning before cleaning, and without handling the animals. The feces were visibly fresh, with a shiny and moist appearance. Priority was given to collection from the top of the fecal mass to avoid contact and contamination with the enclosure of the animals in captivity. For birds, samples were collected on the paper lining the floor of the cages.

For samples collected from free-living animals, the same collection criteria were adopted, focusing on fresh feces, with a moist and shiny appearance, and without contact with the animals. Samples collected from the environment were evaluated for their appearance and morphology to identify the host species, in addition to an analysis carried out by park biologists who identified the samples based on their knowledge of the species present in the park.

The collected samples were stored in collection tubes, identified, and kept in a refrigerated environment at an average temperature of 4 °C. Each sample was identified with a date and location record and sent in isothermal boxes on ice to the laboratory for analysis. Some captive animal enclosures contained more than one animal and a pool of fecal samples was collected.

From October 2022 to June 2024, 109 fecal samples were collected: 96 samples from animals from CRAS, Campo Grande, and 13 samples from free-living animals in the Paragem Municipal Natural Park, Dourados. The fecal samples were sent to the Veterinary Clinical Analysis Laboratory (HEMATHUS) in Dourados, where they were subjected to coproparasitological examination.

The coproparasitological techniques used were the Willis flotation (Willis, 1921) and the spontaneous sedimentation of Hoffman et al. (1934). Subsequently, a frosted microscope slide was positioned in direct contact with the liquid and the sample examined under a Nikon E200 optical microscope at 100x and 400x magnification. Morphological identification of parasites was performed as described by Foreyt (2001) and Zajac & Conboy (2011).

Data analysis

The data were processed using Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets and organized by collection number and identification, egg types, and life stage (larvae and adults) of the parasites. In addition, relative frequency calculations were performed for each parasitic form. To infer the levels of parasite infection, comparisons of the relative frequencies identified with those of other studies on both free-living and captive species were used.

Ethical and legal aspects

This study was granted environmental authorization for scientific research in Conservation Units by the Mato Grosso do Sul Environmental Institute, Imasul (process number 71041982/2022). As no vertebrate animals were manipulated, approval from the Animal Ethics Committee was not required.

Results

Coproparasitological examinations indicated that the occurrence of parasitism in the captive animals was 51.04% (49/96), whereas that in the free-living animals was 23.07% (3/13). The identified gastrointestinal nematodes were Ancylostomatidae, Ascaridida, Ascaropsinae, Capillarinae, Strongyloidea, Ascaris suum, Trichuris spp., Toxocara spp., and Oxyurida spp. The trematodes found belonged to the genus Paragonimus and other genera that could not be identified by coproparasitological examination alone. Cestodes, such as Dipylidium spp., Spirometra spp., and others, whose genera could not be identified using these coproparasitological examination methods, were identified.

The protozoa found included Entamoeba spp., Cystoisospora spp., Eimeria spp., and other Coccidia species (Tables 1 and 2). Five enclosures had more than one animal species, making it necessary to create a sample pool of the collected feces. It was not possible to identify which animal the excreta belonged to, as they did not defecate at the time of collection. The animals in the enclosures shared between different species were not present, and at the time of collection, pathological changes compatible with parasitic diseases were found in some analyses. Figure 1 shows the helminth eggs and protozoan oocysts identified in this study.

Table 1. Feces of captive animals collected at CRAS in Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, and results of coproparasitological analyses carried out between 2022 and 2024.

Hosts Parasites identified Positive/tested
Class Mammalia
ORDER ARTIODACTYLA
Dicotyles tajacu Strongyloideaa,b 3/5
Ascaris suum a 2/5
Ascaropsinaea 1/5
Coccidiab 1/5
Mazama gouazoubira Cestoda 1/3
ORDER CARNIVORA
Cerdocyon thous Toxocara spp. 1/4
Cystoisospora spp. 2/4
Capillarinaec 1/4
Strongyloideac 1/4
Trichuris spp.c 1/4
Chrysocyon brachyurus Ancylostomatidaed 1/1
Toxocara spp.d 1/1
Herpailurus yagouaroundi Ancylostomatidaee 1/2
Dipylidium spp.e 1/2
Toxocara spp.e 1/2
Cystoisospora spp.f 1/2
Strongyloideaf 1/2
Leopardus pardalis Ancylostomatidae 1/1
Leopardus tigrinus - -/2
Lycalopex vetulus Ancylostomatidae 1/1
Nasua nasua - -/2
Procyon cancrivorus Ascarididag 1/1
Cestodag 1/1
Coccidiag 1/1
Spirometra spp.g 1/1
Strongyloideag 1/1
Trichuris spp.g 1/1
Puma concolor Toxocara spp. 1/3
ORDER DIDELPHIMORPHIA
Didelphis albiventris Strongyloidea 1/3
ORDER PERISSODACTYLA
Tapirus terrestris Entamoeba spp. 1/3
Ascaropsinaeh 1/3
Strongyloideah 1/3
ORDER PILOSA
Myrmecophaga tridactyla Nematoda 1/1
ORDER PRIMATA
Alouatta caraya Ancylostomatidaei 1/4
Oxyuridai 1/4
Paragonimus spp. i 2/4
Callithrix penicillata - -/1
Sapajus spp. Oxyuridaj 1/5
Strongyloideaj 2/5
Coccidia 1/5
ORDER RODENTIA
Dasyprocta azarae Trematoda 1/2
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Strongyloidea 1/2
Coccidiak 1/2
Nematodak 1/2
SAMPLE POOL ENCLOSURE A
Leopardus pardalis Ancylostomatidae 1/1
Puma concolor Toxocara spp. 1/1
SAMPLE POOL ENCLOSURE B
Cerdocyon thous Ancylostomatidae 1/1
Lycalopex vetulus Toxocara spp. 1/1
Class Aves
ORDER COLUMBIFORMES
Zenaida auriculata - -/2
ORDER FALCONIFORMES
Caracara plancus - -/1
ORDER GALLIFORMES
Crax fasciolata - -/1
ORDER PASSERIFORMES
Cyanocompsa brissonii Entamoeba spp. 1/2
Oryzoborus angolensis Entamoeba spp. 1/6
Eimeria spp. 1/6
Coccidia 1/6
Oryzoborus maximiliani Entamoeba spp. 4/9
Cestoda 1/9
Paroaria coronata - -/1
Paroaria dominicana - -/1
Serinus canaria domestica Entamoeba spp. 1/1
Sicalis flaveola Eimeria spp. 1/2
ORDER PICIFORMES
Pteroglossus castanotis Eimeria spp. 1/3
Ramphastos toco Eimeria spp. 5/6
ORDER PSITTACIFORMES
Amazona aestiva - -/2
Ara ararauna Strongyloidea 1/5
Eimeria spp. 1/5
Psittacara leucophthalmus - -/2
Psittacula krameri - -/1
SAMPLE POOL ENCLOSURE C - -/1
Psittacara leucophthalmus
Nandayus nenday
SAMPLE POOL ENCLOSURE D
Psittacara leucophthalmus - -/1
Diopsittaca nobilis
Class Reptilia
ORDER SQUAMATA
Micrurus sp. - -/1
SAMPLE POOL ENCLOSURE E
Chelonoidis carbonaria - -/1
Chelonoidis denticulata
Open in a new tab

Equal superscript letters identify mixed infections.

Table 2. Feces of free-living animals collected in the Paragem Municipal Natural Park, in the municipality of Dourados, Mato Grosso do Sul, and results of coproparasitological analyses carried out between 2022 and 2024.

Hosts Parasites identified Positive/tested
Class Mammalia
ORDER CARNIVORA
Unidentified Canid - -/1
ORDER CHIROPTERA
Artibeus lituratus Coccidia 1/6
ORDER RODENTIA
Dasyprocta azarae - -/2
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Strongyloideaa 2/3
Coccidiaa 1/3
Class Reptilia
ORDER SQUAMATA
Salvator sp. - -/1
Open in a new tab

Equal superscript letters identify mixed infections.

Figure 1. Eggs and oocysts of gastrointestinal parasites in fecal samples from wild animals in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul (scale bar reference). (A) Paragonimus spp. egg (50µm), (B) Toxocara spp. egg (50µm), (C) Strongyloidea larvae egg (50µm), (D) Ascaropsinae egg (50µm), (E) Eimeria spp. oocyst (50µm), (F) Cestoda egg (50µm), (G) Ancylostomatidae egg (50µm), (H) Ascaris suum egg (50µm), (I) Cestoda egg (50µm), (J) Spirometra spp. egg (50µm), (K) Trichuris spp. egg (50µm), (L) Eggs of Trichuris spp. and Capillarinae (50µm).

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Oocysts of Eimeria spp. were identified in birds of the species Ramphastos toco Statius Müller, 1776, Ara ararauna Linnaeus, 1758, Pteroglossus castanotis Gould, 1834, Sicalis flaveola Linnaeus, 1766 and Oryzoborus angolensis Linnaeus, 1766. The highest prevalence of these parasites was observed in toucans (R. toco), with 83.33% of positive samples (5/6) for this species and 5.20% (5/96) of the total positive samples. Oocysts of Cystoisospora spp. were found in the carnivores Cerdocyon thous Linnaeus, 1766 and Herpailurus yagouaroundi Geoffroy, 1803. Entamoeba spp. were found in 8.33% (8/96) of the captive animals, mainly in some passerine birds and in a sample of Tapirus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758.

Eggs of the Strongyloidea superfamily were identified in 12.84% (14/109) of the analyzed samples; in 11.45% (11/96) of captive animals and 15.38% (2/13) of free-ranging animals samples. The positive animals were Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Linnaeus, 1766, Sapajus spp. Linnaeus, 1758, Didelphis albiventris Lund, 1840, Dicotyles tajacu Linnaeus, 1758, Artibeus lituratus Olfers, 1818, H. yagouaroundi, T. terrestris, C. thous, and A. ararauna.

In the present study, eggs compatible with cestodes of the genus Spirometra were found in Procyon cancrivorus Cuvier, 1798 (1.04%, 1/96). In addition, Dipylidium spp. eggs were identified in the fecal samples collected from H. yagouaroundi in captivity. Regarding trematodes, Paragonimus spp. eggs were identified in fecal samples from two Alouatta caraya Humboldt, 1812 (2/96).

Regarding parasites with zoonotic potential, a significant number of helminths and protozoa were identified that can affect humans, such as the trematode Paragonimus spp.; the cestodes Dipylidium spp. and Spirometra spp.; the coccidia Cystoisospora spp. and Entamoeba spp.; and the nematodes Toxocara spp., the Ancylostomatidae family, Trichuris spp., Capillarinae, A. suum, and the Strongyloidea family.

Discussion

The sampled wild animals belonged to the Cerrado, Atlantic Forest (Parque Natural Municipal do Paragem), and Pantanal biomes. The Cerrado and Pantanal are considered hotspots and rich and priority areas for global conservation (Myers et al., 2000). Factors such as intense crowding, space restrictions in captive animals, and confinement stress may have resulted in a higher incidence of parasitism in captive animals than in those living in the wild. Although the number of samples collected from free-ranging animals was small, the aforementioned factors should be considered. However, these findings are highly relevant considering that these animals do not receive any type of antiparasitic therapy, and infection secures the permanence and circulation of these parasites in the wild environment.

According to Dib et al. (2020), host identification can be done through taxonomic keys, molecular analysis and trichology. In this study, samples of free-living animals were collected from the environment and examined based on their appearance and morphology to identify hosts, although correct species determination was a limiting factor.

In the present study, 5.20% (5/96) of the samples were positive for Eimeria spp., with birds being the main host species. Like this study, Melo et al. (2022) found Eimeria oocysts in wild birds in captivity and in the wild at the Goiânia Zoo. Wild birds harbor a wide variety of parasites, the most frequent being protozoa from the coccidia group of the genera Eimeria and Isospora spp. (Santos et al., 2011). The protozoan Eimeria spp. are commonly found in the environment and can cause gastrointestinal disorders. Young animals are more prone to infection by this parasite (Peeters et al., 1984). Several factors contribute to the severity of the pathogenesis, such as the number of oocysts ingested, age of the host, presence and severity of other diseases, and nutritional status of the animal (Menezes, 2017). In high-density captive bird populations parasitic diseases are very common health problems (Barnes, 1986). Therefore, adequate management of enclosures and appropriate feeding and care with respect to overcrowding are fundamental for the control of eimeriosis in birds (Menezes, 2017). The high prevalence of Eimeria spp. in toco toucans in the investigation can be explained by the high population density in CRAS enclosures, which could have facilitated the spread of the protozoan.

Cystoisospora spp. oocysts were found in the carnivores C. thous and H. yagouaroundi which were under human care at CRAS. In another Wild Animal Screening Center (CETAS), located at the Zoo in Sapucaia do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Boll et al. (2017) found Isospora spp. in Passeriformes birds and Psittaciformes birds. Moreira et al. (2023) found oocysts of Cystoisospora spp. in feces of adult carnivorous mammals in two conservation institutions in the State of Goiás. Isosporiasis is a parasitic disease that affects several animal species and its pathogenicity depends on the animal's immune status (Peixoto et al., 2019). In the present study, no animal was showing symptoms of infection.

Entamoeba spp. were found in 8.33% (8/96) of the captive animals, mainly in some passerine birds and T. terrestris. These findings are similar to those of Prazeres et al. (2024) who demonstrated the presence of Entamoeba spp. cysts parasitizing captive exotic and wild birds in the Northeast region of Brazil. Species of the genus Entamoeba are morphologically similar and have adapted to live in the gastrointestinal tract of mammals and humans (Levine, 1985). Some enteric protozoa are known to have zoonotic potential, and humans are susceptible to infections by parasites that colonize the gastrointestinal tract (Thompson & Smith, 2011), such as the pathogenic amoeba E. histolytica, which is associated with intestinal and extraintestinal infections (CDC, 2019a). It is not yet known whether these species can cause infections in animals, but adequate sanitary control of the enclosures under the responsibility of the veterinary caretakers who work on site is very important.

Nematodes of the Strongyloidea family had the highest prevalence in this study; they were identified in 12.84% (14/109) of the analyzed samples. Sprenger et al. (2017) found that of the 110 fecal samples of birds and mammals from the State of Paraná, 65.5% (72/110) contained Strongyloidea eggs. In a study conducted at a zoo in Paraná, Snak et al. (2017) found that of 48 fecal samples of the genus Cebus Erxleben, 1777 (capuchin monkey), 37.5% (18/48) contained Strongyloidea eggs. In the current study, it was possible to classify these eggs only up to the family as described by Zajac & Conboy (2011) and Tavares et al. (2017). Barbosa et al. (2020) detected evolutionary forms of helminths in fecal material from non-human primates in Rio de Janeiro, compatible with the superfamily Ancylostomatoidea or superfamily Trichostrongyloidea/Strongyloidea. The difficulty in identifying parasites at the species level occurs due to the similarity between some eggs and oocysts, which can lead to the grouping of different parasites into a single species.

In the present study, eggs of the Ancylostomatidae family (hookworms) were identified in mammals as A. caraya, Puma concolor Linnaeus, 1771, H. yagouaroundi, Leopardus pardalis Linnaeus, 1758, Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger, 1815, C. thous and Lycalopex vetulus Lund, 1982 including the subfamilies Ancylostomatinae; their genera Ancylostoma and Uncinaria are known to cause hemorrhage in the gastrointestinal tract of carnivores (Foster et al., 2006). Moreira et al. (2023) reported the presence of Ancylostomatidae and Toxocara spp. in L. pardalis in the State of Santa Catarina, in 21 Leopardus wiendii Schinz, 1821 and 14 Leopardus tigrinus Schreber, 1775. Kusma et al. (2015) also found Ancylostomatidae in 61.9% (13/21) of L. wiendii and 28.5% (4/14) of L. tigrinus, reporting a high prevalence. Agents that cause hemorrhage, which occurs recurrently in animals, especially captive animals, may pose a risk to endangered animals and species conservation processes.

Trichuris spp. eggs were detected in P. cancrivorus and C. thous. Trichurids have been reported in several regions of the country, as observed by Müller et al. (2005), who collected fecal samples from felines at the Pomerode Municipal Zoo, Santa Catarina, and the Brusque Zoobotanical Ecological Park Foundation and found the presence of Trichuris spp. in 30.7% and 23.1% of the animals, respectively. Braga et al. (2010) identified Trichuris vulpis in maned wolves (C. brachyurus) in the Emas National Park in the state of Goiás. Dib et al. (2020) conducted an epidemiological survey of gastrointestinal parasites in fecal samples of carnivores and artiodactyls in Itatiaia National Park (PNI) in the states of Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro, and found Trichuris spp., among other parasites.

In research carried out in the State of Goiás with captive animals, Capillaria spp., were identified in wild birds in captivity and in the wild at the Goiânia Zoo (Melo et al., 2022). In this study, Capillarinae eggs were found in captive C. thous at CRAS. Kusma et al. (2015) also found Capillaria spp. eggs in wild felines in Santa Catarina.

Some species of parasites are geohelminths, such as Strongyloidea, Ancylostomatidae, Trichuris spp., Toxocara spp. and Ascaris suum, normally found in soil. Sometimes the presence of these parasites in the feces of captive animals may be related to the collected environment and do not necessarily cause infection in the hosts (Barbosa et al., 2020). Snak et al. (2017) analyzed the frequency of parasites in wild mammals at the Cascavel Municipal Zoo, Paraná, also finding Ancylostoma spp., Toxocara spp. and Trichuris spp., as in this study. Toxocara spp. can be transmitted by paratenic hosts in wild environments (Carvalho & Rocha, 2011). In studies based on coproparasitological analyses of wild felines and other captive animals, Toxocara spp. were present in the samples studied (Silva et al., 2021; Uribe et al., 2021). The importance of these findings in the present study lies in the fact that toxocariasis is a zoonosis that occurs through the accidental ingestion of embryonated eggs from the soil, together with the feces of natural hosts, and can cause a variety of conditions from allergies to liver and lung damage (Campos et al., 2003). The presence of these geohelminths was identified in felines and canines assisted by CRAS. It is likely that the infections were acquired while the animals were still in the wild, suggesting the active circulation of these parasitic agents within their respective biomes.

Another highlight of parasites of zoonotic importance is the eggs of A. suum which were identified in two samples of D. tajacu (2/5). This is one of the most common parasitic diseases in pig husbandry worldwide (Roepstorff & Murrell, 1997). As reported by Castro et al. (2002), the presence of this parasite has already been detected in wild pigs in the Pantanal, indicating the risk of transmission to other pig species.

Species of the genus Spirometra were detected in a sample of P. cancrivorus. These are Diphyllobothriidae tapeworms with complex life cycles, with adult stages parasitizing the intestines of canines and felines, and can affect humans (Mueller, 1974). Dib et al. (2019) analyzed 213 fecal samples of free-living carnivores from Itatiaia National Park, Rio de Janeiro, and 52 (24.4%) tested positive for Spirometra spp. eggs. In humans, Spirometra spp. cause sparaganosis, an infection caused by the larvae of the parasite, which migrate to the muscles, subcutaneous tissue, and brain, forming masses that can cause neurological signs. Infection can occur through ingestion of Spirometra spp. eggs by copepods or contaminated intermediate hosts (Yang et al., 2022). The positive sample in this study was from an animal of the species P. cancrivorus that had coinfections and was recently rescued from Bonito, MS, a region with many rivers and tourist attractions.

Dipylidium spp. eggs were identified in fecal samples collected from a captive H. yagouaroundi. Gravid proglottids are excreted intact in the feces or may actively migrate from the perianal region of the host (CDC, 2019b). In most cases, the material eliminated in the feces consists predominantly of proglottids and not directly of eggs. Therefore, diagnosis by means of microscopic coproparasitological techniques may underestimate the real prevalence of the parasite, and also, due to the similarity of the eggs with other tapeworms (Luzio et al., 2015). However, studies with parasites identified by necropsy (the most sensitive technique for prevalence studies) in the same biomes reveal a low occurrence of the parasite in both domestic and wild felines (Ramos et al., 2013; Moraes et al., 2024), while in domestic canids (primary hosts) it is significantly higher (Ramos et al., 2015). It is the most common tapeworm in dogs and can also affect felines and humans through infected fleas (Yasuda et al., 1968). It causes dipylidiosis in humans, with a higher incidence in children who are generally asymptomatic (Santos, 2017). As this is a zoonosis, sanitary precautions must be taken to avoid infection, albeit of low clinical severity. One of the methods of controlling dipylidiosis in animals is to control intermediate hosts, using ectoparasiticides if necessary (ESCCAP, 2019).

Paragonimus spp. were also found in this study, parasitizing two A. caraya. Its definitive natural hosts include a wide range of wild carnivorous and omnivorous mammals including monkeys (Doanh et al., 2016). According to the CDC (2024b), more than 30 species have been reported in humans and animals and are found in the Americas, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Paragonimiasis is a zoonotic disease that causes lesions in the lungs of the host (Blair et al., 2007). Kusma et al. (2015) found eggs of Paragonimus spp. in the fecal samples of wild felines in the Flona de Três Barras in Santa Catarina. They also reported the presence of eggs of Spirometra spp., eggs of Ancylostomatidae and Trichuris spp., similar to the present study. The animals positive for Paragonimus spp. were Black Howler Monkey from the municipalities of Dourados and Campo Grande, MS, located in different enclosures at the time of sample collection.

Conclusions

The occurrence of parasitic infections was significant, notably for parasites with zoonotic potential, such as the trematodes Paragonimus spp., cestodes Dipylidium spp., Spirometra spp., Entamoeba spp., and some nematodes. The nematodes Strongyloidea and Ancylostomatidae were identified in greater numbers.

Captive animals exhibited a higher prevalence of parasites than free-living animals. This higher prevalence may be due to the larger number of animals sampled, stress factors, and high population density in the enclosures of captive an imals. The spontaneous sedimentation technique that detects heavier parasite eggs showed the highest prevalence of eggs and oocysts in this study. Based on these results, we emphasize the importance of similar studies to better understand the circulation of etiological agents that may pose a risk to animal and human health.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (FAPEG) grant number EQU2023101000018.

Funding Statement

We thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (FAPEG) grant number EQU2023101000018.

Footnotes

How to cite:

Silva AM, Toqueto J, Carvalho NF, Ramos DGS, Melo ALT. Gastrointestinal parasites of captive and free-ranging wild animals in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul. Braz J Vet Parasitol 2025; 34(2): e000825. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-29612025030

Ethics declaration: This work was submitted to the Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals at the University of Cuiabá (CEUA/UNIC) which, understanding that it did not involve the direct use of animals, issued a “Declaration and Term of Knowledge”, which states that there is no type of impediment to its completion.

References

  1. Barbosa AS, Pinheiro JL, Santos CR, Lima CSCC, Dib LV, Echarte GV, et al. Gastrointestinal parasites in captive animals at the Rio de Janeiro Zoo. Acta Parasitol. 2020;65(1):237–249. doi: 10.2478/s11686-019-00145-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes HJ. In: Clinical avian medicine and surgery. Harrison GJ, Harrison LR, editors. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1986. Parasites. pp. 472–485. [Google Scholar]
  3. Blair D, Agatsuma T, Wang WL. In: World class parasites. Murrell KD, Fried B, editors. Vol. 11. New York: Springer; 2007. Paragonimiasis; pp. 117–150. [Google Scholar]
  4. Boll AS, Marques SMT, Alievi MM. Parasitas em Passeriformes e Psittaciformes alojados em centro de triagem no Zoológico em Sapucaia do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Rev Port Ciênc Vet. 2017;112(603-604):28–34. [Google Scholar]
  5. Braga RT, Vynne C, Loyola ED. Fauna parasitária intestinal de Chrysocyon brachyurus (lobo-guará) no Parque Nacional das Emas. Bioikos (Campinas) 2010;24(1):49–55. [Google Scholar]
  6. Campos D, Jr, Elefant GR, Silva EOM, Gandolfi L, Jacob CMA, Tofeti A, et al. Freqüência de soropositividade para antígenos de Toxocara canis em crianças de classes sociais diferentes. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2003;36(4):509–513. doi: 10.1590/S0037-86822003000400013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carvalho EAA, Rocha RL. Toxocariasis: visceral larva migrans in children. J Pediatr. 2011;87(2):100–110. doi: 10.1590/S0021-75572011000200004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Castro STR, Albuquerque MSM, Germano JL. Census of Brazilian naturalized swine breeds. Arch Zootec. 2002;51:235–239. [Google Scholar]
  9. CDC Entamoeba histolytica. 2019. [cited 2024 Jul 30]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. online. a. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/amebiasis/
  10. CDC Dipylidium caninum. 2019. [cited 2025 Apr 13]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. online. b. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/dipylidium/
  11. CDC Parasites. 2024. [cited 2024 Aug 10]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. online. a. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/
  12. CDC Paragonimiasis. 2024. [cited 2024 Sep 8]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. online. b. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/paragonimiasis/index.html .
  13. Chame M, Sianto L. In: Foundations of paleoparasitology. Ferreira LF, Reinhard KJ, Araújo A, editors. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FIOCRUZ; 2014. Coprolite diagnosis, or who made the coprolite? pp. 255–272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chame M. Terrestrial mammal feces: a morphometric summary and description. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2003;98(Suppl 1):71–94. doi: 10.1590/S0074-02762003000900014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dib LV, Palmer JPS, Class CSC, Pinheiro JL, Ramos RCF, Santos CR, et al. Non-invasive sampling in Itatiaia National Park, Brazil: wild mammal parasite detection. BMC Vet Res. 2020;16(1):295. doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02490-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dib LV, Palmer JPS, Lima CSCC, Ramos RCF, Bastos OMP, Uchôa CMA, et al. Comparison of four parasitological techniques for laboratory diagnosis of eggs from Spirometra spp. in wild mammal fecal Samples. Acta Parasitol. 2019;64(4):942–949. doi: 10.2478/s11686-019-00120-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Doanh PN, Hien HV, Tu LA, Nonaka N, Horii Y, Nawa Y. Molecular identification of the trematode Paragonimus in faecal samples from the wild cat Prionailurus bengalensis in the Da Krong Nature Reserve, Vietnam. J Helminthol. 2016;90(6):658–662. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X15000838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. ESCCAP Control of ectoparasites in dogs and cats. 2019. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. European Scientifc Counsel Companion Animal Parasites. online. Available from: https://www.esccap.org/uploads/docs/cgqtqpf1_0720_ESCCAP_GL3__English_v19_1p.pdf .
  19. Foreyt WJ. Veterinary parasitology reference manual. Ames: Iowa State University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  20. Foster GW, Cunningham MW, Kinsella JM, McLaughlin G, Forrester DJ. Gastrointestinal helminths of free-ranging Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi) and the efficacy of the current anthelmintic treatment protocol. J Wildl Dis. 2006;42(2):402–406. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-42.2.402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Freitas MFL, Oliveira JB, Cavalcanti MDB, Leite AS, Magalhães VS, Oliveira RA, et al. Parásitos gastrointestinales de aves silvestres en cautiverio en el estado de Pernambuco, Brasil. Parasitol Latinoam. 2002;57(1-2):50–54. doi: 10.4067/S0717-77122002000100012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Freitas MFL, Oliveira JB, Cavalcanti MDB, Oliveira RA, Evêncio A., Sobrinho Perfil coproparasitológico de mamíferos silvestres en cautiverio en el Estado de Pernambuco, Brasil. Parasitol Día. 2001;25(3-4):121–125. doi: 10.4067/S0716-07202001000300009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Godoy SN, Cubas ZS. Doenças virais e parasitárias em Psittaciformes: uma revisão. Clín Vet. 2011;90:32–44. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoffman WA, Pons JA, Janer JL. The sedimentation concentration method in schistosomiasis mansoni. PR J Public Health Trop Med. 1934;9(3):283–291. [Google Scholar]
  25. Joy R, Druyts EF, Brandson EK, Lima VD, Rustad CA, Zhang W, et al. Impact of neighborhood-level socioeconomic status on HIV disease progression in a universal health care setting. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;47(4):500–505. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181648dfd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kusma SC, Wrublewski DM, Teixeira VN, Holdefer DR. Parasitos intestinais de Leopardus wiedii e Leopardus tigrinus (Felidae) da Floresta Nacional de Três Barras, SC. Luminária. 2015;17(1):82–95. doi: 10.33871/23594373.2015.17.01.520. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Levine ND. Veterinary protozoology. Ames: Iowa State University Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liebenberg L. Photographic guide to tracks and tracking in Southern Africa. Milnerton: Penguin Random House South Africa; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. Luzio Á, Belmar P, Troncoso I, Luzio P, Jara A, Fernández Í. Formas parasitarias de importancia zoonótica, encontradas en heces de perros recolectadas desde plazas y parques públicos de la ciudad de Los Ángeles, Región del Bío Bío, Chile. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2015;32(4):403–407. doi: 10.4067/S0716-10182015000500006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Melo YJO, Ferraz HT, Saturnino KC, Silva TDP, Braga IA, Amaral AVC, et al. Gastrointestinal parasites in captive and free-living wild birds in Goiania Zoo. Braz J Biol. 2022;82:e240386. doi: 10.1590/1519-6984.240386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Menezes RCAA. In: Parasitologia na medicina veterinária. Monteiro SG, editor. Rio de Janeiro: Roca; 2017. Coccídios. pp. 277–282. [Google Scholar]
  32. Moraes IS, Silva VLB, Andrade-Silva BE, Gomes APN, Urzedo NF, Abolis VB, et al. Gastrointestinal Helminths in Wild Felids in the Cerrado and Pantanal: zoonotic bioindicators in important Brazilian Biomes. Animals. 2024;14(11):1622. doi: 10.3390/ani14111622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Moreira RMP, Aires CG, Alves-Sobrinho AV, Moraes IS, Moreira CN, Amaral AVC, et al. Gastrointestinal parasites of wild carnivores from conservation institutions in the Cerrado of Goiás, Brazil. Rev Bras Vet Parasitol. 2023;32(3):e004823. doi: 10.1590/S1984-29612023028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mueller JF. The biology of Spirometra. J Parasitol. 1974;60(1):3–14. doi: 10.2307/3278670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Müller GCK, Greinert JA, Silva HH., Filho Freqüência de parasitas intestinais em felinos mantidos em zoológicos. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. 2005;57(4):559–561. doi: 10.1590/S0102-09352005000400021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403(6772):853–858. doi: 10.1038/35002501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Peeters JE, Charlier G, Antoine O, Mammerickx M. Clinical and pathological changes after Eimeria intestinalis infection in rabbits. Zentralbl Veterinärmed B. 1984;31(1-10):9–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0450.1984.tb01275.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Peixoto TKF, Patrício IDF, Almeidas BV, Araújo VM, Jr, Viana IL, Borges JA, Fo, et al. Isosporose em felino: relato de caso. Rev Cient Elet Med Vet. 2019;16(32):1–5. [Google Scholar]
  39. Poulin R. The functional importance of parasites in animal communities: many roles at many levels? Int J Parasitol. 1999;29(6):903–914. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7519(99)00045-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Prazeres FR, Jr, Alves AM, Neto MBO, Oliveira MR, Silva WSI, Jesus JV, et al. Survey on helminths and protozoa of captive wild and exotic birds from Northeastern Brazil. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. 2024;76(3):e13083. doi: 10.1590/1678-4162-13083. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pulleman M, Creamer R, Hamer U, Helder J, Pelosi C, Pérès G, et al. Soil biodiversity, biological indicators and soil ecosystem services: an overview of European approaches. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2012;4(5):529–538. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ramos DGS, Scheremeta RGAC, Oliveira ACS, Sinkoc AL, Pacheco RC. Survey of helminth parasites of cats from the metropolitan area of Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22(2):201–206. doi: 10.1590/S1984-29612013000200040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ramos DGS, Zocco BKA, Torres MM, Braga IA, Pacheco RC, Sinkoc AL. Helminths parasites of stray dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) from Cuiabá, Midwestern of Brazil. Semina: Ciênc Agrár. 2015;36(2):889–894. doi: 10.5433/1679-0359.2015v36n2p889. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Roepstorff A, Murrell KD. Transmission dynamics of helminth parasites of pigs on continuous pasture: ascaris suum and Trichuris suis. Int J Parasitol. 1997;27(5):563–572. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7519(97)00022-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Santos HT. In: Parasitologia na medicina veterinária. Monteiro SG, editor. Rio de Janeiro: Roca; 2017. Classe Cestoda. pp. 355–392. [Google Scholar]
  46. Santos T, Oliveira JB, Vaughan C, Santiago H. Health of an ex situ population of raptors (Falconiformes and Strigiformes) in Mexico: diagnosis of internal parasites. Rev Biol Trop. 2011;59(3):1265–1274. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Silva ACS, Paschoal ATP, Bernardes JC, Matos AMRN, Balbino LS, Santomauro RA, et al. Parasites in road-killed wild felines from North of Paraná state, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2021;30(1):e016320. doi: 10.1590/s1984-296120201090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Snak A, Agostini KM, Lenzi PF, Montanucci CR, Delgado LE, Zabott MV. Perfil parasitológico de mamíferos silvestres cativos. Vet Zootec. 2017;24(1):193–200. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sprenger LK, Yoshitani UY, Buzatti A, Molento MB. Occurrence of gastrointestinal parasites in wild animals in State of Paraná, Brazil. An Acad Bras Ciênc. 2017;90(1):231–238. doi: 10.1590/0001-3765201720150030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sures B. Accumulation of heavy metals by intestinal helminths in fish: an overview and perspective. Parasitology. 2003;126(7) Suppl:S53–60. doi: 10.1017/S003118200300372X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Tavares LER, Campião KM, Costa-Pereira R, Paiva F. Helmintos endoparasitos de vertebrados silvestres em Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia Ser Zool. 2017;107(Suppl):e2017106. doi: 10.1590/1678-4766e2017106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Thompson RCA, Smith A. Zoonotic enteric protozoa. Vet Parasitol. 2011;182(1):70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Uribe M, Payán E, Brabec J, Vélez J, Taubert A, Chaparro-Gutiérrez JJ, et al. Intestinal Parasites of Neotropical Wild Jaguars, Pumas, Ocelots, and Jaguarundis in Colombia: old friends brought back from oblivion and new insights. Pathogens. 2021;10(7):822. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10070822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Vidal-Martínez VM, Aguirre-Macedo ML, Rio-Rodríguez RD, Gold-Bouchot G, Rendón-Von Osten J, Miranda-Rosas GA. The pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum, its symbionts and helminths as bioindicators of Chemical Pollution in Campeche Sound, Mexico. J Helminthol. 2006;80(2):159–174. doi: 10.1079/JOH2006358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Vieira FM. Helmintos parasitos de mamíferos carnívoros silvestres no Município de Juiz de Fora, Zona da Mata do Estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro; 2011. tese. [Google Scholar]
  56. Willis HH. A simple levitation method for the detection of hookworm ova. Med J Aust. 1921;2(18):375–376. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1921.tb60654.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Yang E, Lee J, Patel V. Diagnosis and management of cerebral sparganosis: an uncommon parasitic infection of the brain. Radiol Case Rep. 2022;17(6):1874–1880. doi: 10.1016/j.radcr.2022.02.084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Yasuda F, Hashiguchi J, Nishikawa H, Watanabe S. Studies on the life history of Dipylidium caninum (Linnaeus 1758) Bull Nippon Vet Zootech Coll. 1968;17:27–32. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zajac AM, Conboy GA. Veterinary clinical parasitology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zapalski MK, Hubert BL. First fossil record of parasitism in Devonian calcareous sponges (stromatoporoids) Parasitology. 2011;138(1):132–138. doi: 10.1017/S0031182010001071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária / Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology are provided here courtesy of Colégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinária

RESOURCES