Skip to main content
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica logoLink to Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
. 1979 Sep 1;20(3):351–364. doi: 10.1186/BF03546597

Micromorphological Studies on the Small Intestine and Caeca in Wild and Captive Willow Grouse (Lagopus Lagopus Lagopus)

Mikromorfologiske studier av tyruitarmen og blindtarmene hos ville liryper (Lagopus lagopus lagopus) og hos liryper holdt i fangenskap

Ingolf Hanssen 1,2,3,
PMCID: PMC8322863  PMID: 506873

Abstract

The present study describes the micromorphology of the small intestine and caeca of wild and captive willow grouse. The micromorphology of the small intestine was similar in wild and captive birds, while typical differences were apparent in the caeca, Wild grouse had ciliated epithelium without goblet cells in the neck part of the caeca, captive birds had strongly atrophied cilia and a high number of goblet cells. The epithelium of the body part of caeca of wild birds lodged a great number of spiral-shaped microorganisms and amoebae, which were absent in captive birds. Both the caecal villi and the longitudinal folds were much larger in wild than captive grouse. In the captive grouse the caecal lamina propria was heavily infiltrated with mono-nucleated cells and very often also with polymorphonucleated heterophilic leucocytes.

Since only first generation captives were used in this study, the differences in gut morphology of captive and wild grouse must be due to different food and environmental conditions and not to genetic selection.

Keywords: micromorphology, gut, willow grouse

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.6 MB).

Footnotes

The project was financially supported by the Agricultural Research Council of Norway.

References

  1. Culling C F A. Handbook of Histopathological Techniques, 2nd Ed. Butterworths. 1963. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gasaway, W. C.: Seasonal variations in diet, volatile fatty acid production and size of the cecum of rock ptarmigan. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1976, 53A, 109–114. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Hanssen I. A comparison of the microbiological conditions in the small intestine and caeca of wild and captive willow grouse (Lagopus lagopus lagopus) Acta vet. scand. 1979;20:365–371. doi: 10.1186/BF03546598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hodges, R. D.: The Histology of the Fowl. Acad. Press, London, New York, San Francisco 1974, 80–84.
  5. Moss R. Effects of captivity on gut length in red grouse. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 1972;36:99–104. doi: 10.2307/3799192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pendergast, B. A. & D. A. Boag: Seasonal changes in the internal anatomy of spruce grouse in Alberta, The Auk 1973, 90, 307–317.
  7. Reynolds E S. The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electronopaque stain in electron microscopy. J. Cell Biol. 1963;17:208–212. doi: 10.1083/jcb.17.1.208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Schumacher, S.: Darmzotten und Darmdrüsen bei den Waldhühnern. (Gut villi and glands in tetraonids). Anat. Anz. 1921, 54, 372–381.
  9. Schumacher, S.: Die Blinddärme der Waldhühner mit besonderer Berücksichtigung eigentümlicher Sekretionserscheinungen in denselben. (The caeca in tetraonids with special reference to their particular secretion). Z. Anat. Entwickl.-Gesch. I. Abt. 1922, 64, 76–95.
  10. Schumacher S. Der Bau der Blinddärme und des übrigen Darmrohres vom Spielhahn (Lyrurus tetrix L.). (Gut morphology in Black grouse) Z. Anat. Entwickl.-Gesch. I. Abt. 1925;16:640–644. doi: 10.1007/BF02117119. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Shora W, Forstner G G, Forstner J F. Stimulation of proteolytic digestion by intestinal goblet cell mucus. Gastroenterology. 1975;68:470–479. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(75)80085-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Zisweiter, V. & D. S. Farner: Digestion and the digestive system. In Avian Biology, Vol. II (Farner, D. S. & King, J. R., eds.). Acad. Press, New York and London 1972, 343–430.

Articles from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES