Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:10:21.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of Trichostrongylus tenuis on the caecal mucosa of young, old and anthelmintic-treated wild red grouse, Lagopus lagopus scoticus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

H. Watson ,
D. L. Lee  and
P. J. Hudson
H. Watson
Affiliation:
Department of Pure and Applied Zoology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT and the North of England Grouse Research Project, Askrigg, North Yorkshire
D. L. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Pure and Applied Zoology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT and the North of England Grouse Research Project, Askrigg, North Yorkshire
P. J. Hudson
Affiliation:
Department of Pure and Applied Zoology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT and the North of England Grouse Research Project, Askrigg, North Yorkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The caecal mucosa of wild young and adult grouse infected naturally with Trichostrongylus tenuis was examined by means of scanning electron microscopy and compared with adult grouse which had been treated with an anthelmintic. The caecal mucosa of young red grouse with low worm burdens possessed longitudinal plicae and exhibited little damage. The caeca from adult grouse, most of which carried high worm burdens, showed a localized depression of plicae and atrophy and cell disruption in areas of nematode aggregation. Caeca from adult birds treated with an anthelmintic showed a similar caecal structure to lightly infected caeca from young birds. It is concluded that the normal functioning of the caeca is probably affected by heavy infections of T. tenuis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 405 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barker, I. K. (1973). Scanning electron microscopy of the duodenal mucosa of lambs infected with Trichostrongylus colubriformis. Parasitology 67, 307–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beer, J. V. (1981). Diseases of Gamebirds and Wildfowl. The Game Conservancy, Fordingbridge.Google Scholar
Hudson, P. J. (1986 a). Red Grouse. Biology and Management of a Wild Game Bird. The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge.Google Scholar
Hudson, P. J. (1986 b). The effect of a parasitic nematode on the breeding production of red grouse. Journal of Animal Ecology 55, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, P. J., Dobson, A. P. & Newborn. D. (1985). Cyclic and non-cyclic populations of red grouse: a role for parasitism? In Ecology and Genetics of Host Parasite Interactions (ed. Rollinson, D. and Anderson, R. M.), pp. 77–89. The Linnean Society of London.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D., Watson, A. & Miller, G. R. (1963). Population studies on red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus) in north-east Scotland. Journal of Animal Ecology 32, 317–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, D., Watson, A. & Miller, G. R. (1967). Population fluctuations in red grouse. Journal of Animal Ecology 36, 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovat, Lord (1911). The Grouse in Health and in Disease. London: Smith, Elder & Co.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. S. (1953). Intestinal morphology of gallinaceous birds in relation to food habits. Journal of Wildlife Management 17, 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. & Lee, D. L. (1980). Nematodirus battus: scanning electron microscope studies of the duodenal mucosa of infected lambs. Parasitology 81, 573–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, R. (1977). The digestion of heather by red grouse during the spring. Condor 79, 471–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, C. D., Lee, D. L. & Sharpe, M. J. (1985). Scanning electron microscopy of biopsy specimens removed by a colonoscope from the abomasum of sheep infected with Haemonchus contortus. Parasitology 90, 357–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, G. R., Tapper, S. C. & Hudson, P. J. (1984). Population fluctuations in red grouse. Analysis of bag records and a simulation model. Journal of Animal Ecology 53, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. & Miller, R. (1976). Grouse management. The Game Conservancy, Fordingbridge.Google Scholar
Watson, A., Moss, R., Rothery, P. & Parr, R. (1984). Demographic causes and predictive models of population fluctuations in red grouse. Journal of Animal Ecology 53, 639–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D. & Lee, D. L. (1974). Scanning electron microscopy of the caecal mucosa of turkeys infected with Histomonas meleagridis. Journal of Comparative Pathology 84, 589–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, J. (1985). Statistical analysis of fluctuations in red grouse bag data. Oecologica 65, 269–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. E. (1911). The Grouse in Health and in Disease (ed. Lord, Lovat). London: Smith, Elder & Co.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. R. (1983). Effects of the caecal threadworm Trichostrongylus tenius on red grouse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Witlock, D. R., Lusbaugh, W. B., Danforth, H. D. & Ruff, M. D. (1974). Scanning electron microscopy of the cecal mucosa in Eimeria tenella-infected and uninfected chickens. Avian Diseases 19, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar