Semen collection by electro-stimulation in a variety of bird orders.

Autor: Frediani MH; Grupo de Estudos para Multiplicação de Aves (GEMA), Departamento de Reprodução Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, CEP 05508-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil., Guida FJV; Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo, CEP 04301-012, São Paulo, SP, Brazil., Salgado PAB; Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo, CEP 04301-012, São Paulo, SP, Brazil., Gonçalves DR; Reprodução de Aves, Departamento de Reprodução Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil., Blank MH; Grupo de Estudos para Multiplicação de Aves (GEMA), Departamento de Reprodução Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, CEP 05508-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil., Novaes GA; Grupo de Estudos para Multiplicação de Aves (GEMA), Departamento de Reprodução Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, CEP 05508-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil., Pereira RJG; Grupo de Estudos para Multiplicação de Aves (GEMA), Departamento de Reprodução Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, CEP 05508-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: ricpereira@usp.br.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Theriogenology [Theriogenology] 2019 Feb; Vol. 125, pp. 140-151. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Nov 03.
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2018.10.023
Abstrakt: It is unquestinable that artificial insemination (AI) offers many benefits to avian conservation programs, but a serious impediment towards implementing AI for wild species is the development of effective techniques to consistently collect good quality ejaculates. Thus, we aimed to examine the success rate of electro-stimulation (ES) in collecting semen from 49 unconditioned males from orders Piciformes, Strigiformes, Accipitriformes, Cathartiformes, Galiformes, Anseriformes and Psittaciformes at different times of the year. Sixty out of 299 ES attempts provided ejaculates with sperm, but collection success rates varied widely (0-50%) depending on the species. Except for swans whose greater results were registered during spring-summer, males from most orders responded better to ES during winter-spring, suggesting seasonal variations on semen collection success rates. Overall, ES enabled successful semen collection from males of unproven and proven fertility under mixed pairing conditions. However, the highest success rate occurred in paired males with fertile clutches (40.6%) followed by unpaired males (22.1%), paired males without clutches (13.9%), and paired males with infertile clutches (6.8%). Behavioral responses of male birds to electrical impulses were also recorded to assess any discomfort during semen collection. Furthermore, macroscopic and microscopic analysis provided ejaculate parameters from several species, even from orders that hitherto have never been assessed for semen collection, which may serve as a starting point in the future. Altogether, these findings demonstrate the feasibility of ES in collecting semen from unpaired, unconditioned and non-imprinted males from a variety of bird orders. In the medium to long term, the use of this technique in both captive and free-ranging populations offers new perspectives to ensure genetic diversity in avian conservation programs.
(Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: