Transmission of Gastrointestinal Parasites Between Deer and Livestock Species at Buffer Zone Located Within the Eastern Part of Chitwan National Park, Nepal

Subash Sapkota¹ , Sagar Regmi¹ , Amir Sadaula² , Bijaya Kumar Shrestha³ , Roshan Ghimire⁴ , Janashrit Shrestha¹ , Ashish Pokhrel¹

^1*Agriculture and Forestry University, Chitwan, Nepal

²National Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal

³Chitwan National Park, Nepal

⁴Okhlama State University, Stillwater, USA

Corresponding Author Email: saregme@gmail.com

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7364240

Abstract

Keywords

Download this article as:

Introduction

Deer are the hoofed ruminants of the order Artiodactyla which are recognized by symmetry in the feet and members of the Ruminantia suborder. They belong to the family Cervidae which includes about 44 species [1]. Among many species, four species of deer; Spotted Deer (Axis axis), Hog Deer (Axis porcinus), Sambar Deer (Rusa unicolor / Cervus unicolor), and Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak) are distributed in the Chitwan National Park.

Livestock in many buffer zone areas is dependent on the fringe of the national park for grazing. Most common grazing lands in the buffer zone are adjacent to the park because of waterholes, rivers, and wallowing ponds [2].  Elephants, rhinos, deer, and livestock (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goat, equines, and swine) are likely to share parasite species since they graze, drink and defecate in the same geographical area and have the same anatomical features. Once parasitic transmission is established in wild animals, the wild environment will be polluted with parasites [3]. This can have a deleterious effect in the long term and control measures will be more problematic. Although wild animals are resistant to parasites, with the increase in parasite transmission and shortage of food, parasite load may increase with the loss of health aspects. Eventually, it decreases its threshold resistance. Also, the parasite exchange among the different species may lead to species hybridization and higher economic loss in the livestock sector too [4].

The population of these species is declining due to different reasons including habitat loss and degradation, poaching and illegal trades, diseases, human-wildlife conflicts, etc. Infectious diseases and parasites are the major concern in the conservation of these species as they can lead to mortality, dramatic population declines, and even contribute to local extinction events [5]. This study attempts to investigate the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in wild deer having regular interaction with the livestock in buffer zones of Chitwan National park.

Common grazing land, water sources, and habitat sharing between livestock and wildlife lead to parasite sharing as well as disease transmission among them. Increased sharing of natural habitat resulting from increased demand for agriculture, grazing, water, and a diverse array of anthropogenic activities leads to increased interaction between livestock and wildlife [6]. Such interactions bring clash for food, provide opportunities for pathogen sharing, and may result in species hybridization too.

2. Material and Method

2.1 Site of study

The study area was the south-eastern part of Chitwan National Park i.e. Sauraha Buffer Zone. Chitwan National Park is the first National Park located at 27.5341° N, 84.4525° E at the terai (Siwalik) belt of mid-Nepal. The park is present in an area of 932 sq. km including the part of Parsa, Makawanpur, Nawalpur, and Chitwan districts, and also encloses RaptiValley, Churia hill, Ox-bow Lake, rivers like Narayani, Rapti, Reu, and Sal dominated forest, grassland along with the floodplain.

2.2 Sample Collection and Processing

Fig 1: Fecal sample of deer present in wild condition

Pelleted fecal samples were collected between June and July 2020 from resting sites (buffer zone) of deer early in the morning. After visual assessment of consistency and appearance, around 20 grams of fresh fecal samples covered with moist mucous were taken. The collection was done in a zip lock bag and preserved in 10 % formaldehyde for further laboratory examinations. After this, the sample was taken to the laboratory of the National Trust for Nature Conservation, Biodiversity Conservation Center (NTNC, BCC) Sauraha, Chitwan. Then, a Coprological examination for the parasitic load was carried out by using Floatation and Sedimentation techniques.

2.3Fecal examination

2.3.1Sedimentation Technique

To detect trematode eggs, a sedimentation method was performed. Trematode eggs are often heavier as compared to other helminths and sedimentation is the best technique recommended for trematodes.

For this, a 3-gram fecal sample was weighed using the weighing machine. The sample was minced using a mortar and pestle. The minced sample was mixed with about 200 ml water and then passed through a tea strainer to remove the large debris in the fecal sample. The liquid solution passed through the strainer was collected in a beaker and sedimented for 10 minutes. The supernatant solution of the beaker was removed carefully without disturbing the sediment. Again the same volume of water was poured into the beaker containing the sample, and left for sedimentation, and the supernatant solution was removed after 10 minutes. The sediment was ready for observation so a drop of sediment was taken with a dropper on a clean glass slide. After spreading it over the slide, the fecal sample smear was observed under the compound microscope at 10x and 40x.

2.3.2 Floatation Technique

To detect eggs of nematodes, the floatation technique was used using the McMaster egg counting chamber [7]. Nematode eggs are lighter though they don’t float in normal water and need to add a floatation solution. For this, First of all, a 3-gram fecal sample was weighed using the weighing machine. Then the sample was minced using a mortar and pestle. 42 ml water was poured into the sample and the whole mixture was passed through a tea strainer into the next vessel and debris was discarded. Then the sample was mixed thoroughly and poured into a centrifuge tube to the top and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 3 minutes. The supernatant was then poured off then an equal volume of floatation solution was added into the tube after 2-3 minutes the topmost layer of solution was taken to fill the chamber of Mc-Master. The chamber was examined using a compound microscope at 10x and 40x. In the case of livestock, retrospective data was taken from the Veterinary Hospital of Buffer Zone Area Livestock Consumers Committee, Bachhauli, Chitwan, a major hospital for livestock, from the same area within the same time frame.

2.4 Data analysis

The collected data was stored in MS-Excel and was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively using SPSS version 20. Thus obtained results were either presented in tabular form or using various graphical representation methods.

3. Results and Discussion

Out of the total 57 fecal samples tested for parasitic eggs, the overall prevalence of parasitic eggs was 96.49% (55 samples positive) in deer. Two species of trematodes (Paramphistomum spp. and Fasciola spp.), one species of cestodes (Moniezia spp.), and three species of nematodes (Strongyle, Strongyloides spp., Trichuris spp.) were observed in the feces of different species of deer.

Similarly, the parasitic prevalence in livestock of the buffer zone i.e. Sauraha and Bachhauli area was calculated to be 87.30% (250 samples positive) out of 286 fecal samples tested by the Veterinary Hospital of Buffer Zone Area Livestock Consumers Committee. Two species of trematodes (Paramphistomum spp. and Fasciola spp.), one species of cestodes(Moniezia spp.), and four species of nematodes (Strongyle, Strongyloides spp., Trichuris spp. and Ascaris spp.) were observed in feces of different livestock as per the data of.

Table 1: Combination of multiple gastrointestinal parasites observed in feces of deer

Name of the parasites	The number of fecal samples tested positive for	Prevalence (%)
Paramphistomum only	17	30.91
Fasciola only	3	5.45
Strongyle only	4	7.27
Paramphistomum, Strongyle	10	18.18
Paramphistomum, Fasciola	6	10.91
Paramphistomum, Strongyle, Fasciola	2	3.64
Paramphistomum, Strongyloides	5	9.09
Strongyle, Strongyloides	3	5.45
Strongyle, Moniezia	3	5.45
Strongyle, Trichuris	2	3.64
Total	55	100

Table 2: Species wise prevalence (%) of gastrointestinal parasites in deer

Name of the parasites	The number of fecal samples tested positive for (Out of 55)	Prevalence (%)
Paramphistomum	40	72.73
Fasciola	11	20
Strongyle	24	43.63
Strongyloides	8	14.54
Moniezia	3	5.45
Trichuris	2	3.63

Table 3: Species wise prevalence (%) of gastrointestinal parasites in livestock

Name of the parasites	The number of fecal samples tested positive for ( Out of 250)	Prevalence (%)
Paramphistomum	150	52.44
Fasciola	52	18.18
Strongyle	121	42.30
Strongyloides	41	14.34
Moniezia	5	1.75
Trichuris	18	6.29
Ascaris	33	11.54

Fig 2: The figure above shows multiple species of gastro-intestinal parasites found during fecal examination

Pramphistomum(72.73%) was the most prevalent one followed by Strongyle  (43.63%), Fasciola(20%), Strongyloides(14.54%), Moniezia(5.45%) and Trichuris(3.63%) in deer Similarly, in the case of livestock, Paramphistomum(52.44%) was also found to be the most prevalent parasite as that of deer followed by Strongyle(42.30%), Fasciola(18.18%), Strongyloides(14.34%), Ascaris(11.54%), Trichuris(6.29%), and Moniezia(1.75%). As these different deer species and livestock share a common ecosystem for grazing, defecating, and other activities, there may be a higher chance of mutual transmission of parasites between them.

A survey of gastrointestinal parasites in Axis deer of Barandhabhar Corridor Forest, Chitwan depicted that about 88% of the samples tested were found to be positive for GI parasites like Entamoeba spp., Entamoeba coli, Balantidium coli, Cryptosporidium, Eimeria spp., Fasciolaspp., Paramphistomum, Strongyle, and Strongyloides[8]. Our result was not in line with the findings of [9] in musk deer of Langtang National Park Nepal which revealed that Ascaris (88.89%)was the predominant one followed by Eimeria sp. (77.78%), Trichuris sp. (66.67%), Strongyloides sp. (55.56%), Moniezia sp. (44.44%), Strongyle (44.44%) and Paramphistomum sp. (44.44%). This difference in outcome between Langtang and Chitwan National Park is still to be studied.

Strongyle spp., Trichostrongyle spp., Fasciola spp., Moniezia spp., and Paramphistomum spp. were reported in swamp deer and livestock from JhilmilJheel Conservation Reserve (JJCR) and Uttarakhand and Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary (KWLS), India[10].  Fasciola, Paramphistomum, Strongyle, Strongyloides, Oesophagostomum, and Trichuris were also observed and reported in Hog Deer and Fasciola, Paramphistomum, Ascaris, Strongyle, Oesophagostomum, and Coccidia in swamp deer of Kaziranga National park Assam[11]. The prevalence of nematode (Strongyle spp.), cestode (Moniezia spp.), and trematode (Amphistome spp.) was also detected in different deer species (Spotted deer, Sambar deer Hog deer, and Blackbuck) of Thrissur zoo of India[12].

Interspecies transmission of parasites takes place due to the interaction of animals in a common environment[13].  Around 90 % of carnivores, 77 % of livestock, and 60% of human pathogens are multi-host in nature and among the 77% of livestock pathogens, most of them have the capacity of affecting wild ungulates[14]. Conservation exertion in wildlife and at the wildlife interface has been disturbed by diseases and parasitic infections due to the intensification of ranges of host species[15]. Most of these parasites can attack an unusually huge number of host species as they are opportunistic in nature[6]. Parasites alone hardly play a direct role in host extinction but are responsible for alteration in the host population in combination with other factors like habitat deprivation and climate change[16]. The role of parasites in affecting the host population is concerned with the impacts on survival, reproduction, and trophic equilibrium[17].

Gastrointestinal parasitism is a major problem for livestock which lowers production and brings huge economic loss. In this study, Paramphistomum infestation was found to be higher in both deer and livestock. Generally, Paramphistomum remains in the rumen and reticulum of animals and induces the problem of intestinal wall erosions, hemorrhage, and necrosis of ruminal papillae[18]. Heavy infestation of nematodes causes anemia, iron deficiency, and abdominal disorders which may have a significant impact on livestock as well as wild animals[19]. Ascaris spp. remain up to 15 years in soil and cause diarrhea, malnutrition, and obstruction of the intestine(Hagel &Giusti, 2010). Prevalence of Strongyle causes anorexia, inappetence, watery diarrhea, and weight loss in ruminants. Similarly, Strongyloides cause anorexia, weight loss diarrhea, and anemia in deer as well as livestock. Heavy infection of Moniezia in lambs, kids, and calves may show diarrhea, unthriftiness, and intestinal obstruction[21].

4. Conclusion and Recommendation

This study showed that different deer species in the Eastern part of Chitwan National Park, Nepal had a high prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites including trematodes, nematodes, and cestodes. As well as similar kinds of parasites were prevalent in the gastrointestinal tract of the livestock of the buffer zone which shares the common grazing land and ecosystem with the wildlife. The finding of this research revealed a higher chance of the exchange of parasites between the deer and livestock. Theremay also be the chances of cross-transmission of parasites between livestock and other wild herbivores like One-horned Rhinoceros and Elephants. Further study should be done in this sector and the concerned agency should develop a proper management program to limit the transmission of parasites between deer and livestock and formulate new conservation policies too.

5. Funding

No funding was required during this study.

6. Acknowledgement

We would like to convey our sincere gratitude to NTNC, Sauraha, and Chitwan National Park, Nepal for providing us with the lab and other equipment required to perform our study.

7. Conflict of interest

The authors don’t have any conflict of interest to disclose.

8. References

[1]          D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder, “Mammal Species of the World,” A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 2005. .

[2]          G. Dharmarajan, M. Raman, and M. C. John, “The effects of cattle grazing and habitat on helminth loads of Chital (Axis axis) in the Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India,” JOURNAL-BOMBAY Nat. Hist. Soc., vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 58–64, 2003.

[3]          B. Allwin, S. Balakrishnan, N. V Kumar, M. G. Jayathangaraj, S. Vedamanickam, and S. Gopal, “Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in Gaur (Bosgaurus) and domestic cattle at interface zones of the Nilgiri Hills, Tamil Nadu, India,” J. Vet. Sci. Technol, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2016.

[4]          L. Holsback, M. J. L. Cardoso, R. Fagnani, and T. H. C. Patelli, “Natural infection by endoparasites among free-living wild animals,” Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Veterinária, vol. 22, pp. 302–306, 2013.

[5]          K. F. Smith, K. Acevedo-Whitehouse, and A. B. Pedersen, “The role of infectious diseases in biological conservation,” Animal Conservation, vol. 12, no. 1. pp. 1–12, 2009.

[6]          A. Dobson and J. Foufopoulos, “Emerging infectious pathogens of wildlife,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., vol. 356, no. 1411, pp. 1001–1012, 2001.

[7]          P. K. H. Deschamps and C. Vreugdenhil, Epidemiology, Diagnosis and control of Helminth parasites of swine, vol. 50, no. 1. 2008.

[8]          S. Baral, J. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, B. P. Bhattarai, T. B. Thapa, and T. R. Ghimire, “Survey of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Chital Axis axis (Erxleben, 1777) of Barandabhar Corridor Forest, Chitwan, Nepal,” no. October, 2019.

[9]          B. Achhami, H. P. Sharma, and A. B. Bam, “Gastro Intestinal Parasites of Musk Deer (Moschus Chryso-Gaster Hodgson, 1839) in Langtang National Park, Nepal,” J. Inst. Sci. Technol., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 71–75, 2016.

[10]        A. Talukdar, B. Pandav, and P. Nigam, “Parasite commonality at Swamp Deer (Mammalia: Artiodactyla: Cervidae: Rucervus duvaucelii duvaucelii) and livestock interface,” J. Threat. Taxa, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 15364–15369, 2020.

[11]        A. I. Chakraborty, “[PDF] A Survey of Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infection in Some Free Living Herbivores in the Kaziranga National Park.pdf.” .

[12]        M. Jaya and M. Aja, “THE STUDIES OF HELMINTH PARASITES FROM FAECAL SAMPLES OF FOUR SPECIES OF DEER IN DIFFERENT HABITATS OF THRISSUR DISTRICT,” vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 29–33, 2018.

[13]        R. G. Bengis, R. A. Kock, and J. Fischer, “Infectious animal diseases: The wildlife/livestock interface,” OIE Rev. Sci. Tech., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 53–65, Apr. 2002.

[14]        S. Cleave land, M. K. Laurenson, and L. H. Taylor, “Diseases of humans and their domestic mammals: Pathogen characteristics, host range and the risk of emergence,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., vol. 356, no. 1411, pp. 991–999, 2001.

[15]        A. P. Dobson and P. J. Hudson, “Parasites, disease and the structure of ecological communities,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 1, no. 1. Trends Ecol Evol, pp. 11–15, 1986.

[16]        A. Purvis, J. L. Gittleman, G. Cowlishaw, and G. M. Mace, “Predicting extinction risk in declining species,” 2000.

[17]        B. T. Grenfell, “Parasitism and the dynamics of ungulate grazing systems,” Am. Nat., vol. 139, no. 5, pp. 907–929, 1992.

[18]        S. C. J. Love and G. W. Hutchinson, “Pathology and diagnosis of internal parasites in ruminants,” Gross pathology of ruminants, 2003. .

[19]        M. Roche, M. and Layrisse, “The nature and causes of” hookworm anaemia.”,” Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 15(6) 1031-102., 1988.

[20]        I. Hagel and T. Giusti, “Ascaris lumbricoides: An Overview of Therapeutic Targets,” 2010.

[21]        E. J. L. Soulsby, Helminths, arthropods and protozoa of domesticated animals, 7th ed. London : Baillière Tindall, 1982.