Next Article in Journal
The Consumption and Diversity Variation Responses of Agricultural Pests and Their Dietary Niche Differentiation in Insectivorous Bats
Next Article in Special Issue
Seroprevalence Assessment and Risk Factor Analysis of Toxoplasma gondii Infection in Goats from Northeastern Algeria
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of the Systematics and Evolution of the Pampus Genus of Fish (Perciformes: Stromateidae) Based on Osteology, Population Genetics and Complete Mitogenomes
Previous Article in Special Issue
High Prevalence of Bovine Cardiac Cysticercosis in Upper Egypt: An Epidemiological and Histopathological Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/ani14050813
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Wild Animals in Captivity: An Analysis of Parasite Biodiversity and Transmission among Animals at Two Zoological Institutions with Different Typologies

by
Lorena Esteban-Sánchez
1,†,
Juan José García-Rodríguez
1,†,
Juncal García-García
2,
Eva Martínez-Nevado
2,
Manuel Antonio de la Riva-Fraga
3 and
Francisco Ponce-Gordo
1,*
1
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Complutense University, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Veterinary Department, ZooAquarium de Madrid, Casa de Campo s/n, 28011 Madrid, Spain
3
Veterinary Services, Parque Zoológico Faunia, 28032 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2024, 14(5), 813; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14050813
Submission received: 12 February 2024 / Revised: 1 March 2024 / Accepted: 4 March 2024 / Published: 6 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Parasitic Zoonoses: From a Public Health Perspective)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

We have conducted a 10-year coprological study of animals housed in two zoological institutions with different housing conditions to assess parasite biodiversity and prevalence, their relationship with host class (mammal/bird), diet (carnivorous/omnivorous/herbivorous), and enclosure characteristics (soil type, isolation from wild fauna), and evaluated the risk of transmission to humans. A total of 4476 faecal samples from 132 mammal species and 951 samples from 86 avian species were examined, with 62.1% of mammal species and 12.8% of avian species testing positive. Statistically significant differences were found based on diet type; few carnivorous species were detected infected, primarily by nematodes, while many herbivorous and omnivorous species were primarily infected by protists. No statistically significant differences were observed based on soil type (artificial, natural, mixed) and isolation level (isolated/accessible). Several parasite species found in the study (Entamoeba spp., Giardia spp., Balantioides coli, Trichuris spp.) could potentially be transmitted between housed animals, wild fauna, and humans. Regular analyses of the animals and implementation and follow-up of health programs would minimise transmission risks between housed animals, wild fauna, and humans.

Abstract

We have conducted a 10-year-long coprological study of the animals housed in two zoological institutions (ZooAquarium and Faunia, Madrid, Spain) to assess the parasite biodiversity, prevalence, and their relation with host class, diet, and enclosure type (soil type and level of isolation from wild fauna). A total of 4476 faecal samples from 132 mammal species and 951 samples from 86 avian species were examined. The results indicated that only 12.8% of avian species had parasites at least once during the study period, whereas 62.1% of mammal species tested positive. Predominantly, protists (Entamoeba, flagellates, and ciliates) and nematodes (mainly Trichuris) were identified in the findings. Carnivorous species were primarily infected by nematodes, while herbivorous and omnivorous species were mainly infected by protists. The number of infected herbivorous and omnivorous species was significantly greater than carnivorous species. Differences were observed based on soil type (artificial, natural, mixed) and isolation level (isolated/accessible), but these differences were not statistically significant. Several parasites (Entamoeba spp., Giardia spp., Balantidoides coli, Trichuris spp.) could potentially be transmitted between humans and some mammals and birds. Regular animal analyses and a personnel health program in the institutions would minimise transmission risks between zoo animals, wildlife, and humans.

1. Introduction

Parasites can affect their hosts both at an individual level (even causing their death) and at a population level, potentially affecting biodiversity by interfering in species competition, migration, and ecosystem stability [1]. The importance of parasites in the conservation of endangered host species is due to two circumstances: habitat degradation leads to increased contact between populations or species that are usually separated, easing the cross-transmission of pathogens, and the distribution of species populations in fragmented habitats leads to increased animal density, favouring disease outbreaks [2,3,4].
One of the most important objectives of zoological gardens is to contribute to the conservation of wild species, with special attention to those threatened or endangered in their natural habitats. Specific programs, such as the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) Ex situ programmes, are currently ongoing [5]. In the European Union, the importance of zoological gardens in education and species conservation is regulated by Directive 1999/22/EC, which, in the particular case of Spain, was transposed in 2003 into national law (31/2003). However, zoos could inadvertently serve as an opportunity for pathogens to be transmitted between individuals and species, given that the conditions mentioned above are present in zoo facilities: closer contact between different species and increased animal density. The occurrence of parasites in zoo animals could vary according to environmental conditions, management practices, disease prophylaxis, and treatment protocols [6,7]. Moreover, the physical characteristics of the facilities and the physiological status of the animals induced by captivity could contribute to the transmission of pathogens [8,9,10].
Despite the veterinary regulations in importing countries, zoo animals could be parasitised by co-imported parasites as well as other autochthonous species, and in some cases, cross-transmission with zoo personnel could occur [11,12,13,14,15]. However, although there are many studies on the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in zoo animals, only a few deal with the possible cross-transmission between housed and free-ranging animals or with the characteristics of the facilities [9,14,16,17,18]. In the present study, we investigated the biodiversity and host range of parasites infecting non-aquatic mammals and birds in two zoological institutions with different housing conditions during a 10-year period (2013–2022), compared the results between them, and evaluated the possibility of transmission between animals and humans.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location and Host Species

This study was conducted from 2013 to 2022 in two zoos located in Madrid city (Spain): the ZooAquarium, situated in the Casa de Campo urban park, and Faunia Park, located within an urban area.
The ZooAquarium is organised into five main zones corresponding to different continents. In each region, animals are kept in groups or isolated by species based on their compatibility within enclosures of suitable size relative to the number of individuals. There is no crowding, and there are feeders, water sources, and hidden areas for resting. Flying birds are housed in open-air enclosures of adequate size. Mammals are in open-air natural areas delimited by water bodies and/or wood and metal fences; only a few species are animals in partially or totally enclosed installations limited by glass or metal fences and nets. The soil is natural and has grass in most sections; only in the case of large herbivores and some carnivores is there almost no grass. In some cases (i.e., the aoudads), the soil is concrete. The enclosures are encircled by paved pathways to accommodate visitor passage. In total, there are over 6000 animals of about 500 species from the 5 continents; the numbers vary over time depending on new acquisitions, deaths, and interchanges with other zoos.
Faunia Park is organised in ecosystems mostly recreated in closed installations; only in some cases are animals in open-air facilities. Depending on the zone and the species compatibility, animals are in open areas in direct contact with visitors’ pathways, in enclosures with wood or metal fences and nets, or in closed, isolated ambients recreating their natural habitat under controlled light and humidity conditions. There are more than 1200 animals of 152 species from 4 different ecosystems.

2.2. Sample Collection and Processing

Fresh faecal material was obtained from 83 species of terrestrial mammals and 64 species of birds at ZooAquarium and from 68 species of terrestrial mammals and 40 species of birds at Faunia Park. Nineteen mammals and eighteen bird species were housed at both zoos (for the purpose of this study, the Iberian eagle-owl, Bubo bubo hispanus, and the western Siberian eagle-owl, Bubo bubo sibiricus, are treated separately). They were classified as carnivores (including insectivores and scavengers), herbivores, or omnivores according to their main diet range. Mammal and bird scientific names follow the Mammal Diversity Database [19] and the International Ornithological Committee (IOC) World Bird List v.14.1 [20].
The samples were collected by the zookeepers early in the morning and kept in clean, new plastic recipients; they were transported to the laboratory 1–3 h after collection. Samples were usually processed upon arrival or kept at 4 °C until processed (maximum delay, 24 h). Individual samples were collected in some cases (i.e., when only one or a few individuals were in the group, from large animals, or in symptomatic or quarantined ones). All animals from the same species were sampled at the same time or in a two-week interval. In animals from large groups, faecal pools were collected. The results of the analyses were communicated to the zoo veterinarians, and they decided upon the correct treatment; in these cases, new samples were analysed after treatment to confirm their efficacy. Samples taken from animals that had received an antiparasitic treatment within the month before sampling were not included in this study.
Once in the laboratory, a macroscopic analysis of each sample was made, searching for the presence of parasitic structures. Faecal concentrates (following the formalin–ethyl acetate stool concentration technique) [21] were made, and the sediments were examined on temporary slides stained with Lugol’s iodine. Morphological features were measured and photographed with Olympus DP20 or Olympus DP23 cameras on an Olympus BX51 microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).

2.3. Parasite Biodiversity, Housing Conditions, and Feeding Habits

The possible relationship between the type of parasite life cycle (direct/indirect life cycle) and frequency of findings in each host species was investigated, taking into account the zoological institution, housing conditions, vertebrate class, and feeding habits as independent variables. The parasitological analyses were conducted for diagnostic purposes only, and a multifactorial analysis was not designed. Therefore, other environmental variables such as temperature, sunlight exposure, air or soil humidity, or rain were not considered during samplings. A time analysis was not performed as the samples from each host species were irregularly spaced over time, ranging from some weeks to more than one year between sampling a given species. Statistical comparisons were made using the IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 29 software (IBM Inc., New York, NY, USA).
Binary logistic regressions were conducted, considering the host species as “at least once infected” or ”never infected” as the dependent variable. Housing conditions were considered according to the type of soil and the level of isolation. The types of soil were categorised as natural (with/without natural vegetation; with natural drainage), artificial (cement base, with/without sand or wood shavings covering; without drainage or with drainage through artificial systems), or mixed (animals spending time in both natural and artificial soils, e.g., animals for exhibitions or with periods outdoors for environmental enrichment). In terms of isolation level, the animals were considered “isolated” when housed in enclosed spaces where access by wild fauna (small mammals like rodents or birds) was not possible or as “accessible” when uncontrolled access by wild fauna to the facilities was feasible. Regarding feeding habits, the host species analysed were classified as herbivorous, carnivorous (including ichthyophagous, insectivorous, and scavengers), or omnivorous, depending on their main diet type. For example, animals like lar gibbon (Hylobates lar) that may sporadically feed on animals but usually consume vegetables were considered herbivorous, while predators like wolf (Canis lupus) that may, in some instances, feed on vegetables were considered carnivorous.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Parasite Biodiversity and Prevalence

A total of 4476 faecal samples from mammals and 951 from birds (excluding those from repetitions after treatment courses) were collected and analysed from both zoos. Among them, 1333 samples from 82 mammal species and 63 samples from 11 avian species were found positive (Table 1). Parasites were found in 62.1% of the mammal species (82/132), while only in 12.8% of the avian species (11/86). The parasites found in mammals included protists (protozoa and chromists), trematodes, cestodes, and nematodes, while only one protozoan, one cestode, and several nematodes were found in birds (Table 2). In mammals, the higher number of host species found infected (mainly by protists) were herbivorous animals, while carnivorous hosts are the group with a lower number of species infected (Table 1 and Table 2). The morphological characteristics of eggs/cysts/oocysts often do not allow for differentiation between species. In cases where morphologically similar genera or species infect the same or related host species, the parasites were identified using group names (e.g., trichomonads, trichostrongylids) or as spp. (e.g., Trichuris spp.). Findings resembling the amoebae species Entamoeba bovis Liebetanz 1905, Entamoeba polecki Prowazek 1912, Entamoeba coli (Grassi 1879), and Entamoeba muris (Grassi 1879); the ciliate Balantioides coli (Malmstem 1857); and the cestode genus Raillietina Fuhrmann 1920, were identified as taxon-like.
The biodiversity and prevalence of the parasites found in each host species are given in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. All parasites found were of the direct life cycle, except for the unidentified trematode eggs found in bears and the cestodes found in several mammal species in the ZooAquarium and in one bird in Faunia (Figure 1).
The protists were the most frequently identified parasite group and the only one found in 34 mammal and 3 avian species in ZooAquarium and in 15 mammal species in Faunia (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). Helminth-only infections were found in six mammal and four avian species in ZooAquarium and in five mammal and four avian species in Faunia. Finally, both protists and helminths were recorded in 20 mammal species in ZooAquarium and 5 mammal and 1 avian species in Faunia. The host species with the higher parasite biodiversity were the dama gazelle (Nanger dama) in mammals and the helmeted guineafowl (Numida meleagris) in birds, which were infected (not simultaneously) by up to 8 and 4 different parasite species, respectively. Single parasitisms were found in most positive samples; in polyparasitisms, the maximum number of parasite species causing a simultaneous infection was 4 (in the dama gazelle). The most common parasitic genera found were Entamoeba (in 44 host species in ZooAquarium and 13 in Faunia), Balantioides (in 14 host species in ZooAquarium and 3 species in Faunia), and Trichuris (in 14 and 9 host species in ZooAquarium and Faunia, respectively).

3.1.1. Avian Hosts

The differences in the number of species analysed correspond to the collection design by the management of the zoological institutions. By feeding type, the number of samples analysed at ZooAquarium is proportional to the number of bird species; in the case of Faunia, the number of samples from carnivorous species is proportionally much lower (Table 1) because omnivorous and herbivorous species are kept in groups, making it easier to find valid samples for analysis than in the case of carnivorous species, which must be housed individually in most cases.
Only nematodes, including capillariid and ascarid eggs, were identified in carnivorous species (in birds of prey at ZooAquarium and Faunia, as well as in gruiformes specifically, the common crane, Grus grus, at Faunia) (Table 4 and Table 6). In omnivorous species, only protists (Entamoeba spp. and B. coli) were detected at ZooAquarium (Table 4), while nematodes (capillariids and ascarids) and cestodes (with one observation of Raillietina-like eggs in the helmeted guineafowl) were exclusively found at Faunia; additionally, E. gallinarum was detected in the helmeted guineafowl at Faunia (Table 6).

3.1.2. Mammalian Hosts

Almost all herbivorous species were infected but generally exhibited low parasite biodiversity. The most prevalent parasites in herbivorous mammals were amoebae (Entamoeba) (Table 2), which were found in nearly all hoofed animals (except equids), suids, and macropodids (the yellow-footed rock-wallaby, Petrogale xanthopus, and Bennett’s wallaby, Notamacropus rufogriseus) (Table 3 and Table 5). The Entamoeba cysts found in these hosts were uninucleated in all cases, except in two samples from the dama Gazelle and one from Bennett’s wallaby, where eight unidentified cysts were present. The one-nucleated Entamoeba cysts were of two types; those from hoofed animals were small (4–10 µm in diameter) and were identified as Entamoeba bovis-like, while those from suids and the tapir were larger (15–20 µm in diameter) and were identified as Entamoeba polecki-like. The species from macropodids were not identified.
Giardia infection in herbivores was rare; cysts were detected on a few occasions in the dama gazelle, the red river hog (Potamochoerus porcus), and the Patagonian mara (Dolichotis patagonum) in ZooAquarium (Table 3), and in the Southern red muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak), the Patagonian mara, the Brazilian porcupine (Coendou prehensilis), and the aardvarks (Orycteropus afer) in Faunia (Table 5). Among the ciliates from herbivorous hosts, B. coli-like cysts were found in suids, the sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) and the South American tapir (Tapirus terrestris); the identifications were based on the cyst size (about 40 µm in diameter). In camels (Camelus bactrianus and Camelus dromedarius), the cysts were of greater diameter (around 80 µm) and were identified as belonging to Buxtonella cameli. Entodiniomorphid ciliates were frequently found in equids, elephants, and rhinoceronts.
Helminth infections in herbivorous species were mainly caused by trichostrongylids and trichurids in the dama gazelle and in the dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas), and by trichurids/capillariids in some hoofed animals and in rodents (the Patagonian mara). The identification of eggs belonging to genera Trichuris or Capillaria was based on the appearance of the eggshell (thick and smooth in Trichuris, striated in Capillaria). Cestode eggs (Figure 1) were found only on isolated occasions in the reed deer (Cervus elaphus), the hippoptamous (Hippopotamus amphibious), the South American tapir, and the Patagonian mara, all of them in ZooAquarium.
Among the omnivorous species, primates were the group with the greatest number of species infected, mostly by protists (Table 2); the mandrill was the species harbouring the widest range of parasites (Entamoeba spp., Chilomastix spp., B. coli, Trichuris spp., and an unidentified cestode), and Giardia cysts were found only in lemurs (ring-tailed lemur, Lemur catta, and Mayotte lemur, Eulemur fulvus) (Table 3 and Table 5). Two different types of Entamoeba cysts were found in primates: one nucleated cyst identified as E. polecki-like and eight nucleated cysts identified as E. coli-like. The E. polecki-like cysts found in this study were clearly larger (10–16 µm in diameter) compared to those found in hoofed animals and similar to those identified as E. polecki-like in suids and tapirs.
In Ursidae, nematodes (Baylisascaris) were detected in the brown bear (Ursus arctos); trematode eggs (Figure 1) were found in one sample from the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus).
Very few carnivore species were found infected, typically by nematodes (Table 2); only the giant anteater (Myrmecophaga trydactila) was found infected by nematodes and protozoa (capillariid eggs, four-nucleated Entamoeba cysts, B. coli-like cysts, and trichomonad flagellates), while the bushdog (Spheotos venaticus) only by coccidia. Cestode and trematode eggs were found once in several species at ZooAquarium (Table 3).

3.2. Biodiversity and Prevalence in Relation to Feeding Habits and Housing Conditions

Before examining the obtained results, it is necessary to consider that the unequal number of samples analysed within some of the considered categories (Table 7) can introduce biases in the estimation of regression coefficients, wider confidence intervals, and the statistical significance of the coefficients. In the latter case, the significance would probably not be affected when “clear” significant or non-significant statistical values were obtained (i.e., p > 0.100 or p < 0.001), but in those cases where we have found p-values in the range 0.010–0.050, the interpretation of the associations should be taken with care and generalising results to broader populations of zoo animals may be challenging.
The distribution of host species according to the type of zoological institution, vertebrate class, housing conditions (isolation level and soil type), and feeding habits is shown in Table 7. None of the avian species analysed were housed in isolated spaces in either of the zoos.
The initial analysis involved five independent variables (zoological institution, host class, soil, isolation, and feeding habits) (Table 8). The Hosmer and Lemeshow X2 test (HLt; p = 0.003) was significant, indicating that the regression model did not fit the observed data well. The model explained 47.4% of the variation (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.474) and 82.0% of the samples would be correctly classified. When soil type and host class (which were highly and statistically correlated with the other variables) were removed from the analysis, the HLt was non significant (p = 0.807). However, both the percentage of data variation explained by the model and the percentage of samples correctly classified decreased (R2 = 0.275; 71.8% correct sample classification). Under these circumstances, we chose to use the model with all the independent variables to analyse the importance and influence of each one.
The variables that exhibited higher importance for interpreting the data were host class (Wald test, p < 0.001) and feeding type (p < 0.001) (Table 8). There was no statistically significant increase (p = 0.109) in the probability of finding infected hosts in either zoological institution, although this probability was slightly lower in Faunia than in ZooAquarium (B coefficient = −0.649). The number of host species found infected was nearly identical when the animals were kept in “natural” and “artificial” types of soil and lower in mixed soil; however, these differences were not statistically supported (p = 0.301). The probability of animals in enclosed spaces being infected was 1.326 times lower than those kept in open areas, although these differences were not statistically supported (p = 0.456). Regarding feeding type, the probability of positive samples in omnivorous and herbivorous species was similar between them and markedly higher (1.4581 and 1.911 times, respectively) and statistically significant (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively) than in carnivorous species.
In relation to host class, the probability of positive samples was 2.1 times lower in avian species than in mammalian ones. As the conditions in which mammals and birds are housed and fed differ, we conducted separate analyses for each group (Table 9 and Table 10). In both cases, the regression models fit the observed data well (HLt = 0.944 and 0.860 for the mammalian and avian data, respectively); the important increase in the standard error of the constant in the equation is a consequence of the small number of data available in some categories (Table 7). The percentages of data variation explained by the models were similar (46.1% for mammalian data) or lower (27.8% for avian data) compared to the combined analysis, and the percentages of samples correctly classified (77.5% in mammals, 90.4% in birds) were similar. In the analysis of the avian samples, none of the variables had a statistically significant effect at the p < 0.05 level. However, feeding habits approached this limit (p = 0.060) due to the greater number of omnivorous species found infected compared to carnivorous ones, though not at the p < 0.01 level (p = 0.018). In mammals, a similar situation was observed regarding the number of positive species in each zoological garden (1.245 lower in Faunia than in ZooAquarium; p = 0.019); the only variable that was clearly significant was feeding habits, with carnivorous species being the less infected group.

4. Discussion

In this study, we present the results obtained from the parasitological analysis of birds and mammals from two zoological facilities with different topologies. While other published studies on zoo animal parasites focused on hosts belonging to a small group of taxonomically related species [22,23,24] or based on their feeding habits [25,26,27], the present work stands out for the number and zoological diversity of the host species analyzed, including 15 orders of mammals and 23 of birds. The objective of this study is to assess the importance of various factors in the transmission and dissemination of parasites among zoo animals, as well as in relation to humans (zoo personnel and visitors).
With a few exceptions noted below, all the intestinal parasites identified in this study have been previously described in captive animals housed in zoological gardens [9,26,28,29,30,31,32]. We should note that this study had some limitations: no specific stainings were performed to detect the presence of Cryptosporidium oocysts or microsporidia spores, and the presence of Blastocystis was not routinely investigated. These parasites are mostly considered in specific studies, but only Cryptosporidium is sometimes investigated in broad host-range studies in zoos [6,7,32,33,34]. Another limitation is that no genetic studies have been conducted except in specific cases, thus preventing the precise identification of the species found.

4.1. On the Parasite Epidemiology, Biodiversity, and Species Identification

4.1.1. Avian Hosts

In our study, the number of infected host species was low and similar in both zoos (10.9–12.5%), although the number of positive samples was clearly higher in ZooAquarium (53.1%) than in Faunia (7.0%). In a general comparison, these values are within the range of prevalences reported in other studies, with nematodes being the most frequently mentioned group [35].
The hosts we found parasitised are mainly Accipitriformes and Galliformes; also, Gruiformes, Picirformes, Strigiformes, and ratites (Struthioniformes and Rheiformes). Galliformes are the group of zoo birds most commonly reported to be parasitized [9,29,31,36,37,38,39]. There are few studies on birds of prey (Accipitriformes, Falconiformes, and Strigiformes) in which capillariids and coccidia are the parasites most frequently found [39,40]. In our study, we did not find parasites in Psittaciformes or Passeriformes, groups that other authors found nematodes (mainly ascarids and trichurids) and coccidia with prevalences of up to 40% in some cases [9,28,29,30,32,36,39,41,42].
In Struthioniformes and Rheiformes, although parasitic biodiversity can be high in captive birds, especially the ostrich (Struthio camelus) [43], our findings were scarce and limited to protists in the ostrich and the rhea (Rhea Americana), similar to other results in Spain [37] and Brazil [7]; however, also in Brazil, nematodes (ascarids) were reported in the rhea and the cassowary (Casuariius casuarius) [18]. Coccidia and Capillaria were reported in the cassowary [39]. In Serbia, a low number of positive samples were reported in the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), the ostrich, and the rhea (29% in total), although the parasitic biodiversity was much higher, including unidentified ciliates (probably B. coli), unidentified ascarids, and strongyles (probably Lybiostrongylus Lane 1923, misidentified as Strongyloides Grassi 1879) in the ostrich, and Capillaria in the rhea [44]; similar results were obtained in the ostriches in zoos in Nigeria [38].
The vast majority of parasites reported in previous studies are species with a direct life cycle; however, unidentified trematodes were also occasionally reported [9,36,39]. The cestode eggs found in our study in the helmeted guineafowl may correspond to Raillietina, although since the morphology of the eggs is similar to that of Hymenolepis Weinland 1858 eggs, the identification is tentative. Overall, depending on the cestode species and the intensity of the infection, this can be asymptomatic or lead to diarrhoea and intestinal lesions [45,46].
In our study, the most common group of nematodes was the capillariids, found in 7 species of birds (Table 4 and Table 6). This generic term includes the genera Baruscapillaria Moravec 1982, Capillaria, Echinocoleus López-Neyra 1947, Eucoleus Dujardin 1845, Ornithocapillaria Barus and Sergeeva 1990, Pterothominx Freitas 1959, and Tridentocapillaria Barus and Sergeeva 1990 [47]. In cases where species from more than one genus were described in the corresponding host, we used the term “capillariid” (e.g., in the Steller’s sea eagle, Haliaeetus pelagicus, where Eucoleus dispar Dujardin 1845 and Capillaria tenuissima (Rudolphi 1809) were described). We identified the eggs found in the Harris’s hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus) as Trichuris based on their morphology; however, we have not found any species of Trichuris or Capillaria described in this bird, so the possibility of spurious parasitism cannot be ruled out. Pérez-Cordón et al. [33] identified Trichuris in some of their samples but without specifying the host species. The clinical significance of these parasites depends on their location in the host and the intensity of infection; in fatal cases, there may be no clinical signs, or they may be nonspecific (e.g., diarrhoea, anorexia, weakness) [47].
The other group of nematodes found in birds includes the ascarids, found in Galliformes (Ascaridia/Heterakis) and Accipitriformes (Porrocaecum). The genus Porrocaecum includes two cosmopolitan species that affect birds of prey, Porrocaecum angusticolle (Molin 1860) and Porrocaecum depressum (Frölich 1802); in both cases, infections typically do not produce clinical signs or severe disease in birds, although they may occasionally lead to death [48]. On the other hand, several species of Ascaridia and Heterakis have been reported in the helmeted guineafowl and the red junglefowl/chicken (Gallus gallus) [49], with the eggs of species from both genera being very similar; for this reason, we considered it preferable to identify them as Ascaridia/Heterakis. The symptoms produced by these nematodes are nonspecific and can result in the death of the affected animal. In wild populations, infections by these parasites can have a negative impact on development, lower host body condition, and worse rates of survival and reproduction [49].
In the present study, we did not find coccidia in the bird samples, although this is generally the most frequently encountered group of protists, with a range of 9–100% of positive samples when present [9,18,31,39]. The most common genera of coccidia in birds are Eimeria and Isospora Schneider 1881 [50,51], although Caryospora Leger 1904, Tyzzeria Allen 1936, and Wenyonella Hoare 1933 have also been reported in birds [52]. In general, the symptoms caused consist of diarrhoea, enlarged abdomen, loss of appetite and weight, and even death.
The only protists identified in birds in this study were ciliates (B. coli) and amoebae (Entamoeba spp.). Balantioides coli were found only in the ostriches, as reported in other studies [7,38,44]. Additionally, three species of Entamoeba were identified, forming uninucleated cysts (in the ostriches), tetranucleated cysts (in the rheas), and octonucleated cysts (in the chickens and the guineafowl). Uninucleated cysts are commonly found in ratites, especially the ostriches [43], where the species Entamoeba struthionis Ponce-Gordo et al. 2004 was described [53,54]. However, in other studies, Entamoeba was not reported, but other protists (ciliates) were recorded [38,44]. In the rhea, E. polecki and Entamoeba suis Hartmann 1913 were identified through genetic analysis [55,56], as well as an unidentified species forming octonucleated cysts [43]. The tetranucleated cysts found here were genetically analysed and correspond to Entamoeba dispar Brumpt 1925 [57]. In captive emus in Brazil, uninucleated cysts identified as Entamoeba spp. were also found [58]. Regarding Entamoeba gallinarum Tyzzer 1920, a species forming octonucleated cysts described in galliforms, there are few studies reporting its presence, and always with a low prevalence [9,59].

4.1.2. Mammalian Hosts

The number of species found infected varied according to the zoological institution, being overall and by animal group (according to their diet) higher in ZooAquarium than in Faunia. However, the values found in ZooAquarium are within the range of results published by other authors [25,31,32,60], and compared to other European zoos, the values are also similar or even lower [26,34,44,61]. These overall data, however, require a more detailed analysis as there are significant differences depending on the mammalian group considered.
Among carnivorous animals, we only found positive samples in some species of the order Carnivora and in the giant anteater (order Pilosa) (Table 3 and Table 5). In species of the order Carnivora, the vast majority of findings occurred only once or twice over the 10 years of sampling, and except for four positive samples for Capillaria, the parasites now found do not correspond to those generally detected in other studies, which report ascarids, whipworms, and strongyles [13,25,31,34,44,60,62].
The highest number of infected species, and positive samples, was observed in herbivores and omnivores. Almost all species of Artiodactyla tested positive for amoebas (Entamoeba), and those of Perissodactyla, for ciliates. In some hoofed animals, cestode eggs were found (the species could not be determined), and some species also showed persistent nematode infestation by Trichuris, Capillaria, and/or trichostrongylids; however, the overall helminth prevalence relative to protists was lower. In other studies, helminth infections in hoofed animals were predominant [6,37].
Non-human primates (NHP) are one of the mammal groups commonly studied in zoo animal research [35]. The parasites typically reported in these animals include Entamoeba, Giardia, and Trichuris [3,7,31]; other protists (Giardia, coccidians, Cryptosporidium, ciliates) and helminths (such as strongylates, ascarids, oxyurids, and spirurids) were also occasionally documented [7,23,30,34,44,61,63,64,65]. Similar to hoofed animals, helminths were typically reported in NHPs with a higher prevalence than protists [7,31,32,34]; however, in some studies, protists (mainly Entamoeba, Giardia, and ciliates) were more common [22].
By parasite group, Entamoeba spp. were the most frequently encountered protozoa in herbivorous and omnivorous mammals. In carnivores, Entamoeba cysts were found in the giant anteater, and they were genetically identified as E. dispar [57]. The remaining species found belong to either the E. polecki group (forming uninucleated cysts) or the E. coli group (forming octonucleated cysts). The species Entamoeba ovis Swellengrebel 1914 and E. bovis (forming uninucleated cysts) were described in various ruminant species, but due to the difficulty in morphological differentiation (the size ranges overlap), we have preferred to identify them as E. bovis-like [66]. The uninucleated cysts observed in suids are larger, but there are several morphologically indistinguishable species that can infect them (E. polecki, E. struthionis, and E. suis). In NHPs, the one-nucleated cysts are commonly identified as Entamoeba chattoni Swellengrebel 1914 [67,68,69,70,71] or as E. polecki [72,73,74], both morphologically indistinguishable. Therefore, in suids and NHPs, we identified the uninucleated cysts as E. polecki-like [66]. The eight-nucleated cysts found in NHPs would correspond to Entamoeba coli, but since it is actually considered a species complex [75], it would be best to identify the findings as E. coli-like. In general, the E. bovis-like, E. polecki-like, and E. coli-like species are considered non-pathogenic, although [76] reported a case of symptomatic infection in humans by E. polecki, [77] suggested an association between the presence of E. bovis and diarrhoea in cattle, and Coke et al. [78] reported a fatal case in which unidentified Entamoeba and Acanthamoeba Volkonsky 1931 were found in gastric ulcers in an 11-month-old female giant anteater. Except for the E. bovis-like species, all other Entamoeba spp. from zoo mammals can infect humans.
Ciliates are the second most commonly encountered group of protists in our study in terms of findings and infected hosts; however, they are usually not reported except in specific studies. There is a great diversity of ciliates described in Artiodactyla, Perissodactyla, and Proboscidea, mostly corresponding to species of the orders Entodiniomorphida and Vestibuliferida [79,80,81,82,83,84]. Since the identification of different genera and species requires specific staining methods, and most of these species are considered commensal/endosymbionts, we made a generic identification of the findings in the hippopotamus, equids, rhinoceroses, and elephants as “endosymbiotic ciliates”. From a human and animal health viewpoint, the ciliate species with greater relevance are vestibuliferid ciliates (Balantioides and Buxtonella) from some hoofed animals (camels, suids, and tapirs) and from NHPs. They can be transmitted to humans (at least B. coli) and have been considered by several authors as potentially pathogenic for their hosts [85,86,87,88]. Based on cyst size, our findings in some hoofed animals (the sitatunga, Tragelaphus spekii, the moose, Alces alces, the collared peccary, Dicotyles tajacu, the red river hog, and the pigs) and in NHPs would correspond to B. coli, while in large bovids (the European bison, Bison bonasus, the yak, Bos grunniens, and the African buffalo, Syncerus caffer), the ciliate was identified as Buxtonella sulcata. The species infecting camels, usually reported as B. coli, is Buxtonella cameli [88]. The identification of B. coli of the NHP cysts should be considered tentative, as an unnamed Buxtonella sp. whose cysts are similar to those of B. coli could also infect NHPs [87]. When these protists are reported in studies on zoo animals, their prevalence is highly variable, ranging from 10–22% in hoofed animals to 9.5–80% in NHPs (the macaques, the chimpanzees, and the orangutans) [6,7,32]. Also, in NHPs, in the present study, we found some gorilla samples positive for Troglodytella, a rare finding in zoo populations. Our findings occurred after a new gorilla from an England zoo was introduced to the group. While this ciliate is common in wild African great apes (and B. coli is rare), the different diet in captivity leads to the opposite situation in zoo animals and even to the disappearance of Troglodytella [89,90].
Giardia cysts were observed in several host species. Giardia duodenalis is considered a species complex, with its genetic variants typically regarded as assemblages [91]. A recent proposal for taxonomic revision [92] has been made to assign these assemblages to defined species. The new findings in NHPs (in the common brown lemur, Eulemur fulvus, and the ring-tailed lemur, Lemur catta) would correspond to the G. duodenalis Stiles 1902 assemblage B/Giardia enterica Grassi 1881, according to previous records [93]. Maesano et al. [61] also found Giardia in the ruffled lemur (Varecia variegata), the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla), and the capuchin monkey (Sapajus apella), although they did not specify the species. According to the recent taxonomic proposal [92], the findings we made in other mammals (hoofed animals, the crested porcupine, Hystrix cristata, and the red river hog) may correspond to G. duodenalis, Giardia intestinalis (Lambl 1859), or G. enterica; the findings in the aardvark cannot be presumptively assigned to any of the newly (re)described species.
The finding of tapeworm eggs in species housed in zoos is rarely reported [6,64]. In our study, the findings were occasional, and the morphology of the eggs did not correspond to that of the tapeworm species cited in the corresponding hosts, suggesting that they could be spurious parasitoses. The presence of eggs resembling Hymenolepis in Madagascar lemurs was mentioned [94], but no species were described.
In nematodes, the most frequent findings corresponded to Trichuris and Capillaria eggs. We found capillariid eggs in different anteater individuals at the ZooAquarium, but it is not possible to identify the genus because there are no previous descriptions in this host species; Diniz et al. [95] indicated that 28% of the samples they analysed were positive for Trichuris, although they did not provide specific details or indicate the possible species.
Several species of Trichuris could infect hoofed animals (Trichuris ovis (Abidgaard 1795), Trichuris discolor (von Linstow 1906), and Trichuris skrjabini Baskakov 1924), so it is not possible to make a specific identification with the available data. The Capillaria eggs in the fallow deer (Dama dama) could correspond to Capillaria bovis (Schnyder 1906) [96]. In NHPs, spurious parasitosis would explain occasional findings in the mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx), the Müller’s gibbon (Hylobates muelleri), and the lemurs; however, the repeated findings in the colobus (Colobus guereza) and the baboons (Papio spp.) would indicate true infections. The species in NHPs are typically identified as Trichuris trichiura (Linnaeus 1771) [97], but Trichuris colobae Cutillas et al. 2014 was also described in the colobus [98], Trichuris ursinus Callejón et al. 2017 in the baboon [99], and Trichuris lemuris Rudolphi 1819 in the lemurs [100]. In other studies in zoo NHPs, Trichuris spp. were found with prevalences between 20 and 100% [34,101]. At least T. trichiura can be transmitted to humans. Mild infections are usually asymptomatic, but fatal cases have been described in NHPs [102].
Regarding the trichostrongylids, the only findings occurred in hoofed animals; NHP samples were always negative. The morphological and size similarity of the eggs found in hoofed animals makes it difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate the eggs of different genera, so identifications are usually conducted generically as “strongyle type” or “trichostrongylids” [32,103,104,105]; if anything, Nematodirus, due to its size, can be identified separately [61,104]. Depending on the helminth species and the intensity of the infection, animals may be asymptomatic or suffer from gastrointestinal symptoms (especially in trichostrongylid infections); Nematodirus can be highly pathogenic and cause death within a few days after the onset of symptoms [106].
The ascarid eggs found in carnivores belong to Baylisascaris. In the Brown bear, the species could correspond to Baylisascaris transfuga (Rudolphi 1819), which was identified in wild host species in Europe and Asia [105,107]. In the case of the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) samples, it could correspond to Baylisascaris columnaris Leidy 1856, which was detected in other European zoos [108]. We did not find Toxocara/Toxascaris infections despite their prevalence potentially being high in zoo animals [109]. In equids, Parascaris equorum can be recorded in zoo animals with a low prevalence, usually below 15% [32,33,105,110].

4.2. Effect of Housing Conditions

Considered collectively, the results obtained in both zoological parks show parasitic prevalences (Table 1) lower than those observed in many other studies [6,24,33,37,44,111,112]. The differences between the results from different zoos can be attributed to a multitude of factors such as animal density, their immune status, the design of the facilities, perimeter barriers, or preventive medicine programmes (staff control, biosecurity measures, cleanliness, routine monitoring of the animals) [35]. In the present case, the animal density and the preventive medicine programmes were the same, as both institutions belong to the same leisure park operator and have the same protocols; the only differences between the two centres are the location and design of the facilities and the animal collection housed. In other comparative studies between zoos [34,104], differences among centres were attributed to the type of facility, the possibility of herbivore grazing, and the frequency of faeces collection and cleaning. Other important factors include possible water or food contamination (animal carcasses for carnivores, grass and herbaceous material for herbivores) [37,113,114]. In the present study, control over water and food provided to the animals is similar in both zoos, so the differences in the observed results between them must have another origin.
We have observed that some parasites appeared more frequently (those with high detection percentages in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6), but there was not an apparent direct relationship with population size. For example, in ZooAquarium, there were numerous groups of dama gazelles and a small group of fallow deer; both species commonly had Entamoeba bovis-like infections (70–80% of positive samples), but nematode infections were occasional (e.g., Trichuris spp. was found in 15–16% of gazelle samples and Capillaria in 5% of fallow deer samples).
Although the results obtained in our study concerning accessibility by uncontrolled fauna are not statistically significant, the overall presence of parasites was 1.3 times higher in species in accessible environments compared to those in controlled environments. In this regard, there are no major differences in the general typology of bird facilities between ZooAquarium and Faunia. All birds are in accessible environments, and the incidence of parasitised species is similar in both centres; the slightly higher (statistically non-significant) incidence of parasitism in Faunia may be due to the greater presence of multi-species installations and aviaries, which would facilitate transmission among birds. However, in the case of mammals, the likelihood of a species harbouring parasites in accessible environments was more than 19 times higher than in isolated ones, but no statistically significant differences were found between ZooAquarium and Faunia (where there are a greater number of species in controlled environments) most likely due to mathematical issues (highly unbalanced number of cases in each factor combination; see Table 7). It has been proposed that the possible existence of microclimates within the parks may provide the necessary humidity and temperature for the survival of some pathogens [115]. However, this circumstance would not explain the differences between ZooAquarium and Faunia; while ZooAquarium has a greater number of interior concrete sleeping quarters, where eggs/cysts/oocysts can be maintained in more humid environments and protected from solar radiation, Faunia has a greater number of controlled, enclosed installations without direct sunlight.
One of the likely most important factors to consider is the entry of parasites transported by carriers (i.e., insects) or transmitted by local wildlife that enter the zoo in search of food [14,16,18]. This would allow for similar prevalences of direct-cycle parasites in animals from outside and inside the park [9,10,17]. In the case of parasites with an indirect life cycle, the uncontrolled entries of infected intermediate hosts can lead to the occurrence of infections by adult cestodes in some cases, while the entrance of infected adult hosts (i.e., mesocarnivores) into reserved areas could result in the emergence of larval cestodiasis, which can be lethal for zoo animals [16]. ZooAquarium and Faunia are located close to each other in the same city (about 15 km apart in a straight line), so, a priori, there is not a significant difference in the potential wild animals that may introduce parasites into both centres. The climatic conditions are also similar, and these do not seem to differentiate the results between different zoos [115]. However, ZooAquarium is situated within the largest urban park in Madrid, where sheep and goats graze during certain times of the year, and there is a greater presence of wildlife in the surrounding environment compared to Faunia, which is situated in a more urban setting. In the case of cestode eggs found in some mammals at the zoo, regardless of whether they are genuine or spurious parasitosis, their origin should be linked to infected animals from the outside (intermediate hosts with larvae, adult hosts excreting eggs in faeces) that entered into the zoo facilities. In addition to local wildlife, the public can also introduce parasites (e.g., eggs, cysts, or oocysts on footwear) from the outside to the inside of the facilities. An effective way to prevent contagion would be to limit public and wildlife access to animal facilities or keep the hosted animals in isolated environments, both circumstances being more prevalent in Faunia than in ZooAquarium installations.
The sanitary control of food is another important factor. In carnivorous species, food is often frozen for a few days before use, which helps kill tissue forms of protists and helminths. However, this pretreatment is not usually carried out with vegetables to maintain their appearance and palatability, and if they are not processed with extensive washing, there is a high probability of transmission of cysts/oocysts/eggs. Several studies have shown the contamination of fruits and vegetables sold to consumers with parasitic structures (cysts, oocysts, and eggs) in countries across all continents [116,117,118,119]. In Europe, Federer et al. [120] studied the presence of taeniid eggs in the vegetables and fruits fed to gorillas in Basel Zoo (Switzerland). Despite the vegetables being of high quality, processed at high hygienic standards, and pre-washed by the farmer, the authors later identified the DNA of several taeniid species (Taenia crassiceps (Zeder 1800), Taenia hydatigena Pallas 1766, Taenia multiceps Goeze 1782/Taenia serialis (Gervais 1847), Taenia saginata Goeze 1782, and Hydatigera taeniaeformis (Batsch 1786)) in wastewater obtained after the routine processing of the food in the zoo food preparation station. The risk exists, but the problem is that there are not always well-established, standardised, or validated methods for detecting parasites in food [121].
Another possible cause of the greater impact generally experienced by herbivorous and omnivorous species compared to carnivores may be their feeding behaviour and the substrate on which they feed. The herbivorous/omnivorous species directly ingest food from the ground or, in the case of primates, using their hands, which are also used for locomotion; thus, contact with parasite transmission forms present in the soil is easier. The type of soil is important due to the varying difficulty in cleaning it [122], which may allow for the persistence of transmission forms. As mentioned earlier, this circumstance should be especially considered in sleeping quarters or in isolated themed environments, where microclimates that serve as foci for parasitic infection can develop (of particular relevance in direct life cycle parasites). Among carnivores, the giant anteater is a special case; being in an outdoor installation with natural soil, it can also easily become infected by arthropods or annelids that it preys upon in the enclosure.

4.3. Transmission Risks between Animals and Humans

Almost all parasite species identified in this study followed a direct life cycle. The trematode eggs discovered in two samples from bears at ZooAquarium were not identified, thus hindering the evaluation of transmission risk to other animals. The bears were housed in enclosures with minimal vegetation, limiting the presence of snails that could serve as intermediate hosts; however, their enclosure features a safety moat where plants grow, and snails might live there and could potentially continue the parasite cycle. The fact that the eggs were detected only once suggests that the infection was likely due to metacercariae in the supplied food rather than an active ongoing cycle, but a natural infection cannot be ruled out.
The adult stage of cestodes exhibits some host specificity, while the larval stages could frequently affect a wide range of intermediate hosts. The guineafowl releasing Raillietina-like eggs would probably become infected after ingesting parasitised insects that freely accessed the bird facilities. This was an exceptional situation, as the finding occurred only once in the last 10 years. In mammals, the cestode eggs found were also detected only once in each positive host species; the fact that the morphology of the eggs does not correspond to any species previously described in the hosts suggests that some or all of them may be spurious parasitoses. Despite the greater abundance of wildlife around ZooAquarium, and until it can be confirmed that they are real parasitoses, there is no evidence for a higher rate of transmission of indirect life cycle parasites in one or the other zoo; however, the possibility of their occurrence exists. In none of the positive cases, the eggs found corresponded to taeniids, which could be the most dangerous cestodes for humans and other mammals as cysticerci could develop in their internal organs and may cause death. Cysticerci were recovered three times in the surgeries or necropsies of some animals at the ZooAquarium in the last 20 years (T. crassiceps cysticerci found in 2007 in a ring-tailed lemur [123]; unidentified cysticerci found in 2009 in a dorcas gazelle, and T. crassiceps cysticerci found in 2017 in a ring-tailed lemur [124]). The origin of these infections was not established, but at least for the 2007 lemur cysticercosis, it was suspected to have occurred before the animal arrived at the ZooAquarium [123]. However, in the park of origin, the infection would have occurred through any of the routes already mentioned in Section 4.2.
The nematodes found in birds are not infective species for mammals, so they do not pose a risk to zoo staff or visitors, although they can be transmitted to wild birds that enter the facilities seeking food. In the zoos considered in this study, this transmission seems unlikely, as most of the nematodes were detected in birds of prey, and wild fauna would avoid entering the areas within their range. At Faunia, findings were occasional in Galliformes and Gruiformes; the exception being toucans, where Capillaria infection recurs over time; however, in this case, the birds are in a closed installation inaccessible to wild avifauna from the area.
Transmission of parasites between zoos is possible due to the exchange of animals that may be parasitised [44]. Pre-transportation analyses of animals or quarantine periods at the receiving zoo are essential to prevent parasite dissemination. Likewise, there is a risk of parasite transmission from zoo animals to wildlife when zoos participate in breeding and species repopulation/reintroduction programs in their original habitats. It has been proposed that pre-exposure to some pathogens (i.e., parasites) can increase host survival rates once released into the wild [24,125,126]. However, zoos can serve as hotspots for gastrointestinal parasites [115,127], and hidden host–parasite co-reintroductions could occur [128]. This can affect both the reintroduced animals and/or the target population [127], leading to difficulties or failure in some reintroduction programs [24]. Husbandry practices are of special relevance to avoid reintroduction of apparently healthy but parasitised animals into wild populations [24,115]. The gastrointestinal parasites that can be involved in the success or failure of reintroduction programs should be considered on a case-by-case basis; in general, coccidia and nematodes would be the most important ones [115,129,130].
In our study, we identified certain parasites that are potentially transmissible between animals and humans (Entamoeba spp., Giardia spp., B. coli, Trichuris spp.). In a previous molecular-based investigation [15], there was no evidence of transmission between these parasites and the personnel at ZooAquarium and Faunia; however, zoonotic transmission was detected for Cryptosporidium hominis Morgan-Ryan et al. 2002 and Blastocystis (Alexeieff 1911) spp. In some studies conducted in other zoos, potential transmission of parasites to zoo personnel was also suggested [11,12,13,14,131,132]. The risk of transmission to visitors is low, as contact with animals is generally limited or nonexistent; however, zookeepers and veterinarians are exposed during handling and cleaning operations. Regular analyses of the animals and a personnel health program incorporating proper training, periodic testing, and health monitoring would minimise transmission risks between animals and caretakers [122].

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study largely align with those reported by other authors, indicating that parasites with direct life cycle, including protists and helminths, are predominant in captive animals. Most of the parasite species identified exhibit low or no pathogenicity; the predominance of this type of parasite could be attributed to a combination of factors: (1) Non-pathogen species are typically not investigated or treated in animals, thus facilitating their spread. Conversely, potentially pathogenic species are detected and treated in animals. (2) Animals are fed a controlled diet, which helps prevent or at least limit infections.
Cleaning and disinfecting soil is relatively easy to achieve in artificial (usually concrete) substrates. However, in natural soils, this is often not feasible, and parasites with direct life cycles are difficult to eliminate from the facilities, leading to periodic reinfections. In these circumstances, animals that feed on the ground (e.g., herbivores) have an increased likelihood of becoming infected. This also applies to non-human primates, as they commonly use their hands for locomotion and food manipulation. Regular analyses and preventive/therapeutic antiparasitic treatments would be the optimal approach to maintaining a low intensity of parasite infections and to reduce the risk of zoonotic transmission.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.J.G.-R. and F.P.-G.; data curation, L.E.-S., J.J.G.-R. and F.P.-G.; formal analysis, L.E.-S., J.J.G.-R. and F.P.-G.; investigation, L.E.-S., J.J.G.-R. and F.P.-G.; methodology, L.E.-S., J.J.G.-R. and F.P.-G.; resources, J.G.-G., E.M.-N. and M.A.d.l.R.-F.; supervision, J.J.G.-R. and F.P.-G.; Validation, F.P.-G.; Writing—original draft, L.E.-S., M.A.d.l.R.-F. and F.P.-G.; writing—review and editing, L.E.-S., J.J.G.-R., J.G.-G., E.M.-N., M.A.d.l.R.-F. and F.P.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval is not required for this study. Samples were collected as part of the routine monitoring of the animals to determine their health status; no direct manipulation of the animals occurred for the collection of the samples used in this study.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank all the staff of the ZooAquarium and Faunia Park for their help in the collection, handling, and transport of the samples. We wish to thank Maria Donina Hernández and Manuela Pumar Martín for their help in the processing of the samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. J.G.G., E.M.N. and M.A.R.F. are employees of the zoological institutions, but these had no role in the design, funding, execution, interpretation, supervision, or writing of the study.

References

  1. Combes, C. Parasites, biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Biodivers. Conserv. 1996, 5, 953–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Scott, M.E. Impact of infection and disease on animal populations: Implications for conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 1988, 2, 40–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Loye, J.; Carrol, S. Birds, bugs and blood: Avian parasitism and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10, 232–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Holmes, J.C. Parasites as threats to biodiversity in shrinking ecosystems. Biodivers. Conserv. 1996, 5, 975–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), EAZA Ex Situ Programmes (EEPs). Available online: https://www.eaza.net/conservation/programmes/eep-pages/ (accessed on 9 February 2024).
  6. Lim, Y.A.L.; Ngui, R.; Shukri, J.; Rohela, M.; Mat-Naim, H.R. Intestinal parasites in various animals at a zoo in Malaysia. Vet. Parasitol. 2008, 157, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Da Silva-Barbosa, A.; Pinheiro, J.L.; Dos Santos, C.R.; de Lima, C.S.C.C.; Dib, L.V.; Echarte, G.V.; Augusto, A.M.; Bastos, A.C.M.P.; Antunes-Uchôa, C.M.; Bastos, O.M.P.; et al. Gastrointestinal parasites in captive animals at the Rio de Janeiro Zoo. Acta Parasitol. 2020, 65, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gracenea, M.; Gómez, M.S.; Torres, J.; Carné, E.; Fernández-Morán, J. Transmission dynamics of Cryptosporidium in primates and herbivores at the Barcelona zoo: A long-term study. Vet. Parasitol. 2002, 104, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Carrera-Jâtiva, P.D.; Morgan, E.R.; Barrows, M.; Wronski, T. Gastrointestinal parasites in captive and free-ranging birds and potential cross-transmission in a zoo environment. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2018, 49, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Carrera-Jâtiva, P.D.; Morgan, E.R.; Barrows, M.; Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G.; Roosvelt, J.; Tituaña, A. Free-ranging avifauna as a source of generalist parasites for captive birds in zoological settings: An overview of parasite records and potential for cross-transmission. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2020, 7, 482–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Juncker-Voss, M.; Prosl, H.; Lussy, H.; Enzenberg, U.; Auer, H.; Lassnig, H.; Müller, M.; Nowotny, N. Screening for antiboides against zoonoses among employees of the Zoological Garden of Vienna, Schönbrunn, Austria. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 2004, 117, 404–409. [Google Scholar]
  12. Parkar, U.; Traub, R.J.; Vitali, S.; Elliot, A.; Levecke, B.; Robertson, I.; Geurden, T.; Steele, J.; Drake, B.; Andrew-Thompson, R.C. Molecular characterization of Blastocystis isolates from zoo animals and their animal-keepers. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 169, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Arafa, W.M.; Mahrous, L.N.; Aboelhadid, S.M.; Abdel-Ghany, A.E. Investigation of enteric parasites of zoo animals and zookeepers in Beni-Suef Governatore, Egypt. Beni-Suef Vet. Med. J. 2013, 22, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Köster, P.C.; Dashti, A.; Bailo, B.; Muadica, A.S.; Maloney, J.G.; Santín, M.; Chicharro, C.; Migueláñez, S.; Nieto, F.J.; Cano-Terriza, D.; et al. Occurrence and genetic diversity of protest parasites in captive non-human primates, zookeepers, and free-living sympatric rats in the Córdoba Zoo Conservation Centre, Southern Spain. Animals 2021, 11, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Köster, P.; Martínez-Nevado, E.; González, A.; Abelló-Poveda, M.T.; Fernández-Bellón, H.; de la Riva-Fraga, M.; Marquet, B.; Guéry, J.P.; Knauf-Witzens, T.; Weiglod, A.; et al. Intestinal protists in captive non-human primates and their handlers in six European zoological gardens. Molecular evidence of zoonotic transmission. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 8, 819887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Greigert, V.; Brion, N.; Lang, C.; Regnard, P.; Pfaff, A.W.; Abou-Bacar, A.; Wanert, F.; Dirheimer, M.; Candolfi, E.; Brunet, J. Cestode infections in non-human primates suggest the existence of zoonotic cycles in the area surrounding the Strasbourg primatology center. Parasite 2019, 26, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ananias-Lima, T.; Borges-Salgado, P.A.; Fernandes-Chagas, C.R.; Locosque-Ramos, P.; Aparecido-Adriano, E.; Lima-González, I.H. Feral cats: Parasitic reservoirs in our zoos? Open J. Vet. Med. 2020, 10, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Melo, Y.J.O.; Ferraz, H.T.; Saturnino, K.C.; Silva, T.D.P.; Braga, I.A.; Amaral, A.V.C.; Meirelles-Bartoli, R.B.; Ramos, D.G.S. Gastrointestinal parasites in captive and free-lliving wild birds in Goiania Zoo. Braz. J. Biol. 2021, 82, e240386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.11) [Data Set]. Zenodo. Available online: https://www.mammaldiversity.org/ (accessed on 9 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  20. Gill, F.; Donsker, D.; Rasmussen, P. (Eds.) IOC World Bird List (v14.1). 2024. Available online: https://www.worldbirdnames.org (accessed on 9 February 2024).
  21. Levine, J.A.; Estevez, E.G. Method of concentration of parasites from small amount of feces. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1983, 18, 786–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Levecke, B.; Dorny, P.; Geurden, T.; Vercammen, F.; Vercruysse, J. Gastrointestinal protozoa in non-human primates of four zoological gardens in Belgium. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 148, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nath, B.G.; Islam, S.; Chakraborty, A. Prevalence of parasitic infection in captive non human primates of Assam State Zoo, India. Vet. World 2012, 5, 614–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moreno-Mañas, E.; Gonzálvez-Juan, M.; Ruiz-de Ybáñez Carnero, M.R.; Gilber, T.; Ortiz, J.; Espeso, G.; Benzal, J.; Ibáñez, B.; Valera-Hernández, F. Survey of husbandry practices for bovidae in zoos: The importance of parasite management for reintroduction programmes. Vet. Rec. 2019, 184, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Adeniyi, I.C.; Morenikeji, O.A.; Emikpe, B.O. The prevalence of gastro-intestinal parasites of carnivores in university zoological gardens in South West Nigeria. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2015, 7, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schieber, M.C.; Štrkolcová, G. Prevalence of endoparasites in carnivores in a zoo and a wolves park in Germany. Folia Vet. 2019, 63, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Singh, P.; Gupta, M.P.; Singla, L.D.; Sharma, S.; Sandhu, B.S.; Sharma, D.R. Parasitic infections in wild herbivores in the Mahendra Choudhury Zoological Park, Chhatbir, Punjab. Zoos’ Print J. 2006, 21, 2459–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gurler, A.T.; Beyhan, Y.E.; Acici, M.; Bolukbas, C.S.; Umur, S. Helminths of mammals and birds at the Samsun Zoological Garden, Turkey. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2010, 41, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Papini, R.; Girivetto, M.; Marangi, M.; Mancianti, F.; Giangaspero, A. Endoparasite infections in pet and zoo birds in Italy. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 253127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fajardo-Sánchez, J.E.; Lasso-Narváez, A.M.; Mera-Eraso, C.M.; Peña-Stadlin, J.; Zapata-Valencia, J.I.; Rojas-Cruz, C. Potential zoonotic enteric parasites in animals in captivity at the Zoo in Cali, Colombia. Neotrop. Helminthol. 2014, 8, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dashe, D.; Berhanu, A. Study of gastrointestinal parasitism of wild animals in captivity at the Zoological Garden of Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Open J. Vet. Med. 2020, 10, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dos Santos, I.G.; Vieira-Batista, A.I.; Inacio-da Silva, W.S.; Oliveira-Neto, M.B.; Cerqueira-Schettino, S.; Resende-Oliveira, M.; Nascimento-Ramos, R.A.; Câmara-Alves, L.; Bezerra-Santos, M.; Santana-Lima, V.F. Gastrointestinal parasites in captive wild animals from two Brazilian Zoological Gardens. Res. Soc. Dev. 2022, 10, e28411426637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pérez-Cordón, G.; Hitos-Prados, A.; Romero, D.; Sánchez-Moreno, M.; Pontes, A.; Osuna, A.; Rosales, M.J. Intestinal and haematic parasitism in the birds of the Almuñecar (Granada, Spain) ornithological garden. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 165, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fagiolini, M.; Lia, R.P.; Laricchiuta, P.; Cavicchio, P.; Mannella, R.; Cafarchia, C.; Otranto, D.; Finotello, R.; Perrucci, S. Gastrointestinal parasites in mammals of two Italian zoological gardens. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2010, 41, 662–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Panayotova-Pencheva, M.S. Parasites in captive animals: A review of studies in some European zoos. Zool. Gart. 2013, 82, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Parsani, H.R.; Momin, R.R.; Bhuva, C.N. Parasitic infections among captive birds at Sakkarbagh Zoo, Junagadh, Gujarat. Zoos’ Print J. 2001, 16, 462–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pérez-Cordón, G.; Hitos-Prados, A.; Romero, D.; Sánchez-Moreno, M.; Pontes, A.; Osuna, A.; Rosales, M.J. Intestinal parasitism in the animals of the zoological garden “Peña Escrita” (Almuñecar, Spain). Vet. Parasitol. 2008, 156, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Otegbade, A.C.; Morenikeji, O.A. Gastrointestinal parasites of birds in zoological gardens in South-West Nigeria. Trop. Biomed. 2014, 31, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Ilić, T.; Becskei, Z.; Gajić, B.; Özvegy, J.; Stepanović, P. Prevalence of endoparasitic infections of birds in zoo gardens in Serbia. Acta Parasitol. 2018, 63, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Borgsteede, F.H.M.; Okulewicz, A.; Zoun, P.E.F.; Okulewicz, J. The helminth fauna of birds of prey (Accipitriformes, Falconiformes and Strigiformes) in the Netherlands. Acta Parasitol. 2003, 48, 200–207. [Google Scholar]
  41. Parsani, H.R.; Momin, R.R.; Sahu, R.K.; Patel, B.G. Prevalence of gastro-intestinal parasites in captive birds at Kamla Nehru Zoological Garden, Kankaria Zoo, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Zoos’ Print J. 2003, 18, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jayathangaraj, M.G.; Gomathinayagam, S.; Bhakyalakshmi, V. Incidence of coccidiosis in captive wild birds. Tamil Nadu J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2008, 4, 156. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ponce-Gordo, F.; Herrera, S.; Castro, A.T.; García-Durán, B.; Martínez-Díaz, R.A. Parasites from farmed ostriches (Struthio camelus) and rheas (Rhea americana) in Europe. Vet. Parasitol. 2002, 107, 137–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kvapil, P.; Kastelic, M.; Dovč, A.; Bártová, E.; Čížek, P.; Lima, N.; Štrus, Š. An eight-year survey of the intestinal parasites of carnivores, hoofed mammals primates, ratites and reptiles in the Ljubljana zoo in Slovenia. Folia Parasitol. 2017, 64, 013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bhowmik, M.K.; Sinha, P.K.; Chakraborty, A.K. Studies on the pathobiology of chicks experimentally infected with Raillietina cesticillus (Cestoda). Indian J. Poult. Sci. 1985, 7, 207–214. [Google Scholar]
  46. Samad, M.A.; Alam, M.M.; Bari, A.S. Effect of Raillietina echinobothrida infection on blood values and intestinal tissues of domestic fowls of Bangladesh. Vet. Parasitol. 1986, 21, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yabsley, M.J. Capillarid nematodes. In Parasitic Diseases of Wild Birds; Atkinson, C.T., Thomas, N.J., Hunter, D.B., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA, 2008; pp. 463–497. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fagerholm, H.P.; Overstreet, R.M. Ascaridoid nematodes: Contracaecum, Porrocaecum, and Baylisascaris. In Parasitic Diseases of Wild Birds; Atkinson, C.T., Thomas, N.J., Hunter, D.B., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA, 2008; pp. 413–433. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fedynich, A.M. Heterakis and Ascaridia. In Parasitic Diseases of Wild Birds; Atkinson, C.T., Thomas, N.J., Hunter, D.B., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA, 2008; pp. 388–412. [Google Scholar]
  50. Greiner, E.C. Isospora, Atoxoplasma, and Sarcocystis. In Parasitic Diseases of Wild Birds; Atkinson, C.T., Thomas, N.J., Hunter, D.B., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA, 2008; pp. 108–119. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yabsley, M.J.  Eimeria. In Parasitic Diseases of Wild Birds; Atkinson, C.T., Thomas, N.J., Hunter, D.B., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA, 2008; pp. 162–180. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schuster, R.; Krone, O. Infectious diseases—Parasites. In Avian Medicine, 3rd ed.; Samour, J., Ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2016; pp. 479–498. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ponce-Gordo, F.; Martínez-Díaz, R.A.; Herrera, S. Entasmoeba struthionis n.sp. (Sarcomastigophora: Endamoebidae) from ostriches (Struthio camelus). Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 119, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Symeonidou, I.; Diakou, A.; Papadopoulos, E.; Ponce-Gordo, F. Endoparasitism of Greek ostriches: First report of Entamoeba struthionis and Balantioides coli. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2019, 18, 100334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Stensvold, C.R.; Lebbad, M.; Victory, E.L.; Verweij, J.J.; Tannich, E.; Alfellani, M.; Legarraga, P.; Clark, C.G. Increased sampling reveals novel lineages of Entamoeba: Consequences of genetic diversity and host specificity for taxonomy and molecular detection. Protist 2011, 162, 525–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gallo, S.S.M.; Ederli, N.B.; Oliveira, F.C.R. Endoparasites and ectoparasites of rheas (Rhea Americana) from South America. Trop. Biomed. 2018, 35, 684–695. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Esteban-Sánchez, L.; García-Rodríguez, J.J.; Ponce-Gordo, F. First Report of Entamoeba Dispar Infecting Captive Rheas (Rhea americana) and Giant Anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla); Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Pharmacy, UCM: Madrid, Spain, 2024; manuscript in preparation. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gallo, S.S.M.; Teixeira, C.S.; Ederli, N.B.; Oliveira, F.C.R. Gastrointestinal parasites of a population of emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) in Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2020, 80, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Silvanose, C.D.; Bailey, T.A.; Samour, J.H.; Naldo, J.L. Intestinal protozoa and associated bacteria in captive houbara bustards (Chlamydotis undulate) in the United Arab Emirates. Avian Pathol. 1999, 28, 94–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ferdous, S.; Chowdhury, J.; Hasan, T.; Dutta, P.; Rahman, M.; Mahmudul-Hassan, M.; Faruque, R.; Abdul-Alim, M. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in wild mammals of a safari park and a zoo in Bangladesh. Vet. Med. Sci. 2023, 9, 1385–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Maesano, G.; Capasso, M.; Ianniello, D.; Cringoli, G.; Rinaldi, L. Parasitic infections detected by FLOTAC in zoo mammals from Warsaw, Poland. Acta Parasitol. 2014, 59, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mir, A.Q.; Dua, K.; Singla, L.D.; Sharma, S.; Singh, M.P. Prevalence of parasitic infection in captive wild animals in Bir Moti Bagh mini zoo (Deer Park), Patiala, Punjab. Vet. World 2016, 9, 540–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Singh, P.; Singla, L.D.; Gupta, M.P.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, D.R. Epidemiology and chemotherapy of parasitic infections in wild omnivores in the Mahendra Choudhury Zoological Park, Chhat Bir, Punjab. J. Threat. Taxa 2009, 1, 62–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Thawait, V.K.; Maiti, S.K.; Dixit, A.A. Prevalence of gastro-intestinal parasites in captive wild animals of Nandan Van Zoo, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Vet. World 2014, 7, 448–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fernandes-Chagas, C.R.; Lima-Gonzales, I.H.; Borges-Salgado, P.A.; Rodrigues, B.; Locosque-Ramos, P. Giardia spp., ten years of parasitological data in the biggest zoo of Latin America. Ann. Parasitol. 2019, 65, 35–51. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ponce-Gordo, F.; Martínez-Díaz, R.A. Taxonomía y filogenia del género Entamoeba. Una revisión histórica. Rev. Ibero-Lat-Am. Parasitol. 2010, 69, 5–37. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tachibana, H.; Cheng, X.J.; Kobayashi, S.; Fujita, Y.; Udono, T. Entamoeba dispar, but not E. histolytica, detected in a colony of chimpanzees in Japan. Parasitol. Res. 2000, 86, 537–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tachibana, H.; Cheng, X.J.; Kobayashi, S.; Matsubayashi, N.; Gotoh, S.; Matsubayashi, K. High prevalence of infection with Entamoeba dispar, but not E. histolytica, in captive macaques. Parasitol. Res. 2001, 87, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Muehlenbein, M.P. Parasitological analyses of the male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Am. J. Primatol. 2005, 65, 167–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Feng, M.; Yang, B.; Yang, L.; Fu, Y.; Zhuang, Y.; Liang, L.; Xu, Q.; Cheng, X.; Tachibana, H. High prevalence of Entamoeba infections in captive long-tailed macaques in China. Parasitol. Res. 2011, 109, 1093–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ravasi, D.F.; O’Riain, M.J.; Adams, V.J.; Appleton, C.C. A coprological survey of protozoan and nematode parasites of free-ranging chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) in the Southwestern Cape, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 2012, 42, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Thoisy, B.D.; Vogel, I.; Reynes, J.M.; Pouliquen, J.F.; Carme, B.; Kazanji, M.; Vié, J.C. Health evaluation of translocated free-ranging primates in French Guiana. Am. J. Primatol. 2001, 54, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Villers, L.M.; Jang, S.S.; Lent, C.L.; Lewin-Koh, S.C.; Norosoarinaivo, J.A. Survey and comparison of major intestinal flora in captive and wild ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) populations. Am. J. Primatol. 2008, 70, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Regan, C.S.; Yon, L.; Hossain, M.; Elsheikh, H.M. Prevalence of Entamoeba species in captive primates in zoological gardens in the UK. PeerJ 2014, 2, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Stensvold, C.R.; Ascuña-Durand, K.; Chihi, A.; Belkessa, S.; Kurt, Ö.; El-Badry, A.; van der-Giezen, M.; Clark, C.G. Further insight into the genetic diversity of Entamoeba coli and Entamoeba hartmanni. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2023, 70, e12949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Salaki, J.S.; Shirey, J.L.; Strickland, G.T. Successful treatment of symptomatic Entamoeba polecki infection. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1979, 28, 190–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Al-shabbani, A.A. Direct detection of Entamoeba bovis in calves infected by diarrhea by using polymerase chain reaction thecnique. Kufa J. Vete Med. Sci. 2016, 7, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Coke, R.L.; Carpenter, J.W.; Aboellail, T.; Armbrust, L.; Isaza, R. Dilated cardiomyopathy and amebic gastritis in a giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2002, 33, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Van Hoven, W.; Gilchrist, F.M.C.; Hamilton-Attwell, V.L. Intestinal ciliated protozoa of African rhinoceros: Two new genera and five new species from the white rhino (Ceratotherium simum Burchell, 1817). J. Protozool. 1987, 34, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Ito, A.; Miyazaki, Y.; Imai, S. Description of new Parentodinium ciliates in the family Parentodiniidae n.fam. from Hippopotamus amphibius in comparison with some entodiniomorphs from horses and cattle. Eur. J. Protistol. 2002, 37, 405–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Obanda, V.; Lekolool, I.; Kariuki, J.; Gakuya, F. Composition of intestinal ciliate fauna of free-rangin African elephants in Tsavo West National Park, Kenya. Pachyderm 2007, 42, 92–96. [Google Scholar]
  82. Cedrola, F.; Bordim, S.; d’Agosto, M.; Pedroso Días, R.J. Intestinal ciliates (Alveolata, Cilioophora) in Brazilian domestic horses (Equus caballus L.) and a review on the ciliate communities associated with horses around the world. Zootaxa 2019, 4585, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kornilova, O.; Tsushko, K.; Chistyakova, L. The first record of intestinal ciliates from the mountain zebra (Equus zebra) in South Africa. Acta Protozool. 2020, 59, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kornilova, O.A.; Belokon, M.E.; Skazina, M.A.; Alekseeva, O.S.; Chistyakova, L.V. Ciliates from the intestine of zoo-kept black rhinoceros, with immunofluorescence microscopic and molecular phylogenetic investigation of Rhinozeta rhinozeta (Litostomatea). Eur. J. Protistol. 2023, 90, 126006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tajik, J.; Fard, S.R.N.; Paidar, A.; Anousheh, S.; Dehghani, E. Balantidiasis in a dromedarian camel. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Dis. 2013, 3, 409–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dianso, J.A.; Garcia, G.G.; Belotindos, L.P.; Mingala, C.N. Molecular identification of Buxtonella sulcata from associated-diarrhea in wáter buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) in the Philippines. Ann. Parasitol. 2018, 64, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ponce-Gordo, F.; García-Rodriguez, J.J. Balantioides coli. Res. Vet. Sci. 2021, 135, 424–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Esteban-Sanchez, L.; Panayotova-Pencheva, M.; Qablan, M.; Modrý, D.; Hofmannová, L.; Ponce-Gordo, F. Question of agent of camel balantidiosis solved: Molecular identity, taxonomic solution and epidemiological considerations. Vet. Parasitol. 2023, 321, 109984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Pomajbíková, K.; Petrželková, K.J.; Profousová, I.; Petrášová, J.; Modrýd, D. Discrepancies in the occurrence of Balantidium coli between wild and captive African great apes. J. Parasitol. 2010, 96, 1139–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Petrželková, K.J.; Schovancová, K.; Profousová, I.; Kišidayová, S.; Varádyová, Z.; Pekár, S.; Kamler, J.; Modrý, D. The effect of low- and high-fiber diets on the population of entodiniomorphid ciliates Troglodytella abrassarti in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Am. J. Primatol. 2012, 74, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Feng, Y.; Xiao, L. Zoonotic potential and molecular epidemiology of Giardia species and giardiasis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 110–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wielinga, C.; Williams, A.; Monis, P.; Thompson, R.C.A. Proposed taxonomic revision of Giardia duodenalis. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2023, 111, 105430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Martínez-Díaz, R.A.; Sansano-Maestre, J.; Martínez-Herrero, M.C.; Ponce-Gordo, F.; Gómez-Muñoz, M.T. Occurrence and genetic characterization of Giardia duodenalis from captive nonhuman primates by multi-locus sequence analysis. Parasitol. Res. 2011, 109, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Irwin, M.T.; Raharison, J.L. A review of the endoparasites of the lemurs of Madagascar. Malagasy. Nature 2009, 2, 66–93. [Google Scholar]
  95. Diniz, L.S.M.; Costa, E.O.; Oliveira, P.M.A. Clinical disorders observed in anteaters (Myrmecophagidae, Edentata) in captivity. Vet. Res. Commun. 1995, 19, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Stevanovic, O.; Nikolic, S.; Nedic, D.; Sladojevic, Z.; Zuko, A. Capillaria bovis (Schnyder, 1906) in farmed falow deer (Dama dama): First record in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Book of Abstracts of the 20th Symposium of Epizootiologist and Epidemiologist, Vrnjacka Banja, Serbia, 18–20 April 2018; Serbian Veterinary Society: Subotica, Serbia, 2018; pp. 180–181. [Google Scholar]
  97. Ooi, H.K.; Tenora, F.; Itoh, K.; Kamiya, M. Comparative Study of Trichuris trichiura from non-human primates and from man, and their difference with T. suis. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 1993, 55, 363–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Cutillas, C.; de Rojas, M.; Zurita, A.; Oliveros, R.; Callejón, R. Trichuris colobae n.sp. (Nematoda: Trichuridae), a new species of Trichuris from Colobus guereza kikuyensis. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 2725–2732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Callejón, R.; Halajian, A.; Cutillas, C. Description of a new species, Trichuris ursinus n. sp. (Nematoda: Trichuridae) from Papio ursinus Keer, 1792 from South Africa. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 51, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chabaud, A.G.; Brygoo, E.R. L’endémisme chez les Helminthes de Madagascar. C. R. Geogr. Soc. 1964, 356, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  101. Levecke, B.; Dreesen, L.; Dorny, P.; Verweij, J.J.; Vercammen, F.; Casaert, S.; Vercruysse, J.; Geldhof, P. Molecular identification of Entamoeba spp. in captive nonhuman primates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 2988–2990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kyung-Yeon, E.; Seo, M.-G.; Leung, Y.-M.; Kwak, D.; Kwon, O.-D. Severe whipworm (Trichuris spp.) infection in the hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas). J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2019, 81, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kolapo, T.U.; Jegede, O.H. A survey of gastrointestinal parasites of captive animals at the University of Ilorin Zoological Garden Vom. J. Vet. Sci. 2017, 12, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
  104. Goossens, E.; Dorny, P.; Boomker, J.; Vercammen, F.; Vercruysse, J. A 12-month survey of the gastro-intestinal helminths of antelopes, gazelles and giraffids kept at two zoos in Belgium. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 127, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cai, W.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, F.; Feng, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Xue, N.; Xu, X.; Hou, Z.; Liu, D.; Xu, J.; et al. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in zoo animals and phylogenetic characterization of Toxascaris leonine (Linstow, 1902) and Baylisascaris transfuga (Rudolphi, 1819) in Jiangsu Province3, Eastern China. Animals 2024, 14, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. VanHoy, G. Common gastrointestinal parasites of small ruminants. In Merck Manual Professional Version; Merck & Co., Inc.: Rahway, NJ, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www.msdvetmanual.com/digestive-system/gastrointestinal-parasites-of-ruminants/overview-of-gastrointestinal-parasites-of-ruminants (accessed on 9 February 2024).
  107. De Ambrogi, M.; Aghazadeh, M.; Hermosilla, C.; Huber, D.; Majnaric, D.; Reljic, S.; Elson-Riggins, J. Occurrence of Baylisascaris transfuga in wild populations of European brown bears (Ursus arctos) as identified by a new PCR method. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 179, 272–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. d’Ovidio, D.; Pantchev, N.; Noviello, E.; del Prete, L.; Maurelli, M.P.; Cringli, G.; Rinaldi, L. Survey of Baylisascaris spp. in captive striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) in some European áreas. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 483–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Okulewicz, A.; Lonc, E.; Borgsteede, F.H. Ascarid nematodes in domestic and wild terrestrial mammals. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2002, 5, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  110. Capasso, M.; Maurelli, M.P.; Ianniello, D.; Camara-Alves, L.; Amadesi, A.; Laricchiuta, P.; Silvestre, P.; Campolo, M.; Cringoli, G.; Rinaldi, L. Use of Mini-FLOTAC and Fill-FLOTAC for rapidly diagnosing parasitic infections in zoo animals. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2019, 28, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Qi, T.; Zheng, W.; Guo, L.; Sun, Y.; Li, J.; Kang, M. First description of Blastocystis sp. and Entamoeba sp. infecting zoo animals in the Quinghai-Tibetan plateau área, China. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1212617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Rahman, R.; Nyema, J.; Imranuzzaman, M.D.; Banik, B.; Pranto, P.S.; Talukder, K.; Sarkar, S.R.; Nath, S.D.; Islam, K.M.; Nath, T.C.; et al. An update on gastrointestinal parasitic infection in captive wild animals in Bangladesh. J. Parasitol. Res. 2023, 2023, 3692471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hossain, M.N.; Dey, A.R.; Begum, N.; Farjan, T. Parasitic infection in captive wild mammals and birds in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Safari Park, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. J. Threat. Taxa 2021, 13, 17889–17894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dhakal, P.; Sharma, H.P.; Shah, R.; Thapa, P.J.; Pokhera, C.P. Copromicroscopic study of gastrointestinal parasites in captive mammals at Central Zoo, Lalitpur, Nepal. Vet. Med. Sci. 2023, 9, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Gonzálvez, M.; Moreno, E.; Pérez-Cutillas, P.; Gilbert, T.; Ortiz, J.; Valera, F.; Espeso, G.; Benzal, J.; Ibáñez, B.; Ruiz-de Ybáñez, M.R. Zoological institutions as hotspots of gastrointestinal parasites that may affect the success of ungulate reintroduction programmes. Vet. Rec. 2021, 189, e506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Karshima, S.N. Parasites of importance for human health on edible fruits and vegetables in Nigeria: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. Pathog. Glob. Health 2018, 112, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cardoso-Rodrigues, A.; Castro-da Silva, M.D.; Seixas-Pereira, R.A.; Pinto, L.C. Prevalence of contamination by intestinal parasites in vegetables (Lactuca sativa L. and Coriandrum sativum L.) sold in markets in Belém, northern Brazil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 2859–2865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Alemu, G.; Nega, M.; Alemu, M. Parasitic contamination of fruits and vegetables collected from local markerts of Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia. Res. Rep. Trop. Med. 2020, 11, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Li, J.; Wang, Z.; Karim, M.R.; Zhang, L. Detection of human intestinal protozoan parasites in vegetables and fruits: A review. Parasit Vectors 2020, 13, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Federer, K.; Armua-Fernandez, M.T.; Gori, F.; Hoby, S.; Wenker, C.; Deplazes, P. Detection of taeniid (Taenia spp., Echinococcus spp.) eggs contaminating vegetables and fruits sold in European markets and the risk for metacestode infectiions in captive primates. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2016, 5, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. European Food Safety Authority Panel on Biological Hazards. Scientific Opinion on the public health risks associated with food-borne parasites. EFSA J. 2018, 16, 5495.
  122. Bais, B.; Tak, L.; Mahla, S. Study of preventive health measures for wildlife in captivity: A review of management approaches. Int. J. Avian Wildl. Biol. 2017, 2, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Luzón, M.; de la Fuente-López, C.; Martínez-Nevado, E.; Fernández-Morán, J.; Ponce-Gordo, F. Taenia crassiceps cysticercosis in a ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2010, 41, 327–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Martínez-Nevado, E.; (Veterinary Department, ZooAquarium, Madrid, Spain); García-García, J.; (Veterinary Department, ZooAquarium, Madrid, Spain). ZooAquarium internal records, 2023.
  125. Faria, P.J.; van Oosterhout, C.; Cable, J. Optimal release strategies for captive-bred animals in reintroduction programs: Experimental infections using the guppy as a model organism. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kołodziej-Sobocińska, M.; Demiaszkiewicz, A.W.; Pyziel, A.M.; Kowalczyk, R. Increased parasitic load in captive-released European bison (Bison bonasus) has important implications for reintroduction programs. EcoHealth 2018, 15, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kock, R.A.; Woodford, M.H.; Rossiter, P.B. Disease risks associated with the translocation of wildlife. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2010, 29, 329–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Jørgensen, D. Conservation implications of parasite co-reintroduction. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 602–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Ewen, J.G.; Armstrong, D.P.; Empson, R.; Makan, S.J.T.; McInnes, K.; Parker, K.A.; Richardson, K.; Alley, M. Parasite management in translocations: Lessons from a threatened New Zealand bird. Oryx 2012, 46, 446–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Figueiredo, A.M.; Madeira-de Carvalho, L.; González, M.J.P.; Torres, R.T.; Pla, S.; Núñez-Arjona, J.C.; Rueda, C.; Vallverdú-Coll, N.; Silvestre, F.; Peña, J.; et al. Parasites of the reintroduced Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus) and sympatric mesocarnivores in Extremadura, Spain. Pathogens 2021, 10, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Akinboye, D.O.; Ogunfeitimi, A.A.; Fawole, O.; Agbodale, O.; Ayinde, O.O.; Atulomah, N.O.S.; Amosu, A.M.; Livingstone, R. Control of parasitic infections among workers and inmates in a Nigerian zoo. Niger. J. Parasitol. 2010, 31, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cian, A.; El Safadi, D.; Osman, M.; Moriniere, R.; Gantois, N.; Benamrouz-Vanneste, S.; Delgado-Viscogliosi, P.; Guyot, K.; Monchy, S.; Noël, C.; et al. Molecular epidemiology of Blastocystis sp. in various animal groups from two French zoos and evaluation of potential zoonotic risk. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 14 00813 g001
Figure 1. Eggs from indirect life-cycle parasite species found in the samplings. (A) Unidentified trematode egg resembling Dicrocoelium (Dujarding 1845) egg from the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus). (B–H) Cestode eggs. (B) Raillietina-like eggs from the helmeted guineafowl (Numida meleagris). (C) Unidentified egg from the red deer (Cervus elaphus); (D) unidentified egg from the yak (Bos grunniens); (E) unidentified egg from the South American tapir (Tapirus terrestris); (F) unidentified egg from the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious); (G) unidentified egg from common brown lemur (Eulemur fulvus); (H) unidentified egg from the mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx). Scale bars: 30 µm.
Figure 1. Eggs from indirect life-cycle parasite species found in the samplings. (A) Unidentified trematode egg resembling Dicrocoelium (Dujarding 1845) egg from the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus). (B–H) Cestode eggs. (B) Raillietina-like eggs from the helmeted guineafowl (Numida meleagris). (C) Unidentified egg from the red deer (Cervus elaphus); (D) unidentified egg from the yak (Bos grunniens); (E) unidentified egg from the South American tapir (Tapirus terrestris); (F) unidentified egg from the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious); (G) unidentified egg from common brown lemur (Eulemur fulvus); (H) unidentified egg from the mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx). Scale bars: 30 µm.
Animals 14 00813 g001
Table 1. Total number of mammalian and avian species analysed at ZooAquarium and Faunia zoological parks, Madrid, Spain.
Table 1. Total number of mammalian and avian species analysed at ZooAquarium and Faunia zoological parks, Madrid, Spain.
ZooHostsDiet TypeAnimal
Species
Studied		Hosts
Infected		Samples
Analysed		Positive
Samples
ZooAquariumMammalsHerbivores5549 (89.1%)1891956 (50.6%)
Omnivores179 (53.0%)455164 (36.0%)
Carnivores112 (18.2%)25427 (10.6%)
Total8360 (72.3%)26001147 (44.1%)
BirdsHerbivores170 (0.0%)1270 (0.0%)
Omnivores153 (20.0%)1278 (6.3%)
Carnivores324 (12.5%)28526 (9.1%)
Total647 (11.0%)53934 (6.3%)
FauniaMammalsHerbivores2917 (58.6%)783136 (17.4%)
Omnivores237 (30.4%)67146 (6.9%)
Carnivores161 (6.3%)4222 (0.5%)
Total6825 (36.8%)1876184 (9.8%)
BirdsHerbivores140 (0.0%)1300 (0.0%)
Omnivores125 (41.7%)18829 (15.4%)
Carnivores140 (0.0%)940 (0.0%)
Total405 (12.5%)41229 (7.0%)
Total results *MammalsHerbivores7362 (84.9%)26741092 (40.8%)
Omnivores3416 (47.1%)1126211 (18.7%)
Carnivores254 (16.0%)67630 (4.4%)
Total13282 (62.1%)44761333 (29.8%)
BirdsHerbivores240 (0.0%)2570 (0.0%)
Omnivores227 (31.8%)31537 (11.8%)
Carnivores404 (10.0%)37926 (6.9%)
Total8611 (12.8%)95163 (6.6%)
* The number of host species does not correspond to the direct sum of species from both zoos, as there are 19 species of mammals and 18 of birds housed in both centres.
Table 2. Number of mammal and avian species found infected by different parasites in each zoological centre. Codes: C—carnivorous, O—omnivorous, H—herbivorous. The number in the parenthesis under the code indicates the number of host species for each classification.
Table 2. Number of mammal and avian species found infected by different parasites in each zoological centre. Codes: C—carnivorous, O—omnivorous, H—herbivorous. The number in the parenthesis under the code indicates the number of host species for each classification.
ZooAquarium Faunia
Infected Host Species Infected Host Species
MammalsBirds MammalsBirds
C
(2)		O
(9)		H
(49)		C
(4)		O
(3)		H
(0)		 C
(1)		O
(7)		H
(17)		C
(0)		O
(5)		H
(0)
Amoebae
Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo 18971634 3 39 1
Endolimax Kuenen and Swellengrebel 1913 26 2
Flagellates
Giardia Künstler 1882 14 13
Chilomastix Aléxéieff 1910 38 22
Trichomonads1 1
Coccidia
Eimeria Schneider 1875 5 2
Toxoplasma Nicolle and Manceaux 1909/Neospora Dubey et al. 19881
Ciliates
Balantioides Alexeieff 1931 58 1 21
Buxtonella Jameson 1926 5
Troglodytella (Brumpt and Joyeux 1912) 1
Endosymbiotic ciliates 6 2
Trematodes
Unidentified eggs 1
Cestodes
Unidentified eggs 15 1
Nematodes
Trichuris Roederer 1761 3101 116
Capillaria Zeder 1800/capillariids1123 1 3
Nematodirus Ransom 1907 2
Trichostrongylids 1
Baylisascaris Sprent 1968 1 1
Parascaris Yorke and Maplestone 1926 2
Porrocaecum Railliet and Henry 1912 1
Ascaridia Dujardin 1845/Heterakis Schrank 1790 2
Ascarid (unidentified) 1
Table 3. List of parasites found in the mammal hosts at ZooAquarium. Species in bold are also housed at Faunia Park.
Table 3. List of parasites found in the mammal hosts at ZooAquarium. Species in bold are also housed at Faunia Park.
Samples
OrderFamilySpecies(Total/Positives)Parasites Found (% of Total Samples)
ArtiodactylaBovidaeAmmotragus lervia (Pallas 1777)21/14Entamoeba bovis-like (66.7%)
Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus 1758)18/9Entamoeba bovis-like (50.0%)
Bison bison (Linnaeus 1758)37/15Entamoeba bovis-like (40.5%)
Bison bonasus (Linnaeus 1758)27/19Entamoeba bovis-like (70.4%), Buxtonella sulcata Jameson 1926 (3.7%)
Bos grunniens (Linnaeus 1766)17/12Entamoeba bovis-like (52.9%), Buxtonella sulcata (41.2%), unidentified cestode eggs (5.9%)
Bos taurus (Linnaeus 1758)4/1Entamoeba bovis-like (25.0%)
Boselaphus tragocamelus (Pallas 1766)13/12Entamoeba bovis-like (92.3%)
Budorcas taxicolor Hodgson 185039/26Entamoeba bovis-like (66.7%)
Capra hircus Linnaeus 175837/31Entamoeba bovis-like (81.1%), Eimeria spp. (5.4%), Trichuris spp. (5.4%)
Capra pyrenaica Schinz 183830/20Entamoeba bovis-like (66.7%)
Connochaetes gnou (Zimmermann 1780)23/14Entamoeba bovis-like (60.9%)
Gazella dorcas osiris Blaine 1913127/106Entamoeba bovis-like (70.1%), Eimeria spp. (1.6%), Trichuris spp. (16.5%), Nematodirus spp. (21.3%)
Nanger dama mhorr (Bennett 1833)99/85Entamoeba bovis-like (74.7%), Entamoeba spp. (8-nucleated) (2.0%), Giardia spp. (2.0%), Chilomastix spp. (1.0%), Eimeria spp. (2.0%), Trichuris spp. (15.2%), Nematodirus spp. (8.1%), Trichostrongylids (10.1%)
Ovis aries Linnaeus 175839/13Entamoeba bovis-like (25.6%), Chilomastix spp. (2.6%), Eimeria spp. (5.1%)
Ovis gmelinii Blyth 184111/6Entamoeba bovis-like (54.6%)
Syncerus caffer nanus Boddaert 178559/54Entamoeba bovis-like (89.8%), trichomonads (3.4%), Buxtonella sulcata (44.1%)
Tragelaphus eurycerus (Ogilby 1837)17/15Entamoeba bovis-like (88.2%)
Tragelaphus spekii gratus Sclater 188040/26Entamoeba bovis-like (60.0%), Chilomastix spp. (2.5%), Balantioides coli-like (15.0%)
CamelidaeCamelus bactrianus Linnaeus 175840/19Entamoeba bovis-like (20.0%), Buxtonella cameli (Boschenko 1925) (25.0%), Trichuris spp. (5.0%)
Camelus dromedarius Linnaeus 175834/7Entamoeba bovis-like (5.9%), Buxtonella cameli (20.6%)
Lama guanicoe (Müller 1776)19/8Entamoeba bovis-like (42.1%)
CervidaeAlces alces (Linnaeus 1758)16/11Balantioides coli-like (43.8%), Trichuris spp. (56.3%)
Capreolus capreolus (Linnaeus 1758)6/5Entamoeba bovis-like (83.3%)
Cervus elaphus Linnaeus 175834/30Entamoeba bovis-like (85.3%), unidentified cestode eggs (2.9%)
Dama dama (Linnaeus 1758)40/35Entamoeba bovis-like (87.5%), Capillaria spp. (5.0%)
Elaphurus davidianus Milne-Edwards 186629/20Entamoeba bovis-like (69.0%)
Muntiacus reevesi (Ogilby 1839)21/18Entamoeba bovis-like (85.7%), Chilomastix spp. (4.8%)
Rangifer tarandus (Linnaeus 1758)23/4Entamoeba bovis-like (4.4%), Trichuris spp. (13.0%)
GiraffidaeGiraffa camelopardalis (Linnaeus 1758)40/14Entamoeba bovis-like (35.0%), Trichuris spp. (2.5%)
HippopotamidaeHippopotamus amphibius Linnaeus 175811/1Unidentified cestode eggs (9.1%)
SuidaePotamochoerus porcus (Linnaeus 1758)37/14Entamoeba polecki-like (29.7%), Giardia spp. (2.7%), Chilomastix spp. (8.1%), Balantioides coli (24.3%)
Sus scrofa Linnaeus 175859/43Entamoeba polecki-like (52.5%), Chilomastix spp. (8.5%), Balantioides coli (42.4%)
TayassuidaeDicotyles tajacu (Linnaeus 1758)1/0
CarnivoraAiluridaeAilurus fulgens Cuvier 182533/2Capillaria spp. (6.1%)
CanidaeCanis lupus occidentalis Linnaeus 175815/0
Speothos venaticus (Lund 1842)45/1Toxoplasma/Neospora (2.2%)
FelidaeLynx lynx (Linnaeus 1758)13/0
Lynx pardinus (Temminck 1827)20/0
Panthera leo (Linnaeus 1758)16/0
Panthera pardus saxicolor (Linnaeus 1758)22/0
Panthera tigris (Linnaeus 1758)16/0
HerpestidaeSuricata suricatta (Schreber 1776)10/0
MustelidaeMustela lutreola (Linnaeus 1761)30/0
Pteronura brasiliensis (Zimmermann 1780)20/0
ProcyonidaeNasua nasua (Linnaeus 1766)9/0
Procyon lotor (Linnaeus 1758)18/2Capillaria spp. (11.1%)
UrsidaeAiluropoda melanoleuca (David 1869)36/0
Helarctos malayanus (Raffles 1822)35/1Trematoda (2.9%)
Tremarctos ornatus (Cuvier 1825)1/0
Ursus americanus Pallas 178016/0
Ursus arctos Linnaeus 175863/7Baylisascaris spp. (11.1%)
Ursus thibetanus Cuvier 182337/0
ViverridaeArctictis binturong (Raffles 1822)32/0
DiprotodontiaMacropodidaeNotamacropus rufogriseus (Desmarest 1817)6/0
Petrogale xanthopus Gray 185520/5Entamoeba bovis-like (25.0%)
PhascolarctidaePhascolarctos cinereus (Goldfuss 1817)35/0
LagomorphaLeporidaeOryctolagus cuniculus (Linnaeus 1758)65/4Eimeria spp. (6.2%)
PerissodactylaEquidaeEquus quaga Boddaert 1785159/9Endosymbiotic ciliates (4.4%), Parascaris equorum (Goeze 1782) (1.3%)
Equus asinus Linnaeus 175825/21Endosymbiotic ciliates (84.0%), Parascaris equorum (8.0%)
Equus caballus Linnaeus 175844/28Endosymbiotic ciliates (63.6%)
RhinocerotidaeCeratotherium simum (Burchell 1817)35/18Endosymbiotic ciliates (51.4%)
Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus 175832/27Endosymbiotic ciliates (84.4%)
TapiridaeTapirus indicus (Desmarest 1819)31/1Chilomastix spp. (3.2%)
Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus 1758)12/2Balantioides coli (8.3%), unidentified cestode eggs (8.3%)
PilosaMyrmecophagidaeMyrmecophaga tridactyla Linnaeus 175847/26Entamoeba spp. (4-nucleated) (2.1%), Tetratrichomonas spp. Parisi 1910 (25.5%), Capillaria-like eggs (36.2%)
PrimatesCebidaeSapajus apella (Linnaeus 1758)26/0
CercopithecidaeColobus guereza Rüppell 183545/40Entamoeba coli-like (24.4%), Entamoeba polecki-like (22.2%), Balantioides coli-like (2.2%), Trichuris spp. (84.4%)
Macaca spp. Lacepede 17991/0
Mandrillus sphinx (Linnaeus 1758)47/47Entamoeba polecki-like (76.6%), Entamoeba coli-like (10.6%), Chilomastix spp. (10.6%), Balantioides coli-like (66.0%), Trichuris spp. (2.1%), unidentified cestode eggs (2.1%)
Papio spp. Erxleben 177717/17Entamoeba coli-like (94.1%), Endolimax spp. (5.9%), Trichuris spp. (82.4%)
HominidaePongo pygmaeus (Linnaeus 1760)103/79Balantioides coli-like (76.7%)
Gorilla gorilla (Savage 1847)29/17Entamoeba coli-like (3.5%), Balantioides coli-like (51.7%), Troglodytella abrassarti (Brumpt and Joyeux 1912) (10.3%)
Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach 1775)28/21Entamoeba coli-like (39.3%), Entamoeba polecki-like (14.3%), Endolimax spp. (3.6%), Balantioides coli-like (39.3%)
HylobatidaeHylobates lar (Linnaeus 1771)25/9Entamoeba coli-like (4.0%), Entamoeba polecki-like (4.0%), Balantioides coli-like (28.0%)
Hylobates muelleri (Martin 1841)28/12Entamoeba coli-like (28.6%), Balantioides coli-like (14.3%), Trichuris spp. (3.6%)
LemuridaeEulemur fulvus (Geoffroy 1796)14/2Giardia spp. (7.1%), unidentified cestode eggs (7.1%)
Lemur catta Linnaeus 175816/2Entamoeba polecki-like (6.3%), Giardia spp. (6.3%), Trichuris spp. (6.3%)
Varecia variegata (Kerr 1792)40/0
ProboscideaElephantidaeElephas maximus Linnaeus 175855/30Chilomastix spp. (1.8%), endosymbiotic ciliates (54.5%)
RodentiaCaviidaeCavia porcellus (Linnaeus 1758)17/0
Dolichotis patagonum (Zimmermann 1780)27/8Entamoeba muris-like (3.7%), Giardia spp. (14.8%), Chilomastix spp. (7.4%), Trichuris spp. (3.7%)
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (Linnaeus 1766)15/2Chilomastix spp. (6.7%), Balantioides coli-like (6.7%)
ChinchillidaeChinchilla spp. Bennett 18291/0
Table 4. List of parasites found in the avian hosts at ZooAquarium. Species in bold are also housed at Faunia Park.
Table 4. List of parasites found in the avian hosts at ZooAquarium. Species in bold are also housed at Faunia Park.
Samples
OrderFamilySpecies(Total/Positives)Parasites Found (% of Total Samples)
AccipitriformesAccipitridaeAegypius monachus (Linnaeus 1766)7/0
Aquila adalberti Brehm 186113/0
Aquila verreauxii Lesson 18313/0
Buteo buteo (Linnaeus 1758)13/0
Geranoaetus melanoleucus (Vieillot 1819)3/0
Gypohierax angolensis (Gmelin 1788)2/0
Gyps fulvus (Hablizl 1783)23/0
Haliaeetus albicilla (Linnaeus 1758)3/0
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus 1766)3/0
Haliaeetus pelagicus (Pallas 1811)10/3Capillariids (34.3%)
Ichtyophaga vocifer (Daudin 1800)3/0
Milvus migrans (Boddaert 1783)36/21Capillariids (38.9%), Porrocaecum spp. (33.3%)
Neophron percnopterus (Linneaus 1758)3/0
Parabuteo unicinctus (Temminck 1824)28/1Trichuris spp. (3.6%)
AnseriformesAnatidaeAlopochen aegyptiaca (Linnaeus 1766)5/0
Aythya nyroca (Güldenstädt 1770)1/0
Cairina moschata (Linnaeus 1758)8/0
Cygnus atratus (Latham 1790)1/0
Tadorna ferruginea (Pallas 1764)4/0
Tadorna tadorna (Linnaeus 1758)3/0
BucerotiformesBucerotidaeBycanistes brevis Friedmann 19295/0
Bycanistes bucinator (Temminck 1824)8/0
BucorvidaeBucorvus leadbeateri (Vigors 1825)5/0
CathartiformesCathartidaeSarcoramphus papa (Linnaeus 1758)10/0
Vultur gryphus Linnaeus 17585/0
CiconiiformesCiconiidaeCiconia ciconia (Linnaeus 1758)10/0
Leptoptilos crumenifer (Lesson 1831)3/0
ColumbiformesColumbidaeColumba livia Gmelin 178911/0
CoraciiformesAlcedinidaeDacelo novaeguineae Hermann 17832/0
FalconiformesFalconidaeFalco naumanni Fleischer 181813/0
Caracara plancus (Miller 1777)1/0
GalliformesNumididaeNumida meleagris (Linnaeus 1758)4/0
PhasianidaeGallus gallus (Linnaeus 1758)39/1Entamoeba gallinarum Tyzzer 1920 (2.6%)
GruiformesGruidaeBalearica regulorum (Bennett 1834)4/0
MusophagiformesMusophagidaeTauraco erythrolophus (Vieillot 1819)8/0
Menelikornis leucotis (Rüppell 1835)5/0
PasseriformesCorvidaeCorvus corax Linnaeus 17583/0
PelecaniformesPelecanidaePelecanus rufescens Gmelin 17898/0
ThreskiornithidaeEudocimus ruber (Linnaeus 1758)11/0
Threskiornis aethiopicus (Latham 1790)23/0
PhoenicopteriformesPhoenicopteridaePhoenicopterus ruber Linnaeus 17587/0
PiciformesRamphastidaeRamphastos toco Müller 17765/0
PsittaciformesCacatuidaeCacatua alba (Müller 1776)6/0
Cacatua galerita (Latham 1790)11/0
Cacatua goffiniana Roselaar and Michels 20045/0
Cacatua pastinator (Gould 1841)8/0
Cacatua sulphurea (Gmelin 1788)5/0
PsittacidaeAmazona aestiva (Linnaeus 1758)8/0
Ara ararauna (Linnaeus 1758)22/0
Ara chloropterus Gray 18598/0
Ara rubrogenys Lafresnaye 18471/0
Aratinga solstitialis (Linnaeus 1758)15/0
Myiopsitta monachus Boddaert 17831/0
Psittacus erithacus Linnaeus 17587/0
Trichoglossus haematodus (Linnaeus 1771)4/0
PsittaculidaeEclectus roratus (Müller 1776)2/0
StrigiformesStrigidaeBubo bubo hispanus Rothschild and Hartert 191015/1Capillariids (6.7%)
Bubo bubo sibiricus Gloger 18335/0
Bubo scandiacus (Linnaeus 1758)2/0
Strix nebulosa Forster 17721/0
CasuariformesCasuariidaeCasuarius casuarius (Linnaeus 1758)12/0
StruthioniformesDromaiidaeDromaius novaehollandiae (Latham 1790)20/0
RheiformesRheidaeRhea americana (Linnaeus 1758)7/2Entamoeba spp. (4-nucleated) (28.6%)
StruthioniformesStruthionidaeStruthio camelus Linnaeus 175812/5Entamoeba polecki-like (33.3%), Balantioides coli (8.3%)
Table 5. List of parasites found in the mammal hosts at Faunia Park. Species in bold are also housed at ZooAquarium.
Table 5. List of parasites found in the mammal hosts at Faunia Park. Species in bold are also housed at ZooAquarium.
Samples
OrderFamilySpecies(Total/Positives)Parasites Found (% of Total Samples)
AfrosoricidaTenrecidaeEchinops telfairi Martin 18382/0
ArtiodactylaBovidaeCapra hircus40/22Entamoeba bovis-like (55.0%), Eimeria spp. (2.5%)
Madoqua kirkii (Günther 1880)43/15Entamoeba bovis-like (11.6%), Entamoeba spp. (8-nucleated) (27.9%), Trichuris spp. (2.3%)
Ovis aries26/10Entamoeba bovis-like (34.6%), Eimeria spp. (3.9%)
CervidaeSubulo gouazoubira (Fischer 1814)12/11Entamoeba bovis-like (91.7%), Trichuris spp. (8.3%)
Muntiacus muntjack Zimmermann 178047/18Entamoeba bovis-like (36.2%), Entamoeba spp. (8-nucleated) (2.1%), Giardia spp. (2.1%), Trichuris spp. (4.3%)
SuidaeSus scrofa39/22Entamoeba polecki-like (46.2%), Chilomastix spp. (7.7%), Balantioides coli (28.2%)
TayassuidaeDicotyles tajacu16/1Balantioides coli (6.3%)
CarnivoraAiluridaeAilurus fulgens36/0
CanidaeVulpes zerda (Zimmermann 1780)52/2Trichuris spp. (1.9%), unidentified ascarid (1.9%)
FelidaeLeopardus pardalis (Linnaeus 1758)48/0
HerpestidaeHelogale parvula (Sundevall 1847)32/0
Suricata suricatta15/0
MephitidaeMephitis mephitis (Schreber 1776)50/3Baylisascaris spp. (6.0%)
MustelidaeMustela lutreola19/0
Mustela putorius furo Linnaeus 17585/0
ProcyonidaeNasua nasua45/0
Potos flavus (Schreber 1774)49/0
Procyon lotor30/0
ViverridaeArctictis binturong25/0
Genetta genetta (Linnaeus 1758)45/0
ChiropteraPhyllostomidaeCarollina perspicillata (Linnaeus 1758)13/0
PteropodidaeRousettus aegyptiacus (Saint-Hilaire 1810) 26/0
CingulataChlamyphoridaeEuphractus sexcinctus (Linnaeus 1758)16/0
Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest 1804)16/0
Tolypeutes tricinctus (Linnaeus 1758)2/0
DasyurimorphaDasyuridaeDasyurus viverrinus (Shaw 1800)24/0
DiprotodontiaMacropodidaeNotamacropus rufogriseus46/4Entamoeba spp. (one nucleated) (6.5%), Entamoeba spp. (8-nucleated) (2.2%)
Osphranter rufus (Desmarest 1822)42/0
EulipotyphlaErinaceidaeAtelerix albiventris (Wagner 1841)35/0
LagomorphaLeporidaeOryctolagus cuniculus1/0
PerissodactylaEquidaeEquus africanus (Heuglin and Fitzinger 1866)27/9Endosymbiotic ciliates (33.3%)
Equus caballus35/8Endosymbiotic ciliates (22.9%)
PilosaCholoepodidaeCholoepus didactilus (Linnaeus 1758)46/13Entamoeba spp. (8-nucleated) (28.3%)
MyrmecophagidaeTamandua tetradactyla (Linnaeus 1758)36/0
PrimatesAotidaeAotus nancymaae Hershkovitz 19837/1Entamoeba coli-like (14.3%)
Aotus trivirgatus (Humboldt 1812)9/0
CallitrichidaeCallimico goeldii (Thomas 1904)47/0
Callithrix jacchus (Linnaeus 1758)38/0
Cebuella pygmaea (Spix 1823)11/0
Leontopithecus rosalia (Linnaeus 1766)31/0
Saguinus geoffroyi (Pucheran 1845)30/0
Saguinus imperator (Goeldi 1907)34/0
Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus 1758)26/0
CebidaeSapajus apella30/0
Saimiri sciureus (Linnaeus 1758)53/0
GalagidaeGalago moholi Smith 183619/0
LemuridaeEulemur albifrons (Geoffroy 1796)17/0
Lemur catta26/0
Varecia variegata3/0
Varecia rubra (Geoffroy 1812)12/1Capillaria spp. (8.3%)
LorisidaeXanthonycticebus pygmaeus (Bonhote 1907)5/0
Perodicticus potto (Müller 1766)26/0
PitheciidaePithecia pithecia (Linnaeus 1766)33/2Entamoeba coli-like (6.1%)
RodentiaHeterocephalidaeHeterocephalus glaber Rüppell 184229/0
CaviidaeCavia porcellus54/2Balantioides coli (3.7%)
Dolichotis patagonum24/7Giardia spp. (8.3%), Trichuris spp. (20.8%)
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris1/0
DasyproctidaeDasyprocta azarae Lichtenstein 18231/0
Dasyprocta fuliginosa Wagler 183223/3Trichuris spp. (13.0%)
Dasyprocta punctata Gray 18428/0
DipodidaeJaculus orientalis Erxleben 177712/3Entamoeba muris (25.0%), Chilomastix spp. (16.7%)
EchimyidaeCapromys pilorides (Say 1822)94/15Trichuris spp. (16.0%)
ErethizontidaeCoendou prehensilis (Linnaeus 1758)43/5Chilomastix spp. (9.3%), Trichuris spp. (2.3%)
HystricidaeHystrix cristata Linnaeus 1758 47/5Entamoeba spp. (8-nucleated) (2.1%), Giardia spp. (8.5%)
PedetidaePedetes capensis (Forster 1778)31/0
SciuridaeCynomys ludovicianus (Ord 1815)4/1Chilomastix spp. (25.0%)
TubulidentataOrycteropodidaeOrycteropus afer (Pallas 1766)7/1Giardia spp. (14.3%)
Table 6. List of parasites found in the avian hosts at Faunia Park. Species in bold are also housed at ZooAquarium.
Table 6. List of parasites found in the avian hosts at Faunia Park. Species in bold are also housed at ZooAquarium.
Samples
OrderFamilySpecies(Total/Positives)Parasites Found (% of Total Samples)
AccipitriformesAccipitridaeNecrosyrtes monachus8/0
Aquila nipalensis Hodgson 18335/0
Buteo jamaicensis (Gmelin 1788)6/0
Buteo regalis (Gray 1844)5/0
Geranoaetus melanoleucus13/0
Gyps fulvus7/0
Parabuteo unicinctus14/0
AnseriformesAnatidaeCygnus atratus5/0
AnhimidaeChauna torquata (Oken 1816)11/0
CharadriiformesRecurvirostridaeRecurvirostra avosetta Linnaeus 17581/0
FalconiformesFalconidaePhalcoboenus australis (Gmelin 1788)2/0
GalliformesNumididaeNumida meleagris7/3Entamoeba gallinarum (14.3%), capillariids (14.3%), Ascaridia spp./Heterakis spp. (28.6%), Raillietina-like eggs (14.3%)
PhasianidaeGallus gallus14/1Ascaridia spp./Heterakis spp. (7.1%)
Meleagris gallopavo Linnaeus 175839/0
GruiformesGruidaeGrus grus (Linnaeus 1758)6/1Capillariids (16.7%)
Grus virgo (Linnaeus 1758)8/0
MusophagiformesMusophagidaeMenelikornis leucotis11/0
PasseriformesCorvidaeCalocitta formosa (Swainson 1827)3/0
CotingidaeRupicola peruvianus (Latham 1790)22/0
SturnidaeLamprotornis purpureus (Müller 1776)2/0
PelecaniformesArdeidaeBubulcus ibis (Linnaeus 1758)1/0
PelecanidaePelecanus onocrotalus Linnaeus 17582/0
PhoenicopteriformesPhoenicopteridaePhoenicopterus ruber5/0
PiciformesRamphastidaeRamphastos swainsonii Gould, 183321/17Capillaria spp. (81.0%)
Ramphastos toco16/7Capillaria spp. (43.8%)
PsittaciformesCacatuidaeEolophus roseicapilla (Vieillot 1817)5/0
PsittacidaeAmazona aestiva27/0
Ara ararauna17/0
Ara chloropterus6/0
Ara macao (Linnaeus 1758)3/0
Ara militaris (Linnaeus 1766)1/0
Ara rubrogenys2/0
Aratinga solstitialis9/0
PsittaculidaeEclectus rotarus8/0
Trichoglossus haematodus (Linnaeus 1771)3/0
StrigiformesStrigidaeBubo bubo hispanus9/0
Bubo bubo sibiricus6/0
TytonidaeTyto alba Scopoli 176911/0
CasuariiformesCasuariidaeDromaius novaehollandiae48/0
RheiformesRheidaeRhea americana23/0
Table 7. Number of positive and total (in parenthesis) mammalian and avian species analysed according to their housing conditions and feeding habits.
Table 7. Number of positive and total (in parenthesis) mammalian and avian species analysed according to their housing conditions and feeding habits.
Zoological Park
ZooAquarium Faunia
Feeding Habits Feeding Habits
Host ClassIsolationSoilCarnivorousOmnivorousHerbivorous CarnivorousOmnivorousHerbivorous
MammalaccessibleNatural2(10)8(13)48(53) 0(1)2(3)12(19)
Artificial0(0)0(0)1(1) 0(0)0(0)0(0)
Mixed1(1)1(2)0(1) 0(0)0(0)0(0)
isolatedNatural0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0)0(0)
Artificial0(0)1(2)0(0) 1(14)5(20)5(10)
Mixed0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(1)0(0)0(0)
BirdaccesibleNatural0(8)3(12)0(2) 0(3)3(10)0(3)
Artificial0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0)0(1)
Mixed4(24)0(3)0(15) 0(11)2(2)0(10)
isolatedNatural0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0)0(0)
Artificial0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0)0(0)
Mixed0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0)0(0)
Table 8. Values and statistical significance of the regression coefficients obtained after including 5 independent variables in the binary logistic regression conducted with the results of the parasitological survey of the mammals and birds at two zoological institutions (ZooAquarium and Faunia) in Madrid, Spain. The dependent variable is “at least once infected”/“never infected”.
Table 8. Values and statistical significance of the regression coefficients obtained after including 5 independent variables in the binary logistic regression conducted with the results of the parasitological survey of the mammals and birds at two zoological institutions (ZooAquarium and Faunia) in Madrid, Spain. The dependent variable is “at least once infected”/“never infected”.
Function Coefficients Wald’s X2 Test
Standard Error Degrees of Freedom
ParameterB ScoreSignificance
Feeding type 14.7332<0.001
Omnivorous vs. carnivorous1.5810.532 8.82410.003
Herbivorous vs. carnivorous1.9110.501 14.5551<0.001
Soil type 2.40120.301
artificial vs. natural0.0631.710 0.00110.971
mixed vs. natural−0.8780.572 2.35210.125
Host Class (bird vs. mammal)−2.1030.480 19.1501<0.001
Zoological institution (Faunia vs. ZooAquarium)−0.6490.405 2.56710.109
Isolation type (isolated vs. accessible)−1.3261.777 0.57710.456
Constant−1.6390.389 17.7031<0.001
Table 9. Values and statistical significance of the regression coefficients obtained after including 4 independent variables in the binary logistic regression conducted with the results of the parasitological survey in mammals at two zoological institutions (ZooAquarium and Faunia) in Madrid, Spain. The dependent variable is “at least once infected”/“never infected”.
Table 9. Values and statistical significance of the regression coefficients obtained after including 4 independent variables in the binary logistic regression conducted with the results of the parasitological survey in mammals at two zoological institutions (ZooAquarium and Faunia) in Madrid, Spain. The dependent variable is “at least once infected”/“never infected”.
Function Coefficients Wald’s X2 Test
ParameterBStandard Error ScoreDegrees of FreedomSignificance
Feeding type 21.0612<0.001
Omnivorous vs. carnivorous2.0570.780 7.57110.006
Herbivorous vs. carnivorous3.1870.716 19.7991<0.001
Soil type 2.45320.293
artificial vs. natural18.33625,170.708 0.00010.999
mixed vs. natural−2.0161.287 2.45310.117
Zoological institution (Faunia vs. ZooAquarium)−1.2450.531 5.49610.019
Isolation type (isolated vs. accessible)−18.99525,170.708 0.00010.999
Constant−4.1464195.118 0.00010.999
Table 10. Values and statistical significance of the regression coefficients obtained after including 3 independent variables in the binary logistic regression conducted with the results of the parasitological survey of birds at two zoological institutions (ZooAquarium and Faunia) in Madrid, Spain. The dependent variable is “at least once infected”/“never infected”.
Table 10. Values and statistical significance of the regression coefficients obtained after including 3 independent variables in the binary logistic regression conducted with the results of the parasitological survey of birds at two zoological institutions (ZooAquarium and Faunia) in Madrid, Spain. The dependent variable is “at least once infected”/“never infected”.
Function Coefficients Wald’s X2 Test
ParameterBStandard Error ScoreDegrees of FreedomSignificance
Feeding type 5.61320.060
Omnivorous vs. carnivorous2.1070.889 5.61310.018
Herbivorous vs. carnivorous−18.9137283.654 0.00010.998
Soil type 1.40320.496
artificial vs. natural0.83340,847.685 0.00011.000
mixed vs. natural1.0300.870 1.40310.236
Zoological institution (Faunia vs. ZooAquarium)0.1210.684 0.03110.860
Constant−8.16413,397.685 0.00011.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Esteban-Sánchez, L.; García-Rodríguez, J.J.; García-García, J.; Martínez-Nevado, E.; de la Riva-Fraga, M.A.; Ponce-Gordo, F. Wild Animals in Captivity: An Analysis of Parasite Biodiversity and Transmission among Animals at Two Zoological Institutions with Different Typologies. Animals 2024, 14, 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14050813

AMA Style

Esteban-Sánchez L, García-Rodríguez JJ, García-García J, Martínez-Nevado E, de la Riva-Fraga MA, Ponce-Gordo F. Wild Animals in Captivity: An Analysis of Parasite Biodiversity and Transmission among Animals at Two Zoological Institutions with Different Typologies. Animals. 2024; 14(5):813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14050813

Chicago/Turabian Style

Esteban-Sánchez, Lorena, Juan José García-Rodríguez, Juncal García-García, Eva Martínez-Nevado, Manuel Antonio de la Riva-Fraga, and Francisco Ponce-Gordo. 2024. "Wild Animals in Captivity: An Analysis of Parasite Biodiversity and Transmission among Animals at Two Zoological Institutions with Different Typologies" Animals 14, no. 5: 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14050813

APA Style

Esteban-Sánchez, L., García-Rodríguez, J. J., García-García, J., Martínez-Nevado, E., de la Riva-Fraga, M. A., & Ponce-Gordo, F. (2024). Wild Animals in Captivity: An Analysis of Parasite Biodiversity and Transmission among Animals at Two Zoological Institutions with Different Typologies. Animals, 14(5), 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14050813

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop