4.1 Article

HEALTH AND HABITAT QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE EASTERN HELLBENDER (CRYPTOBRANCHUS ALLEGANIENSIS ALLEGANIENSIS) IN INDIANA, USA

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 836-848

出版社

WILDLIFE DISEASE ASSOC, INC
DOI: 10.7589/0090-3558-47.4.836

关键词

Chytrid; hematology; reproduction; salamanders; sperm; vitellogenin; water quality

资金

  1. Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Diversity Section, state wildlife improvement [E2-07-WD007]
  2. Purdue University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus allegantensis alleganiensis) has experienced precipitous population declines throughout its range. Numerous factors are speculated to be involved, but no empirical evidence has been presented for any. We implemented a population-wide health assessment in Indiana, USA, examining both the physical well-being of individuals and the quality of their habitat. Physicochemical parameters were analyzed directly in the field and later in the laboratory, when appropriate. Samples were collected June 2008-October 2008 and June 2009-September 2009 for reproductive analysis, blood screening, and disease prevalence. Of 27 chemicals screened in water samples, three were found in the study site, including atrazine. Atrazine was found at levels reported to cause reproductive problems in other amphibians. Vitellogenin was detected only in females and proved a reliable indicator of sex. Sperm parameters were generally of high quality and similar to other populations. Most plasma parameters were similar between sexes, although there were significant differences in calcium and potassium concentrations. Abnormalities were common, occurring in 68% of individuals. No hemoparasites were found, but amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrohatichs) was detected on one individual. Our findings establish a baseline for hematology and water-quality parameters that can be used as a model for evaluating population health throughout the hellbender range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据