Protozoa alpaki

background image

Accepted by A. Wright: 20 Dec. 2007; published: 13 Feb. 2008

62

ZOOTAXA

ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)

ISSN

1175-5334

(online edition)

Copyright © 2008 · Magnolia Press

Zootaxa 1703: 62

68 (2008)

www.mapress.com

/

zootaxa

/

Ciliate protozoa of the forestomach of llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas
(Vicugna pacos
) from the Bolivian Altiplano

IGNACIO DEL VALLE

1

, GABRIEL DE LA FUENTE

2

& MANUEL FONDEVILA

2,3

1

Departamento de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular, Universidad de Zaragoza, Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain

2

Departamento de Producción Animal y Ciencia de los Alimentos, Universidad de Zaragoza, Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza,

Spain

3

Corresponding author. E-mail: mfonde@unizar.es

Abstract

Protozoal diversity in the forestomach of South American camelids (SAC) was studied in eight llamas and six alpacas
from the Parque Natural Condoriri (3900 to 4100 m altitude, Departamento La Paz, Bolivia). Total protozoal concentra-

tions were 3.6 times higher (P < 0.001) in the stomach contents of alpacas (39.6 x 10

4

ml

-1

and 143.8 x 10

4

ml

-1

in llamas

and alpacas, respectively). Four to 11 species, all from the genus Entodinium, were observed in llamas, whereas from
eight to nine species of Entodinium and minor proportions of Diplodinium (D. anisacanthum, D. dogieli, D. rangiferi),
Eudiplodinium (E. bovis, E. maggii, E. neglectum) and Epidinium (E. ecaudatum) were observed in alpacas. The pres-
ence of Epidinium species in the alpaca is a new host record. The vestibuliferids, Dasytricha and Isotricha were absent
from the forestomach of SAC, as well as other species such as Caloscolex genus, Diplodinium cameli and Entodinium
ovumrajae
, commonly found in Old World camelids.

Key words: forestomach protozoa, South American camelids

Introduction

Llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos; Kadwell et al. 2001) are two domesticated species of

South American camelids (SAC) from the Andean Altiplano (3500 to 4500 m altitude). They have been tradi-

tionally used for labour, meat, leather and wool, accounting for up to 75% of cash income in more than half of

the Bolivian households in this area (Tichit and Genin 1997). Alpacas (50 to 70 kg live weight) are highly

adaptable grazers that preferably feed a wide range of herbage species from humid areas, whereas llamas (110

to 140 kg) are prone to consume tall and coarse bunchgrasses from the drier areas (San Martín and Bryant

1989; Tichit and Genin 1997; Castellaro et al. 2004).

Several papers have studied the digestive tract of SAC in terms of anatomy (Vallenas et al. 1971; Engel-

hart et al. 1988) and digestion processes (Sponheimer et al. 2003; Davies et al. 2007), but information about

their rumen microbial population is scarce. In their reviews, Dehority (1986) and Jouany (2000) indicated that

rumen protozoal counts of dromedaries and SAC were similar to those of ruminants. They also reported that

the protozoal population in camelids is only type B (Eadie 1962), and the family Isotrichidae was always

absent from these animals. However, neither of them presented data supporting this conclusion. A classical

reference of protozoal biodiversity of SAC is the description by Lubinsky (1964) of a guanaco (a wild SAC)

from the Winnipeg Zoo. However, these data should probably be viewed with caution since there was only

one animal and the possible cross-inoculation from individuals of another species in the zoo (Kubikova 1935).

SAC differ from dromedaries and bactrian camels in their protozoal population, because they apparently do

background image

Zootaxa 1703 © 2008 Magnolia Press

·

63

FORESTOMACH PROTOZOA OF LLAMAS AND ALPACAS

not harbour Caloscolex spp., Diplodinium cameli or Entodinium ovumrajae (Lubinsky 1964; Dehority 1986).

Further, it is unknown if the different sizes and feeding habits between llamas and alpacas would lead to dif-

ferences in their rumen protozoal population.

This paper describes the concentration and diversity of rumen protozoal populations of eight llamas and

six alpacas from the Altiplano in Bolivia.

Material and methods

Stomach contents were obtained from eight adult (about 5 years of age) male llamas, numbered 1 to 8 and six

adult (about 3 years of age) male alpacas, numbered 1 to 6, slaughtered in a commercial abattoir (Palcoco, La

Paz) in November, 2005. The animals were grazing native pasture as the only feed in the region of the Parque

Natural Condoriri (3900 to 4100 m altitude, Departamento La Paz, Bolivia). All animals were fasted for 12-15

h before being slaughtered, and sampling took place within 1 h of slaughter. The first compartment of the

stomach (C1) was eviscerated, and the contents were filtered through a double layer of gauze and 5 ml of the

filtrate was mixed 1:1 with 18 % formaldehyde for preservation (Dehority 1984).

Total and generic ciliate concentrations were determined by previously described procedures (Dehority

1984), using a Sedgewick-Rafter counting chamber. Species distribution and cellular morphology were deter-

mined on temporary preparations using methylene-blue as a nuclear stain and Lugol’s iodine as a stain for

skeletal plates (Dehority 1974). Species identification was mainly based on descriptions of Dogiel (1927),

Kofoid and MacLennan (1930, 1932), Wertheim (1935), Sláde

ček (1946), Lubinsky (1957), Dehority (1974)

and Göçmen (1999).

Data for total protozoal concentration were statistically analysed by one-way ANOVA using the Statistix

8 package (Analytical Software 2003), and differences among host species were compared by the least signif-

icant difference at a P < 0.05.

Results

Total concentration and generic distribution of ciliate protozoa in fluid contents from the first compartment of

the stomach in llamas and alpacas are shown in Table 1. Total protozoal concentrations were 3.6 times higher

(P<0.001) in the stomach contents of alpacas. No overlap in the range of concentrations was found when only

numbers of Entodinium protozoa were only considered for comparison between hosts. Concentrations were

significantly higher in alpacas (mean values of 123.4 vs. 39.6 cells x 10

4

ml

-1

; r.s.d. = 28.11).

Only Entodinium spp. were observed in llamas, whereas protozoa from the Subfamily Diplodiniinae (gen-

era Diplodinium and Eudiplodinium) and the Subfamily Ophryoscolecinae (genus Epidinium) were observed

in alpacas. However, they occurred in very low concentrations and were absent in some of the animals (Table

1).

Species occurrence and distribution of Entodinium spp. in llamas are shown in Table 2. There were 4-11

species of Entodinium present. Among them, the most common were E. dubardi (in all host llamas), E. longi-

nucleatum and E. nanellum in 7 out of eight llamas, and E. damae and E. exiguum in 6 out of eight. In con-

trast, E. rectangulatum, E. alces and E. bovis were only observed in 1 or 2 out of eight animals. Percentages of

cells from these species ranged widely within individual hosts, but E. longinucleatum, E. nanellum and E.

dubardi generally predominated.

Species distribution in alpacas is shown in Table 3, with the number of species observed ranging from 11

to 16, of which 8 to 9 were Entodinium spp. The most common Entodinium spp. were E. dubardi, E. exiguum,

E. nanellum and E. caudatum, that appeared in all animals, together with E. damae, E. longinucleatum, E.

background image

VALLE ET AL.

64

·

Zootaxa 1703 © 2008

Magnolia Press

parvum and E. simplex, that were observed in the rumen contents of 5 out of six alpacas. In this host species,

E. caudatum and E. nanellum were present in the highest percentages. Protozoa from two genera of the Sub-

family Diplodiniinae were detected in alpacas, although Diplodinium spp. were absent in two animals and

Eudiplodinium was absent in another one. Among species, none of them showed a clear prevalence in host

alpacas. The genus Epidinium was present in similar proportions in 5 out of six animals, with Ep. ecaudatum

predominant.

TABLE 1. Total concentration and generic distribution of protozoa in the stomach contents of llamas (Lama glama; n =
8) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos; n = 6) from the Bolivian Altiplano. The range is given in brackets.

r.s.d.: residual standard deviation
For mean concentration, different letters show significant differences (p < 0.05)
N.O.: not observed

1

not present in alpacas # 3 and 6

2

not present in alpaca #4

3

not present in alpaca #2

TABLE 2. Percentage distribution of Entodinium species in the rumen contents of llamas (Lama glama) .

Discussion

According to our results, protozoal concentration in alpacas would fit into the expectable range for ruminants

(Dehority 1986; Williams and Coleman 1992). Dehority (1986), studying one Peruvian alpaca, reported an

Llamas

Alpacas

r.s.d.

Mean concentration (cells x 10

4

ml

-1

)

39.64

a

(9.12–104.64)

143.79

b

(119.20–179.36)

29.326

Entodinium (%)

100

85.94 (78.93–93.83)

-

Diplodinium (%)

N.O.

3.43 (0.58–6.15)

1

-

Eudiplodinium (%)

N.O.

2.55 (1.67–8.12)

2

-

Epidinium (%)

N.O.

10.53 (3.62–14.92)

3

-

Llama no.

Species

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Entodinium
alces (Dehority)

9.6

0.7

bovis (Wertheim)

1.6

4.5

caudatum (Stein) f. dubardi (Lubinsky)

5.8

4.0

63.2

damae (Sláde

ček)

3.0

10.6

19.1

0.6

2.0

3.0

dilobum (Dogiel)

0.6

0.4

1.5

dubardi (Buisson)

7.0

9.9

12.6

0.2

22.8

17.5

3.8

19.2

exiguum (Dogiel)

14.7

8.1

4.5

3.2

5.9

10.7

longinucleatum (Dogiel)

16.5

3.9

49.6

74.0

8.1

38.2

47.9

nanellum (Dogiel)

28.7

53.1

12.9

20.7

26.9

35.6

42.6

ovibos (Dehority )

10.4

3.4

26.6

parvum (Buisson)

1.4

8.3

2.8

rectangulatum (Kofoid & MacLennan)

4.2

simplex (Dogiel)

4.0

2.0

1.1

6.9

Total no. of species observed

11

10

5

5

9

5

6

4

background image

Zootaxa 1703 © 2008 Magnolia Press

·

65

FORESTOMACH PROTOZOA OF LLAMAS AND ALPACAS

average concentration of 34.5 x 10

4

cells ml

-1

, whereas Baker and Day (1993) reported 6 to 16 x 10

4

cells ml

-1

of stomach content in three alpacas given ground or chopped hay. In New Zealand, Pinares-Patiño et al.

(2003), from a larger group of animals (n = 6), observed a total protozoal concentration in alpacas ranging

from 20.8 to 47.0 x 10

4

cells ml

-1

, depending on the given forage. However, total numbers in llamas were

lower than in alpacas and below the expected figures for ruminants. Further, even when only Entodinium pro-

tozoa were considered, alpacas still showed a significantly higher concentration. Since there were no apparent

differences between llamas and alpacas in digestibility or fermentative abilities (Sponheimer et al. 2003;

Davies et al. 2007), these differences between SAC might be explained by the trend for llamas to ingest low

quality forages, while alpacas have more selective feeding behaviour, even grazing in the same location

(Tichit and Genin 1997; Castellaro et al. 2004).

TABLE 3. Percentage distribution of protozoal species in the rumen contents of alpacas (Vicugna pacos).

In agreement with previous studies (Lubinsky 1964; Baker and Day 1993; Pinares-Patiño et al. 2003), no

vestibuliferids (Order Vestibuliferida, Isotricha and Dasytricha) protozoa were observed in any animal, as it
was also cited by Dehority (1986), Navarre et al. (1999) and Jouany (2000). Compared with other host species
of the family Camelidae (dromedaries and bactrian camels), the absence of Caloscolex spp., Buetschlia spp.,
and Diplodinium cameli (Dehority 1986; Kubesy and Dehority 2002) has also been observed. Besides, SAC

Alpaca no.

Species

1

2

3

4

5

6

Entodinium
alces (Dehority)
bovis (Wertheim)
caudatum (Stein)
f. dubardi (Lubinsky)
costatum (MacLennan)
damae (Sláde

ček)

dilobum(Dogiel)
dubardi (Buisson)
exiguum (Dogiel)
longinucleatum (Dogiel)
nanellum (Dogiel)
ovibos (Dehority)
parvum (Buisson)
simplex (Dogiel)

41.8
1.6
1.9

5.3
5.7

18.9

1.0
2.8

1.3
2.0

16.9

1.1

13.8
11.8
15.1
25.1

4.3

32.6
4.5
1.8

4.6
4.5
12.9
23.1

2.2

22.8

1.7

11.2
5.2
2.8
27.6

4.1
3.6

19.2

2.7

4.9
22.8
11.6
18.0

5.4
1.7

29.4

1.8
8.0
4.5
7.5
27.4
4.6
8.9
1.8

Diplodinium
anisacanthum (da Cunha)
f. anacanthum (Dogiel)
f. triacanthum (Dogiel)
dogieli (Kofoid & MacLennan)
rangiferi (Dogiel)

2.1
0.02

1.8

3.1

1.6
0.01
2.3
2.3

0.6

Eudiplodinium
bovis (Dogiel)
maggii (Fiorentini)
neglectum (Dogiel)

1.7
0.02
4.5

3.6
2.1

5.9
2.3

1.7

2.6

Epidinium ecaudatum
f. caudatum (Fiorentini)
f. ecaudatum (Fiorentini)

0.02
10.3

0.01
5.8

1.0
13.9

11.4

3.6

Total no. of species observed

14

12

11

12

11

11

background image

VALLE ET AL.

66

·

Zootaxa 1703 © 2008

Magnolia Press

showed a much lower protozoal diversity (up to 11 protozoal species in llamas and 16 species in alpacas) than
the dromedary (31 species) (Kubesi and Dehority 2002).

TABLE 4. Average dimensions from cells (n = 20) of the protozoal species Eudiplodinium maggii and Epidinium ecau-
datum
of the alpacas compared with the ranges reported by other authors. Values in brackets indicate the range of size.

To our knowledge, only Lubinsky (1964) and Baker and Day (1993) gave references of rumen protozoal

diversity in SAC. In a sample from a single guanaco from a Zoo in Winipeg (Canada), Lubinsky (1964)

observed 96% Entodinium spp., 1% Eudiplodinium maggii, and 3% Elytroplastron bubali. Baker and Day

(1993) reported that from 1.6 to 24.2% Diplodinium (Diplodinium and Eodinium, according to authors) spp.

were also observed in alpacas, as well as a minor proportion of Eudiplodinium (Eremoplastron) spp. in one

out of three animals. In a single alpaca, Dehority (unpublished results) observed a fauna of 91.8% Entodinium

and 8.2% Diplodinium anisacanthum group and Eudiplodinium maggii. In our case, the proportion of proto-

zoal species of Diplodinium and Eudiplodinium spp. in alpacas averaged 6.6% (from 2.3 to 11.6%), without

any apparently prevailing genera or species among host animals. In contrast to results from Baker and Day

(1993), we observed the important presence of Epidinium, ranging from 3.6 to 14.9 % (mean 9.2%) in 5 out of

6 rumen samples from alpacas. This represents a new host record.

It was also observed that cell sizes of the two larger protozoal species found in our alpacas (Eudiplodin-

ium maggii and Epidinium ecaudatum) were in the lower range reported in their classifications by Ogimoto

and Imai (1981), Williams and Coleman (1992) and Dehority (1993) for describing these species. Sizes of

these two species are compared to references in Table 4. The reason for this lower size is unknown, although

some differences in the rumen environment such as those recorded by Lemosquet et al. (1996) between llamas

and sheep (higher osmotic pressure, 2 º C lower rumen temperatures) might be involved.

Rumen contents of both llamas and alpacas showed the presence of the most ubiquitous Entodinium spp.,

such as E. longinucleatum, E. dubardi and E. exiguum, together with E. damae. However, the presence of E.

caudatum, E. parvum and E. simplex, which were commonly observed in alpacas, were randomly found in lla-

mas (in 3 and 4 out of eight hosts). Others, such as E. dilobum, E. alces, E. bovis and E. ovibos occurred in a

low number of individuals from each host species, whereas E. costatum was observed in two alpacas but not

in llamas and E. rectangulatum was only observed in one llama. Considering that the llamas and alpacas came

from the same geographical site and in some cases even from the same herd, thus allowing for a possible

cross-inoculation, these differences in protozoal biodiversity, either in Entodinium spp. or other ciliate spe-

cies, in the forestomach contents of SAC might be attributed to differences in feeding habits. The higher qual-

ity forages possibly ingested by the alpacas as compared with llamas would justify a larger and more diverse

protozoal community in their forestomach (Williams and Coleman 1992).

Eudiplodinium maggii

Epidinium ecaudatum

Length (µm)

Width (µm)

Length (µm)

Width (µm)

This Study

144.8
(120.5–178)

85.3
(72.3–96.4)

94.6
(79.5–108.5)

34.5
(34.1–38.5)

Ogimoto & Imai (1981)

-
(120–200)

-
(80–150)

-
(80–150)

-
(40–70)

Williams & Coleman (1992)

-
(104–198)

-
(63–125)

-
(85–140)

-
(37–54)

Dehority (1993)

151
(115–212)

100
(73–143)

124
(98–152)

48
(38–62)

background image

Zootaxa 1703 © 2008 Magnolia Press

·

67

FORESTOMACH PROTOZOA OF LLAMAS AND ALPACAS

Conclusions

This paper is the first detailed description of protozoal diversity in the forestomach of South American cam-

elids involving a significant number of animals in the study. The absence of the vestibuliferids (Dasytricha

and Isotricha) has been confirmed, as well as that of some protozoal species commonly found in dromedaries

and bactrian camels such as Caloscolex spp., Diplodinium cameli, or Entodinium ovumrajae. The presence of

Epidinium species in the forestomach contents of the alpaca is a new host record. The protozoal concentration

and level of diversity in the contents of the forestomach are higher in alpacas than llamas. The alpacas har-

boured Diplodinium, Eudiplodinium and Epidinium spp. in addition to Entodinium spp.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are given to Profs. Tito Rodriguez and Freddy Lizón (Universidad Mayor de San Andrés de La Paz,

Bolivia) for his help in obtaining the samples, and to Prof. B.A. Dehority (Ohio State University, USA) for his

critical review of the manuscript

References

Analytical Software, (2003) STATISTIX 8 for Windows. Tallahasee, FL, USA.
Baker, S.K. & Day, T.J. (1993) The population of ciliate protozoa in the rumens of alpacas and sheep. VII World Confer-

ence on Animal Production, Edmonton (Alberta, Canada), 2, 126–127.

Castellaro, G., Ullrich, T., Wackwitz, B. & Raggi A. (2004) Composición botánica de la dieta de alpacas (Lama pacos L.)

y llamas (Lama glama L.) en dos estaciones del año, en praderas altiplánicas de un sector de la Provincia de Parina-
cota, Chile. Agricultura Técnica, 64, 353–363.

Davies, H.L., Robinson, T.F., Roedor, B.L., Sharp, M.E., Johnston, N.P., Christensen, A.C. & Schaalje, G.B. (2007)

Digestibility, nitrogen balance and blood metabolites in llama (Lama glama) and alpaca (Lama pacos) fed barley or
barley alfalfa diets. Small Ruminant Research, 73. 1–7.

Dehority, B.A. (1974) Rumen ciliate fauna of Alaskan moose (Alces americana), musk-ox (Ovibos mochatus) and Dall

mountain sheep (Ovis dalli). Journal of Protozoology, 21, 26–32.

Dehority, B.A. (1984) Evaluation of subsampling and fixation rumen procedures used for counting rumen protozoa.

Applied Environmental Microbiology, 48, 182–185.

Dehority, B.A. (1986) Protozoa of the digestive tract of herbivorous mammals. Insect Science and its Application, 7,

279–296.

Dehority, B.A. (1993) Laboratory manual for classification and morphology of rumen ciliate protozoa, CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL.

Dogiel, V.A. (1927) Monographie der Familie Ophryoscolecidae. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 59, 1–288.
Eadie, J.M. (1962) Interrelationships between certain rumen ciliate protozoa. Journal of General Microbiology, 29, 579–

588.

Engelhardt, W., Lechner-Doll, M., Heller, R. & Rutagwenda, T. (1988) Physiology of the forestomach in the camelids

with particular reference to adaptation to extreme dietary conditions—a comparative approach. Animal Research
and Development,
28, 56–70.

Ghosal, A.K., Tanwar, R.K. & Dwaraknath, P.K. (1981) Note on rumen microorganisms and fermentation pattern in

camel. Indian Journal of Animal Science, 51, 1011–1012.

Göçmen, B. (1999). Morphological and taxonomical investigations on the genus Epidinium Crawley, 1923 (Protozoa:

Ciliophora: Entodiniomorphida). Turkish Journal of Zoology, 23, 429–463.

Jouany, J.-P. (2000) La digestion chez les camélidés; comparaison avec les ruminants. INRA Productiones Animales, 13,

165–176.

Kadwell, M., Fernandez, M., Stanley, H.F., Baldi, R., Wheeler, J.C., Rosadio, R. & Bruford, M.W. (2001) Genetic analy-

sis reveals the wild ancestors of the llama and the alpaca. Proceedings of Biological Sciences, 268, 2575–2584.

Kofoid, C.A. & MacLennan, R.F. (1930) Ciliates from Bos indicus Linn., I. The genus Entodinium Stein. University of

California (Berkeley) Publications of Zoology, 33, 471–544.

Kofoid, C.A. & MacLennan, R.F. (1932) Ciliates from Bos indicus Linn., II. A revision of Diplodinium Schuberg. Uni-

background image

VALLE ET AL.

68

·

Zootaxa 1703 © 2008

Magnolia Press

versity of California (Berkeley) Publications of Zoology, 37, 53–152.

Kubesi, A.A. & Dehority, B.A. (2002) Forestomach ciliate protozoa in Egyptian dromedary camels (Camelus dromedar-

ius). Zootaxa, 51, 1–12.

Kubikova, M. (1935) Infusorien aus dem pansen von Cervus elaphus. Zoologister Anzeiger, Leipzig, 111, 175–177.
Lemosquet, S., Dardillat, C., Jailler, M. & Dulphy, J.P. (1996) Voluntary intake and gastric digestion of two hays by lla-

mas and sheep: influence of concentrate supplementation. Journal of Agricultural Science, 127, 539–548.

Lubinsky, G. (1957). Studies on the evolution of the Ophryoscolecidae (Ciliata: Oligoisotricha). I. A new species of

Entodinium with “caudatum”, “loboso-spiniosum” and “dubardi” forms, and some evolutionary trends in the genus
Entodinium. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 35, 111–133.

Lubinsky, G. (1964) Ophryoscolecidae of a guanaco from the Winipeg zoo. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 42, 159.
Morvan, B., Bonnemoy, F., Fonty, G. & Gouet, P. (1996) Quantitative determination of H2-utilizing acetogenic and sul-

fate-reducing bacteria and methanogenic archaea from digestive tract of different mammals. Current Microbiology,
32, 129–133.

Navarrre, C.B., Pugh, D.G., Heath, A.M. & Simpkins, S.A. (1999) Analysis of first gastric compartment fluid collected

via percutaneous paracentesis from healthy llamas. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 214,
812–815.

Ogimoto, K. & Imai, S. (1981) Atlas of rumen microbiology. Japan Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo.
Pinares-Patiño, C.S., Ulyatt, M.J., Waghorn, G.C., Lassey, K.R., Barry, T.N., Holmes, C.W. & Johnson, D.E. (2003)

Methane emission by alpaca and sheep fed on lucerne hay or grazed on pastures of perennial ryegrass/white clover
or birdsfoot trefoil. Journal of Agricultural Science, 140, 215–226.

San Martin, F. & Bryant, F.C. (1989) Nutrition of domesticated South American llamas and alpacas. Small Ruminant

Research, 2, 191–216.

Sláde

ček, F. (1946). Ophryoscoledcidae z bachoru jelena (Cervus elaphus L.), daòka (Dama dama L.) a srnce (Capreolus

capreolus L.). V

ěstnik Čsl. Zoologicke Spoleènosti, 10, 201–231.

Sponheimer, M., Robinson, T., Roeder, B., Hammer, J., Ayliffe, L., Passey, B., Cerling, T., Dearing, D. & Ehleringer, J.

(2003). Digestion and passage rates of grass hays by llamas, alpacas, goats, rabbits and horses. Small Ruminant
Research,
48, 149–154.

Tichit, M. & Genin, D. (1997) Factors affecting herd structure in a mixed camelid-sheep pastoral system in the arid Puna

of Bolivia. Journal of Arid Environments, 36, 167–180.

Vallenas, A., Cummings, J.F. & Munnell J.F. (1991) A gross study of the compartmentalized stomach of two new-world

camelids, the llama and guanaco. Journal of Morphology, 134, 399–423.

Wertheim, P. (1935). A new ciliate, Entodinium bovis sp. n. from the stomach of Bos taurus L., with the revision of Ento-

dinium exiguum, E. nanellum, E. simplex, E. dubardi and E. parvum. Parasitology, 27, 226–230.

Williams, A.G. & Coleman, G.S. (1992) The rumen protozoa. Brock-Springer Series in Contemporary Bioscience,

Springer-Verlag, New York.


Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
Protozoa, MEDYCYNA - ŚUM Katowice, I ROK, Biologia medyczna, 4. PARAZYTOLOGIA
pomoce, SCIAGA, Podkrolestwo:Pierwotniaki(protozoa)
Alpaki ultrasonografia
Protozoa aktualna systemtyka
Cytogenetyka alpaki
pomoce, Sciaga3, Podkrolestwo:Pierwotniaki(protozoa)
PARAZYTOLOGIA LEKARSKA Protozoa 1
Podstawy protozoologii, czyli nauka o pierwotniakach
Protozoa
Choroby skórne alpaki
Protozoologia lekarska, PWSZ, Parazytologia
Toxoplasma gondii-opis, Biol UMCS, VI semestr, Protozoologia
pomoce, BIOLOGIA, Podkrolestwo:Pierwotniaki(protozoa)typ:Sarcomastigosphora

więcej podobnych podstron