| Literature DB >> 24954927 |
Jonas Malmsten1, Anne-Marie Dalin2.
Abstract
Knowledge on reproductive success is vital for successful management of large ungulates and is often measured by means of observing surviving offspring. In harvested ungulates, postmortem investigations of reproductive organs are used to estimate reproductive potential by obtaining ovulation rates and fetus numbers. However, there are differences in numbers of offspring observed, fetal/embryo counts, and ovulation rates. We hypothesize that the discrepancy between estimated reproductive potential and reproductive outcome in large ungulates is not only due to ova loss but also due to embryonic mortality. We investigated reproductive status in early pregnancy by sampling hunter-harvested moose (Alces alces) in southern Sweden from 2007 to 2011. In all, 213 reproductive organs were examined postmortem, and in confirmed pregnant moose (n = 53), 25 % (19 of 76) embryos were nonviable and 6 % of ova was unfertilized. The discrepancy between the ovulation rate of all pregnant moose (1.49) and the number of expected offspring per pregnant female, when embryonic mortality and unfertilized oocytes were accounted for (1.08), was 27.5 %. An association between inflammation of the inner mucous membrane (endometritis) of the moose's uterus and embryonic mortality was observed. This is the first comprehensive report of embryonic mortality and endometritis in moose. The observed discrepancy between ovulation rates and early embryonic development/survival shows that ovulation rates are indicative but not accurate estimates of moose reproductive rate. The use of ovulation rates as a sole estimator of future offspring rates may lead to an overharvest of a managed moose population.Entities:
Keywords: Conception rate; Embryonic mortality; Moose; Ovulation; Pregnancy failure; Reproduction
Year: 2013 PMID: 24954927 PMCID: PMC4058054 DOI: 10.1007/s13364-013-0173-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Theriol (Warsz) ISSN: 0001-7051
Fig. 1Map of Europe and Sweden with areas of moose sampling highlighted with A (Island of Öland), B (Province of Småland), and C (Province of Södermanland)
Fig. 3Remnant of allantochorionic membrane (arrow) in moose uterus
Fig. 2Viable (left) and nonviable (right) moose embryos
Results of a logistic regression model with factors associated with presence of embryonic mortality in pregnant female moose from Sweden sampled from 2007 to 2011
| Variable | Crudea OR (95 % CI) | Adjustedb OR (95 % CI) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.19 (0.95–1.50) | 1.64 (1.11–2.41) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Area | 0.56 (0.26–1.21) | 0.43 (0.11–1.78) | 0.246 | 0.224 |
| Sampling year | 1.06 (0.65–1.73) | 0.27 (0.08–0.89) | 0.031 | 0.009 |
| Twins | 0.83 (0.22–3.20) | 0.17 (0.01–3.52) | 0.253 | 0.253 |
| Endometritise | 9.72 (1.92–49.11) | 157.57 (5.05–4,919.25) | 0.004 | <0.001 |
| No. of corpora lutea | 1.01 (0.27–3.78) | 2.76 (0.17–43.50) | 0.471 | 0.477 |
aThe odds ratio of one specific factor without consideration of confounding effects of other factors
bThe odds ratio of one factor, with consideration of confounding effects of other factors
cThe P value based on the sample estimate
dLikelihood ratio test
eInflammation of the inner mucous membrane of the uterus
Sampling area, time of sampling, and age and ovulation rates in 142 samples of female moose (Alces alces) that had ovulated, from 2007 to 2011
| Area | Time range of sample collection | Number of samples | Mean age (range) | Mean ovulation rate (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (Öland) | Oct 10–Nov 11 | 64 | 5.1 (1.5–18.5) | 1.39 (1–3) |
| Nov 12–Dec 12 | 1 | 4.5 | 2 (2) | |
| B (Småland) | Oct 10–Nov 11 | 43 | 3.9 (1.5–14.5) | 1.1 (1–2) |
| Nov 12–Dec 12 | 0 | – | – | |
| C (Södermanland) | Oct 10–Nov 11 | 33 | 3.3 (1.5–7.5) | 1.58 (1–2) |
| Nov 12–Dec 12 | 1 | 5.5 | 2 (2) | |
| All | Oct 10–Dec 12 | 142 | 4.4 (1.5–18.5) | 1.35 (1–3) |
Sampling area, age, ovulation rate, proportion of fertilized oocytes, twin pregnancy, and number and proportion of malformed and normal embryos in 53 pregnant female moose (Alces alces), 2007–2011
| Area |
| Mean age | CLtot a | Mean ovulation rate | Number. of embryonic structuresb | Rate of fertilized oocytes (%) | Number and rate (%) of twin pregnancy | Emalf c | Enorm d | Number of unfertilized oocytes (%) | Number of normally developed embryos per female |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 17 | 4.2 | 24 | 1.41 | 24 | 1.41 (100) | 7 (41.1) | 10 | 14 | 0 (0) | 0.82 |
| B | 8 | 7.7 | 12 | 1.50 | 12 | 1.50 (100) | 4 (50.0) | 1 | 11 | 0 (0) | 1.38 |
| C | 28 | 3.5 | 45 | 1.61 | 40 | 1.43 (89) | 12 (42.9) | 8 | 32 | 5 (11.1) | 1.14 |
| All | 53 | 4.3 | 81 | 1.49 | 76 | 1.43 (96) | 23 (43.4) | 19 | 57 | 5 (6.3) | 1.08 |
aSum of corpora lutea in all examined animals
bNormally developed and malformed embryonic structures
cTotal number of malformed embryos
dTotal number of normally developed embryos
Information on 16 pregnant female moose with embryonic mortality
| Area | Year | Date | Age | Number of corpora lutea | Number of malformed embryos | Number of normally developed embryos | Number of non fertilized oocytes | Confirmed endometritis (1 = yes, 0 = no) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 2010 | –a | 14.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| B | 2009 | Oct 13 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| B | 2009 | Oct 13 | 4.5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| B | 2010 | Oct 13 | 2.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| B | 2010 | Oct 13 | 8.5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| B | 2010 | Oct 11 | –a | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| B | 2011 | Oct 11 | 17.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| B | 2011 | –a | –a | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| A | 2007 | Nov 11 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A | 2007 | Nov 3 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A | 2007 | Nov 1 | 2.5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| A | 2007 | Nov 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| A | 2007 | Nov 3 | 4.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A | 2009 | Nov 7 | 4.5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| A | 2010 | Oct 30 | 6.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| A | 2011 | Oct 29 | 2.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| A–C | 2007–2011 | 5.4 | 25 (1.56) | 19 (1.19) | 4 (0.25) | 2 (0.13) | 8 (0.5) |
A Island of Öland, B Province of Småland, C Province of Södermanland
aInformation not available