Literature DB >> 25557934

Comparative analyses of tooth wear in free-ranging and captive wild equids.

L A Taylor1,2, D W H Müller3,4, C Schwitzer1, T M Kaiser5, J C Castell6, M Clauss3, E Schulz-Kornas5,7.   

Abstract

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Captive breeding has played a crucial role in the conservation of threatened equid species. Grazing ruminants and rhinoceros in captivity have less abrasion-dominated tooth wear than their free-ranging conspecifics, with potential negative consequences for their health. However, a similar study on wild equids in captivity is missing.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to establish if different tooth wear patterns are exhibited by free-ranging and captive equids. STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of museum specimens comparing free-ranging and captive equids.
METHODS: Dental casts of maxillary cheek teeth of 228 museum specimens (122 from free-ranging and 106 from captive individuals) of 7 wild equid species were analysed using the extended mesowear method. Although teeth showing specific abnormalities were not scored, the presence of focal overgrowths (hooks) of the rostral premolars (106, 206) was recorded.
RESULTS: Captive Equus ferus przewalskii, E. grevyi, E. hemionus, E. quagga boehmi and E. zebra hartmannae have less abrasion-dominated tooth wear on their premolars than their free-ranging conspecifics (P<0.001). Fewer differences were exhibited between populations in the molars. No differences were exhibited in the distal cusp of the molars (110, 210) between populations, except in a small sample of E. kiang. Captive equids exhibited more homogeneous wear along the tooth row whereas free-ranging equids exhibited a tooth wear gradient, with more abrasion on premolars than molars. There were more rostral hooks on the premolars (106, 206) in the captive than the free-ranging population (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Captive equids did experience less abrasion-dominated tooth wear than their free-ranging conspecifics, but the differences in tooth wear were less pronounced than those between captive and free-ranging wild ruminant and rhinoceros species. This indicates that feeding regimes for captive equids deviate less from natural diets than those for captive ruminants and rhinoceros but that factors leading to hook formation, in particular feeding height, should receive special attention. The Summary is available in Chinese - see Supporting information.
© 2015 EVJ Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Equus; captive; grazer; horse; nutrition; tooth wear; zebra; zoo

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25557934     DOI: 10.1111/evj.12408

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Equine Vet J        ISSN: 0425-1644            Impact factor:   2.888


  5 in total

1.  Mechanical modelling of tooth wear.

Authors:  Aleksis Karme; Janina Rannikko; Aki Kallonen; Marcus Clauss; Mikael Fortelius
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Dental wear proxy correlation in a long-term feeding experiment on sheep (Ovis aries).

Authors:  Nicole L Ackermans; Daniela E Winkler; Ellen Schulz-Kornas; Thomas M Kaiser; Louise F Martin; Jean-Michel Hatt; Marcus Clauss
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 4.293

3.  Chewing, dental morphology and wear in tapirs (Tapirus spp.) and a comparison of free-ranging and captive specimens.

Authors:  Clemens J M Hohl; Daryl Codron; Thomas M Kaiser; Louise F Martin; Dennis W H Müller; Jean-Michel Hatt; Marcus Clauss
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The history of mesowear: a review.

Authors:  Nicole L Ackermans
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  A Computerized Simulation of the Occlusal Surface in Equine Cheek Teeth: A Simplified Model.

Authors:  Tomas Sterkenburgh; Ellen Schulz-Kornas; Michael Nowak; Carsten Staszyk
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-01-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.