D Adam1, L Beard1, S D Johnston1, V Nicolson2, A Lisle1, A McKinnon3, R Larkin3, P Theilemann3, A Gillett4, K Brackin5, S FitzGibbon6, B Barth6, W Ellis6. 1. Wildlife Science Unit, School of Agricultural and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia. 2. Dreamworld, Coomera, QLD, Australia. 3. Moggill Koala Hospital, Department of Environment Heritage and Protection, Moggill, QLD, Australia. 4. Australia Zoo Wildlife Hospital, Beerwah, QLD, Australia. 5. Bellbowrie Veterinary Surgery, Bellbowrie, QLD, Australia. 6. Koala Ecology Group, School of Agriculture & Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare the use of four techniques to measure body temperature in koalas: intraperitoneal (thermal data logger and temperature sensitive radio transmitter), rectal (certified thermometer), tympanic (infrared thermometer), and hind foot (infrared camera). METHODS: The body temperature data collected concurrently from the intraperitoneal loggers were used as the benchmark in the analyses. RESULTS: The rectal, foot and tympanic methods consistently recorded lower body temperature when compared with the benchmark. There was a strong positive relationship (R2 = 0.79) between logger and rectal measurements, but no significant relationship between logger and foot or logger and tympanic measurements. CONCLUSION: Rectal measurements can be used to record internal body temperature, with the caveat that such measurements will generally register a temperature approximately 0.25°C lower than the actual intraperitoneal temperature.
OBJECTIVE: Compare the use of four techniques to measure body temperature in koalas: intraperitoneal (thermal data logger and temperature sensitive radio transmitter), rectal (certified thermometer), tympanic (infrared thermometer), and hind foot (infrared camera). METHODS: The body temperature data collected concurrently from the intraperitoneal loggers were used as the benchmark in the analyses. RESULTS: The rectal, foot and tympanic methods consistently recorded lower body temperature when compared with the benchmark. There was a strong positive relationship (R2 = 0.79) between logger and rectal measurements, but no significant relationship between logger and foot or logger and tympanic measurements. CONCLUSION: Rectal measurements can be used to record internal body temperature, with the caveat that such measurements will generally register a temperature approximately 0.25°C lower than the actual intraperitoneal temperature.