4.3 Article

The effect of blood sampling method on indicators of physiological stress in reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus)

期刊

DOMESTIC ANIMAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 87-98

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2003.07.002

关键词

reindeer; physiological stress; cortisol; catecholamines; automatic blood sampling equipment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of manual blood sampling and remote blood sampling using automatic blood sampling equipment (ABSE) on plasma cortisol and catecholamine concentrations were studied on eight adult female reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus). Contemporary body temperatures and heart rates were also recorded to determine their utility as other possible stress indicators. The animals were blood sampled once every hour with ABSE on 9-10 May and then by manual blood sampling on 13-14 May. Animals were also fitted with equipment to record heart rate and body temperature. Heart rate and body temperature were also recorded continuously without blood sampling on 17-18 May in undisturbed control conditions. Plasma cortisol concentrations were five-to-six fold greater during manual blood sampling compared to sampling with ABSE (F-1.3 = 13.34, P < 0.05). Plasma noradrenaline concentrations were significantly higher (F-1.3 = 22.98, P < 0.05) during manual blood sampling compared to sampling with ABSE, whereas plasma adrenaline concentrations did not differ. Heart rate was higher during manual blood sampling compared to control values. Body temperature was significantly higher during manual sampling compared to values recorded without blood sampling (F-1,F-4 = 31.65, P < 0.01). In conclusion, plasma cortisol concentration provides an excellent indicator of handling stress in reindeer. The use of ABSE for blood sampling enables measurements of plasma cortisol levels close to basal concentrations that may be used for reference values in studies where indicators of physiological stress are required. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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