234 To cite this paper: Ahmad K, Ullah W, Ali Q, Adeel M, and Fahad S (2024). A Cross-sectional Study of Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Captive Wild Animals in Pakistan Zoological Gardens. World Vet. J., 14(2): 234-241. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2024.wvj29 2024, Scienceline Publication World ’s Veterinary Journal World Vet J, 14(2): 234-241. ISSN 2322-4568 A Cross-sectional Study of Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Captive Wild Animals in Pakistan Zoological Gardens Kaleem Ahmad * , Wahid Ullah , Qasim Ali , Muhammad Adeel , and Shah Fahad Department of Medical Lab Technology (MLT), Faculty of Rehabilitation and Allied Health Sciences, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan *Corresponding author's Email: kaleem.ahmad@riphah.edu.pk ABSTRACT The animals held captive in zoos often face health and well-being issues. Parasitic infections can lead to health problems in wildlife animals by affecting their gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, the present study aimed to identify and evaluate the population of the various Gastrointestinal (GIT) parasites of wild animals enclosed in different zoological gardens in Pakistan. The fresh fecal samples (n = 960) of 20 captive wildlife animals were collected from Marghzar Zoo, Islamabad (n = 340), Ayub National Park, Rawalpindi (n = 221), Lohi Bher Wildlife Park, Rawalpindi (n = 296), and Bansra Galli Wildlife Park, Rawalpindi (n = 103). The samples were obtained from wildlife mammals, including urial (n = 95), blue bull (n = 106), chinkara gazelle (n = 77), zebra (n = 77), hog deer (n = 75), spotted deer (n = 43), blackbuck (n = 58), barking deer (n = 52), red deer (n = 104), yak (n = 44), grey goral (n = 40), lion (n = 37), mouflon sheep (n = 46), red fox (n = 12), bear (n = 37), grey wolf (n = 12), jackal (n = 12), vervet monkey (n = 12), rhesus monkey (n = 12), and langoor (n = 12). Various methods, such as direct smear examination, standard sedimentation, and floatation techniques were applied to detect and identify the endoparasites in the fecal sample. The detailed routine parasitological analysis identified approximately 52 endoparasites in the fecal samples, including Haemonchus contortus, Eimeria bovis, Ostertagia curcumcincta, Strongyloides papillosus, Strogylus equinus, Oxyuris equi, Chabertia ovina, Protostrongylus, and Trichostrongylus vitrines. The obtained results indicated that Lohi Bher Wildlife Park (46.35%) had a higher prevalence of GIT parasites, compared to Marghzar Zoo (33.23%), Bansra Galli Wildlife Park (33.02%), and Ayub National Park (19.45%). The study reports mild to moderate parasitic infection in captive wild animals and that could affect the survivability of the animals in captivity. The findings of the study can be used to formulate a proper health protocol and sanitation management in captive wild animals to control parasitic infections. Keywords: Captive wild animal, Gastrointestinal infection, Parasite, Zoological Garden ORIGINAL ARTICLE Received: March 22, 2024 Revised: April 25, 2024 Accepted: May 29, 2024 Published: June 30, 2024 INTRODUCTION Parasitic infections are a major concern of wildlife units in Pakistan and worldwide (Khan et al., 2021). In zoological gardens, animals are mainly held captive in enclosures where the environment does not resemble their natural habitat ( Da Silva Barbosa et al., 2019). The physiology of animals is changed when they are kept in their enclosures, as they are suddenly exposed to unpleasant and distressing environments. This physiological alteration renders the captive animals more susceptible to numerous infectious diseases, such as viral, bacterial, fungal, and parasitic. Gastrointestinal (GI) parasitic infections are most commonly found in captive wild animals (Dev Moudgil et al., 2015; Carrera‐ Játiva et al., 2018). In natural habitats, animals are innately resistant to parasitic infections as there is an ecological balance between animals and their parasites. Moreover, wild animals are less exposed to parasitic infections since they freely roam in open lands with low animal density (Thawait et al., 2014; Da Silva Barbosa et al., 2019). Nevertheless, parasitic infections have negative effects on the status, behavior, reproduction, and mortality rate of wild animals (Thawait et al., 2014; Kvapil et al., 2017). The host’s survival and reproduction behavior could be affected by parasitic infection through pathological effects, causing tissue damage, blood loss, spontaneous abortion, and mortality, or indirectly by declining the immune response (Thawait et al., 2014). In recent years, A study has been conducted on wildlife pathogens to investigate the prevalence of parasitic infections with zoonotic tendencies. However, this has led researchers to overlook the ecological factors surrounding parasites while it has also damaged the efforts to manage them (Sengar et al., 2017). Extensive studies investigated identifying GIT diseases and infections among wildlife animals. Ferdous et al. (2023) noticed the occurrence of GIT infections in Bangladesh Zoo. Khan et al. (2021) identified the GIT parasitic infections among cows and buffalo in various farms located in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, and Ruhoollah et al. (2023) noted GIT parasite impacts in lower Dir region animals. However, research concerning the health of wildlife animals in Islamabad and DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2024.wvj29 PII: S232245682400029-14