Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T15:26:52.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-assessing the reversibility of melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants in golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas): a comparison with golden lion tamarins (L. rosalia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

K De Vleeschouwer ,
K Leus  and
L Van Elsacker
K De Vleeschouwer*
Affiliation:
Centre for Research and Conservation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, K Astridplein 26, B-2018 Antwerp, Belgium Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
K Leus
Affiliation:
Centre for Research and Conservation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, K Astridplein 26, B-2018 Antwerp, Belgium
L Van Elsacker
Affiliation:
Centre for Research and Conservation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, K Astridplein 26, B-2018 Antwerp, Belgium Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: kristel.de.vleeschouwer@zooantwerpen.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The reversibility and flexibility of contraceptive methods generally allow for improved genetic and demographic management of captive populations. Earlier studies have produced conflicting results regarding the restoration of reproduction after using melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants in golden-headed (Leontopithecus chrysomelas, GHLT) and golden lion tamarins (L. rosalia, GLT): two closely related species that are physiologically and genetically very similar. The present study investigates the nature of this inter-species difference, presents new data on GHLTs and compares this with published data on GLTs. Analyses showed that around 34% of the GHLTs resumed breeding after their MGA implants were removed or had expired. Non-implanted GHLTs (control group) were significantly more likely to reproduce than females previously treated with an MGA implant, regardless of whether the implant was removed or left to expire. Younger and parous female GHLTs in the control group were more likely to start reproducing. In implanted females, only parity had an impact, with parous females being more likely to resume breeding than non-parous females. In contrast, data published on GLTs indicate that 75% of GLT females resume breeding, and that removing the implant increases the probability of reproduction occurring. Available data suggest that the observed inter-specific differences are related to differences in the weights of the implants used for the two species. For GHLTs, adjusting MGA doses and/or the sizes of the implants currently administered may be required in order to preserve the reproductive potential of individuals. Apart from potentially negative medical and welfare consequences for individual GHLTs, the reduced reversibility of MGA implants also impacts on management practices used to achieve the objectives of conservation breeding programmes. Finally, this study stresses the importance of evaluating the suitability of contraceptive methods at a species-specific level.

Keywords

animal welfarecallitrichidscontraceptionmelengestrol acetategolden-headed lion tamarinpopulation control management
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 183 - 191
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ballou, J D 1996 Small population management: contraception of golden lion tamarins. In: Cohn, P N, Plotka, E D and Seal, U S (eds) Contraception in Wildlife pp 349–358. The Edwin Mellen Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Collett, D 1994 Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMatteo, K 1997 AZA Contraception Advisory Group Contraception Report. Part 1: Primates, 1st Edition. St Louis Zoological Park: St Louis, USAGoogle Scholar
DeMatteo, K E, Porton, I and Asa, C S 2002 Comments from the AZA Contraception Advisory Group (CAG) on evaluating the suitability of contraceptive methods in golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Animal Welfare II: 343–348Google Scholar
De Vleeschouwer, K, Heistermann, M, Van Elsacker, L and Verheyen, R F 2000b Signaling of reproductive status in captive female golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). International Journal of Primatology 21: 445–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vleeschouwer, K, Leus, K and Van Elsacker, L 2000a An evaluation of the suitability of contraceptive methods in golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas), with emphasis on melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants: (i) Effectiveness, reversibility and medical side effects. Animal Welfare 9: 251–271Google Scholar
De Vleeschouwer, K, Leus, K and Van Elsacker, L 2002 Reply to DeMatteo et al. Animal Welfare 11: 349–350Google Scholar
De Vleeschouwer, K, Leus, K and Van Elsacker, L 2003 Stability of breeding and nonbreeding groups of golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Animal Welfare 12: 251–268Google Scholar
Forman, L, Kleiman, D G, Bush, R M, Dietz, J M, Ballou, J D, Phillips, L G, Coimbra-Filho, A F and O'Brian, S J 1986 Genetic variation within and among lion tamarins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 71: 1–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, J A, De Vleeschouwer, K, Bales, K and Heistermann, M 2002 Lion tamarin reproductive biology. In: Kleiman, D G and Rylands, A B (eds) Lion Tamarins. Biology and Conservation pp 133–156. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Glatston, A 1998 The control of zoo populations with special reference to primates. Animal Welfare 7: 269–281Google Scholar
Harrenstein L A, Munson L, Seal U S and the AZA Mammary Cancer Study Group 1996 Mammary cancer in captive wild felids and risk factors for its development: a retrospective study of the clinical behavior of 31 cases. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 27: 468–476Google Scholar
Hayes, K T, Feistner, A T C and Halliwell, E C 1996 The effect of contraceptive implants on the behavior of female Rodrigues fruit bats, Pteropus rodricensis. Zoo Biology 15: 21–363.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, M, Thomas, P and Asa, C S 1996 Pregnancy and parturition in captive mammals. In: Kleiman, D G, Allen, M E, Thompson, K V, Lumpkin, S and Harris, H (eds) Wild Mammals in Captivity pp 468–496. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Kazensky, C A, Munson, L and Seal, U S 1998 The effects of melengestrol acetate on the ovaries of captive wild felids. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 29(I): 1-5Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick J F and Turner J W Jr 1991 Reversible contraception in non-domestic animals. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 22: 392–408Google Scholar
Leigh, S R 1994 Relations between captive and noncaptive weights in anthropoid primates. Zoo Biology 13: 21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leus, K 1999 Leontopithecus population control workshop at Antwerp. European Association of Zoos and Aquariums News 25: 6–7Google Scholar
Möhle, U, Heistermann, M, Einspanier, A and Hodges, J K 1999 Efficacy and effects of short- and medium-term contraception in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) using melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants. Journal of Medical Primatology 28: 36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murnane R D, Zdziarski J M, Walsh T F, Kinsel M, Meehan T P, Kovarik P, Briggs M, Raverty S A and Phillips L G Jr 1996 Melengestrol acetate-induced exuberant endometrial decidualization in Goeldi's marmosets (Callimico goeldii) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 27: 315–325Google Scholar
Portugal, M M and Asa, C S 1995 Effects of chronic melengestrol acetate contraceptive treatment on perineal tumescence, body weight and sociosexual behavior of Hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas). Zoo Biology 14: 251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, E C 1997 Group stability following cessation of breeding in marmosets and tamarins. Dodo — Journal of the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust 33: 157–158Google Scholar
Sainsbury, A W 1997 The humane control of captive marmoset and tamarin populations. Animal Welfare 6: 231–242Google Scholar
Schwitzer, C and Kaumanns, W 2003 Foraging patterns of free-ranging and captive primates — implications for captive feeding regimes. In: Fidgett, A, Clauss, M, Gansloßer, U, Hatt, J-M and Nijboer, J (eds) Zoo Animal Nutrition Volume 2 pp 247–265. Filander Verlag: Fürth, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Seal, U S, Barton, R, Mather, L, Gray, C W and Plotka, E D 1975 Long-term control of reproduction in female lions (Panthera leo) with implanted contraceptives. American Association of Zoo Veterinarians Annual Proceedings 1975: 66–80Google Scholar
Seal, U S, Barton, R, Mather, L, Olberding, K, Plotka, E D and Gray, C W 1976 Hormonal contraception in captive female lions (Panthera leo). Journal of Zoo Animal Medicine 7: 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, V J and Poole, T B 1998 Captive breeding and infant mortality in Asian Elephants: a comparisn between twenty western zoos and three eastern elephant centres. Zoo Biology 17(4): 311–3323.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, C, Ballou, J D and Houle, C S 2001 Restoration of reproductive potential following expiration or removal of melengestrol acetate contraceptive implants in golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 32(4): 417–425Google ScholarPubMed
Zimbelman, R G, Lauderdale, J W, Sokolowski, J H and Schalk, T G 1970 Safety and pharmacological evaluations of melengestrol acetate in cattle and other animals: a review. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 157(II): 1528–1536Google ScholarPubMed