Semen qualitative parameters and spermatozoon ultrastructure of Phasianus colchicus mongolicus

References

• Aire TA. 2014. Spermiogenesis in birds. Spermatogenesis. 4(3):e959392.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Attia YA, El-Naggar AS, Abou-Shehema BM, Abdella AA. 2019. Effect of supplementation with trimethylglycine (Betaine) and/or vitamins on semen quality, fertility, antioxidant status, dna repair and welfare of roosters exposed to chronic heat stress. Animals. 9(8):547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakst MR, Cecil HC. 1981. Changes in the characteristics of turkey ejaculated semen and ductus deferens semen with repeated ejaculations. Reprod Nutr Dev. 21(6B):1095–1103.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bakst MR, Howarth B. 1975. The head, neck and midpiece of cock spermatozoa examined with the transmission electron microscope. Biol Reprod. 12(5):632–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakst Murray R, Cecil HC. 1997. Sperm viability 1. Nigrosin/Eosin stain for determining liveydead and abnormal sperm counts. In: Techniques for semen evaluation, semen storage, and fertility determination. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL, USA: The Poultry Science Association. p. 29–34.
   Google Scholar
• Bakst MR, Sexton TJ. 1979. Fertilizing capacity and ultrastructure of fowl and turkey spermatozoa before and after freezing. J Reprod Fertil. 55(1):1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown ME, Crosier A, Lynch W, Converse SJ, Chandler J, Olsen G, French J, Wildt DE, Songsasen N. 2011. 231 Seminal quality in Whooping Crane (Grus Americana) is affected by stage of breeding season but not by age of individual. Reprod Fertil Dev. 23(1):214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo A, Lenzi C, Pirone A, Baglini A, Russo C, Soglia D, Schiavone A, di Cossato MMF. 2021. From the semen collection method to the hatchlings: the use of cryopreserved sperm from pheasants fed an antioxidant-enriched diet. Animals. 11(9):2624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo A, Marzoni M, Romboli I. 2009. Some advices to breed common pheasants used as donors of good quality semen. In: Avian biology research. Vol. 2. SAGE Publications Ltd; p. 243–243.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo A, Romboli I, Marzoni M. 2010. Preliminary investigation on fertility and hatchability by the use of cryopreserved cock semen. In: Incubation and fertility research group. Tours: Avian Biology Research.
   Google Scholar
• Donoghue AM, Kirby JD, Froman DP, Lerner SP, Crouch AN, King LM, Donoghue DJ, Sonstegard TS. 2003. Field testing the influence of sperm competition based on sperm mobility in breeder turkey toms. Br Poult Sci. 44(3):498–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draycott RAH, Hoodless AN, Woodburn MIA, Sage RB. 2008. Nest predation of common pheasants Phasianus colchicus. IBIS. 150(SUPPL.1):37–44.
   Google Scholar
• Ducci M, Villani C, Gazzano A, Coli A, Tedeschi D, Marzoni M, Romboli I, Sighieri C, Frateschi TL, Martelli F. 1998. Valutazione morfologica e morfometrica degli spermatozoi di fagiano. Annali della Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria di Pisa, vol. 50, pp 229, tot. pag 8, 1998. Annali della Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria di Pisa [Internet]. 50:229–237. http://hdl.handle.net/11568/176670.
   Google Scholar
• Esteso MC, Fernández-Santos MR, Soler AJ, Montoro V, Quintero-Moreno A, Garde JJ. 2006. The effects of cryopreservation on the morphometric dimensions of Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) epididymal sperm heads. Reprod Domest Anim. 41(3):241–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faustino F, Silva RC, Hilbig CC, Makino LC, Senhorini JA, Ninhaus-Silveira A, Nakaghi LSO. 2015. Spermatozoon ultrastructure and semen parameters of brycon vermelha (Characiformes, Characidae). Anim Reprod Sci. 157:17–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froman DP. 2007. Sperm motility in birds: insights from fowl sperm. Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl. 65:293–308.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Froman DP, Feltmann AJ. 1998. Sperm mobility: a quantitative trait of the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Biol Reprod. 58(2):379–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froman DP, McLean DJ. 1996. Objective measurement of sperm motility based upon sperm penetration of accudenz®. Poult Sci. 75(6):776–784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grlgg GW, Hodge AJ. 1949. Electron microscopic studies of spermatozoa: I. The morphology of the spermatozoon of the common domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Aust J Biol Sci. 2(3): 271–286.
   Google Scholar
• Gunawardana VK, Scott MGAD. 1977. Ultrastructural studies on the differentiation of spermatids in the domestic fowl. J Anat. 124(Pt 3):741–755.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herrera JA, Quintana JA, López MA, Betancourt M, Fierro R. 2005. Individual cryopreservation with dimethyl sulfoxide and polyvinylpyrrolidone of ejaculates and pooled semen of three avian species. Arch Androl. 51(5):353–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holá M, Zíka T, Šálek M, Hanzal V, Kušta T, Ježek M, Hart V. 2015. Effect of habitat and game management practices on ring-necked pheasant harvest in the Czech Republic. Eur J Wildl Res. 61(1):73–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu J, Chen JL, Wen J, Zhao GP, Zheng MQ, Liu RR, Liu WP, Zhao LH, Liu GF, Wang ZW. 2013. Estimation of the genetic parameters of semen quality in Beijing-You chickens. Poult Sci. 92(10):2606–2612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iaffaldano N, di Iorio M, Rusco G, Antenucci E, Zaniboni L, Madeddu M, Marelli S, Schiavone A, Soglia D, Buccioni A, et al. 2021. Italian semen cryobank of autochthonous chicken and turkey breeds: a tool for preserving genetic biodiversity. Ital J Anim Sci. 20(1):2022–2033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iaffaldano N, Manchisi A, Gambacorta M, di Iorio M, Rosato MP. 2009. Effect of different sperm concentrations on the post-thaw viability and motility of turkey spermatozoa cryopreserved by the pellet method. Ital J Anim Sci. 8(sup2):760–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Immler S, Saint-Jalme M, Lesobre L, Sorci G, Roman Y, Birkhead TR. 2007. The evolution of sperm morphometry in pheasants. J Evolution Biol. 20(3):1008–1014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson BGM. 2011. Reproductive biology and phylogeny of birds: part A: phylogeny, morphology, hormones and fertilization. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karnovsky MJ. 1965. A formaldehyde-glutaraldehyde fixative of high osmolality for use in electron microscopy. J Cell Biol. 27:1A–149A.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korn N, Thurston RJ, Pooser BP, Scott TR. 2000. Ultrastructure of spermatozoa from Japanese quail. Poult Sci. 79(1):86–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotłowska M, Glogowski J, Dietrich GJ, Kozłowski K, Faruga A, Jankowski J, Ciereszko A. 2005. Biochemical characteristics and sperm production of turkey semen in relation to strain and age of the males. Poult Sci. 84(11):1763–1768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake PE, Smith W, Young D. 1968. The ultrastructure of the ejaculated fowl spermatozoon. Exp Physiol. 53(4):356–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake PE. 1968. Sixth International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination. In: International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination. Paris; p. 1633–1635.
   Google Scholar
• Mantovani C, Cerolini S, Bellagamba F, Mangiagalli MG, Cavalchini LG. 1993. Evaluation of pheasant semen production during the reproductive season. Reprod Nutr Dev. 33(6):503–509.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marquez BJ, Ogasawara FX. 1975. Scanning electron microscope studies of turkey semen. Poult Sci. 54(4):1139–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mashaly MM, Kratzer KR, Keene OD. 1983. Effect of photoperiod on body weight and reproductive performance of ringneck pheasants. Poult Sci. 62(10):2109–2113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngu GT, Etchu KA, Butswat ISR, Woogeng IN. 2014. Semen and microbial characteristics of two breeds of Turkeys in an arid tropical environment of Bauchi State, Nigeria. Afr J Microbiol Res. 8(21):2174–2182.
   Google Scholar
• Noirault J, Brillard JP. 1999. Effects of frequency of semen collection on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of semen in turkey breeder males. Poultr Sci. 78(7):1034–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riana Bornman MS, Bouwman H. 2012. Environmental pollutants and diseases of sexual development in humans and wildlife in South Africa: harbingers of impact on overall health? Reprod Domest Anim. 47(SUPPL.4):327–332.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saemi F, Zamiri MJ, Akhlaghi A, Niakousari M, Dadpasand M, Ommati MM. 2012. Dietary inclusion of dried tomato pomace improves the seminal characteristics in Iranian native roosters. Poultr Sci. 91(9):2310–2315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santiago-Moreno J, Esteso M, Villaverde-Morcillo S, Toledano-Díaz A, Castaño C, Velázquez R, López-Sebastián A, Goya A, Martínez J. 2016. Recent advances in bird sperm morphometric analysis and its role in male gamete characterization and reproduction technologies. Asian J Androl. 18(6):882–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santiago-Moreno J, Gil MG, Dávila SG, Campo JL, Castãno C, Toledano-Díaz A, Prieto MT, Blesbois E. 2018. Access to pasture in an outdoor housing system affects welfare indicators and improves rooster sperm quality in two native Mediterranean breeds. Poultr Sci. 97(12):4433–4441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simões K, Orsi AM, Artoni SMB. 2012. Ultrastructure of the spermatozoa of the domestic duck (Anas platyrhynchos sp). J Vet Med C: Anat Histol Embryol. 41(3):202–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Słowińska M, Jankowski J, Dietrich GJ, Karol H, Liszewska E, Glogowski J, Kozłowski K, Sartowska K, Ciereszko A. 2011. Effect of organic and inorganic forms of selenium in diets on turkey semen quality. Poultr Sci. 90(1):181–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soley JT. 1993. Ultrastructure of ostrich (Struthio camelus) spermatozoa: I. Transmission electron microscopy. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 60(2):119–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soley JT, du Plessis L. 2020. Ultra-imaging in applied animal andrology: the power and the beauty. Anim Reprod Sci. 220:106306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soley JT, Roberts DC. 1994. Ultrastructure of ostrich (Struthio camelus) spermatozoa. II. Scanning electron microscopy. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 61(3):239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurston RJ, Hess RA. 1987. Ultrastructure of spermatozoa from domesticated birds: comparative study of turkey, chicken and guinea fowl. Scanning Microsc. 1(4):1829–1838.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thurston RJ, Hess RA, Hughes BL, Froman DP. 1982. Ultrastructure of the guinea fowl (Numidia meleagris) spermatozoon. Poult Sci. 61(8):1738–1743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar