Nonsurgical embryo transfer in the scimitar‐horned oryx (Oryx dammah): Birth of a live offspring

Abstract

The objective of this project was to determine if modifications of methods of estrous synchronization, superovulation, embryo recovery, and transfer used successfully in other ungulates, both domestic and nondomestic, could be applied to scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah). Donors were two parous females and recipients were one parous and two nulliparous females that were given a total of two cloprostenol injections at an interval of 0 and 13 or 12 days, respectively. Donors were treated with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH-P, Schering, Kenilworth, NJ) b.i.d. for 4 days and placed with a fertile male. Seven days after the last FSH-P injection, nonsurgical uterine lavages were performed on both donors. One good-quality embryo at the morula stage was recovered and nonsurgically transferred into the right uterine horn of the parous recipient. A healthy female calf born at 247 days post-transfer represents the first known live birth of scimitarhorned oryx following embryo transfer. These results provide additional evidence that estrous synchronization and embryo transfer techniques used in other ungulates can be applied to endangered antelopes such as the scimitar-horned oryx.

Reproductive seasonality in the female scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah)

“…conception from September through April). Scimitarhorned oryx females respond poorly to superovulatory hormone treatments given from February to April (Pope et al, 1991;Schiewe et al, 1991) which also supports the concept that ovarian function and/or sensitivity are compromised during periods of increasing photoperiod in North America. Whereas photoperiod is a common environmental cue in temperate regions to time breeding events in seasonally reproductive species, it is generally accepted that variations in temperature, rainfall and hence food availability provide the proximate cues for regulating reproduction in species living in arid habitats.…”

“…Twin births are uncommon in both the scimitarhorned oryx (0.7%) and addax (0.4%, Densmore & Kraemer, 1986). It has been speculated that the low frequency of twinning in Hippotraginae antelope may reflect anatomical limitations imposed by a duplex uterus and bifurcated cervix that are characteristic of the subfamily (Hradecky, 1982;Mossman, 1989), including the scimitar-horned oryx (Pope et al, 1991;Schiewe et al, 1991;Morrow, 1997). If two embryos were competing for space in the same uterine horn, the complete division of uterine horns would prevent expansion of foetal membranes into the opposite horn.…”

Reproductive seasonality in the female scimitar‐horned oryx (Oryx dammah)

“…Scimitarhorned oryx females respond poorly to superovulatory hormone treatments given from February to April (Pope et al, 1991;Schiewe et al, 1991) which also supports the concept that ovarian function and/or sensitivity are compromised during periods of increasing photoperiod in North America. Furthermore, fewer calves were born in North America from June through December (i.e.…”

164 Characterization of the Common Eland (Taurotragus Oryx) Estrous Cycle

“…Estrus behavior of females still has yet to be accurately described. The length of the estrous cycle in several species has been determined including the eland (~21 days), bongo (Tragelaphus euryceros) (23 to 24 days), blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) (17 days), addax (Addax nasomaculatus) (32 days) and scimitar-horned oryx (24 to 25 days) (Pope et al, 1991). Control of the estrous cycle in several species has been demonstrated including, but not limited to the sable antelope (Thompson and Monfort, 1998), scimitar-horned oryx (Morrow and Monfort, 1998) and common eland (Schwiewe et al, 1990;Nowak, 1999;Pope and Loskutoff, 1999;Pennington et al, 2009).…”

“…The large size of this species allows for rectal manipulation of the reproductive tract (most other antelope species are much smaller in size) and is immensely helpful for the application of artificial reproductive techniques. Previous efforts have been made at the adaption of domestic cattle techniques within this and other species such as the banteng (Bos javanicus; Johnston et al, 2002), guar (Bos guarus; Godfrey et al, 1991), blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra; Holt et al, 1988), water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis; Drost et al, 1983), scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah; Pope et al, 1991) and addax (Addax nasomaculatus; Densmore et al, 1987). However, even with these advantages, care must be taken when handling nondomestic species as equipment becomes an issue for manual restraint.…”