Abstract
A set of definitions for luteal structures and their regressing stages in red deer ovaries is suggested. Structural characteristics in ovaries pertaining to reproductive analysis is compiled from relevant literature and combined with observations from the present study. Luteal structures and their regressing stages may be useful in assessment of reproductive status and history, provided the analysis is performed with a full understanding of the limitations of the criteria and the methodological approach. Primary corpus luteum (PCL), corpus luteum of pregnancy (CLV), and corpus rubrum (CR) are the most important structures in the quantitative analysis of reproduction, and they may be identified at a macroscopic level. However, confusion with other structures is conceiveable, and for an accurate analysis microscopic -examination of histological preparations is necessary. Different processing and analysing procedures are compared, illustrating differences in resolution and precision, especially in retrospective analysis. Data from hinds with known reproductive history indicate limitations and potential in analysis of ovaries as a technique to assess reproductive status and history in red deer.
Highlights
Since the w o r k of Cheatum and Morton (1942, 1946) and Cheatum (1949), the analysis of ovaries has been widely applied to quantify reprod uctiveparametersinwildcervids {Odocoileus: Golley 1957; Mansell 1974; Thomas 1983, Capreolus: Strandgaard 1972; Horak 1989, Rangifer: Dauphiné and McClure 1974; Leader-Williams andRosser 1983, Alces: Markgren 1969; Saether andHaagenrud 1985, Cervus: Mitchell 1973; Wegge 1975)
In histological analysis of ovaries, luteal structures and their various regressing stages are the main source of information for determining par ameterssuch as estrus period, ovulation rates, and previous breeding events, but few reports (e.g. Morrison 1960), describe ovarian structures in relation to animals of known age, reproductive status and breeding history
Different definitions and descriptions of histological structures have been applied i n the analysis ( Morrison 1960; Buss and Smith 1966; Markgren 1969; Mansell 1971; Harrison and W e i r 1977; Harder and Moorhead 1980; Thomas 1983) and methodological problems may bias the interpretation of origin, characteristics, and persistence of various structures ( Halazon and Buechner 1956; Golley 1957; Buss and Smith 1966; Mansell 1971; Thomas 1983)
Summary
Since the w o r k of Cheatum and Morton (1942, 1946) and Cheatum (1949), the analysis of ovaries has been widely applied to quantify reprod uctiveparametersinwildcervids {Odocoileus: Golley 1957; Mansell 1974; Thomas 1983, Capreolus: Strandgaard 1972; Horak 1989, Rangifer: Dauphiné and McClure 1974; Leader-Williams andRosser 1983, Alces: Markgren 1969; Saether andHaagenrud 1985, Cervus: Mitchell 1973; Wegge 1975). Different definitions and descriptions of histological structures have been applied i n the analysis ( Morrison 1960; Buss and Smith 1966; Markgren 1969; Mansell 1971; Harrison and W e i r 1977; Harder and Moorhead 1980; Thomas 1983) and methodological problems may bias the interpretation of origin, characteristics, and persistence of various structures ( Halazon and Buechner 1956; Golley 1957; Buss and Smith 1966; Mansell 1971; Thomas 1983). Different processing and analytical procedures are l i kely to produce different limitations i n the success of retrospectively identifyingprevious parturitions and regressing luteal structures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
