Respiratory and Intestinal Nematodes of Poultry: Syngamus trachea (Gapeworm), Ascaridia galli, Heterakis gallinarum, and Capillaria obsignata – Comprehensive Clinical Reference

Introduction

Poultry production systems globally are constrained by a diverse assemblage of helminth parasites, with nematodes of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts representing a major cause of subclinical production losses and, in severe cases, clinical morbidity and mortality. Four species are of particular clinical and economic importance: Syngamus trachea (gapeworm), Ascaridia galli, Heterakis gallinarum, and Capillaria obsignata. These nematodes occupy distinct anatomical niches, display markedly different life cycle strategies, and present unique challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and control. This reference provides a detailed clinical, pathophysiological, and molecular overview of these four parasites, integrating recent advances in diagnostics, anthelmintic resistance surveillance, and host-parasite immunobiology.

Syngamus trachea (Gapeworm)

Etiology and Morphology

Syngamus trachea is a bright red nematode belonging to the order Strongylida, family Syngamidae. The name gapeworm derives from the characteristic clinical sign of open-mouthed breathing in infected birds. The parasite exhibits a pronounced sexual dimorphism, with the smaller male permanently attached to the female in a permanent copulatory copulation, forming a Y-shaped configuration. This feature is pathognomonic upon necropsy examination of the tracheal lumen. Adult worms are approximately 5 to 20 mm in length. The buccal capsule is well developed and contains teeth used for attachment to the tracheal mucosa.

Life Cycle and Epidemiology

The life cycle of S. trachea can be either direct or indirect. Direct transmission occurs when embryonated eggs are ingested by susceptible birds. The eggs, which are ellipsoidal with bipolar opercula, are coughed up or swallowed and passed in the feces. In the environment, first-stage larvae develop within the egg and hatch under favorable conditions of moisture and temperature. Larvae can be directly infective to birds. However, the indirect life cycle involving paratenic hosts such as earthworms (Lumbricidae), slugs, snails, and various invertebrates is of major epidemiological significance. When these invertebrates ingest infective larvae, the parasites can remain viable and capable of causing infection in birds that consume the paratenic host. This mechanism allows S. trachea to persist in environments where birds have access to free-ranging earthworm populations.

Pathogenesis and Clinical Signs

Adult worms attach to the tracheal epithelium and feed on blood. Blood loss attributable to S. trachea infection in turkeys has been quantitatively assessed using radioisotope techniques, demonstrating significant hematological perturbations [1]. Mechanical obstruction of the tracheal lumen, coupled with inflammatory exudate and hemorrhagic lesions, leads to the classic clinical signs: dyspnea, tracheal rales, coughing, and the characteristic "gap" reflex. In heavy infections, suffocation and death can occur within days, particularly in young poults and chicks. Secondary bacterial invasions, including Escherichia coli and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, may complicate the presentation.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis is achieved through the identification of the characteristic operculated eggs on fecal flotation using saturated salt or sugar solutions. Eggs are approximately 80 to 100 micrometers in length and 40 to 50 micrometers in width. Bronchoscopic or endoscopic visualization of the Y-shaped pair in the trachea is confirmatory but is rarely performed in commercial settings. At necropsy, the bright red worms are easily visible within the tracheal lumen. Molecular diagnostics, including conventional PCR targeting the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions of ribosomal DNA, have been described but are not yet widespread in routine diagnostic virology or parasitology laboratories.

Treatment and Control

Benzimidazole anthelmintics, particularly fenbendazole and mebendazole, have demonstrated efficacy against S. trachea. Studies on the action of anthelmintics on the intestine of S. trachea have shown that mebendazole disrupts microtubular function by binding to parasitic tubulin, leading to blockade of glucose uptake and eventual parasite death [2, 3]. Control strategies must account for the paratenic host reservoir. Limiting access to earthworms is critical in outdoor or free-range systems. Biosecurity measures that prevent fecal contamination of feed and water sources are essential.

Ascaridia galli

Etiology and Morphology

Ascaridia galli is a large, whitish-yellow nematode of the order Ascaridida, family Ascaridiidae. It is the most prevalent and economically significant gastrointestinal nematode in chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) worldwide. Adult females reach 70 to 115 mm in length, while males are shorter at 50 to 75 mm. The body is cylindrical, and the cuticle is finely striated. The anterior end features three prominent lips. The eggs are oval, thick-shelled, and measure 70 to 90 micrometers in length.

Life Cycle and Epidemiology

The life cycle of A. galli is direct. Eggs are passed in the feces and embryonate to the infective L3 stage in the environment under optimal conditions of 20 to 30 degrees Celsius and high humidity. Development to the infective stage typically requires 9 to 14 days. Upon ingestion, eggs hatch in the proventriculus or duodenum, and the released larvae penetrate the intestinal mucosa. Larvae undergo a histotropic phase within the intestinal villi or enter the liver parenchyma [4]. Hepatic migration, while less common than intestinal mucosal involvement, can cause focal hepatitis. After 10 to 17 days, larvae return to the intestinal lumen where they molt to adults. The prepatent period is 28 to 42 days. A. galli eggs are exceptionally resilient; they can survive for months to years in soil, and their viability is maintained after exposure to refrigeration or freezing temperatures when cryoprotectants are present [5].

Molecular Biology and Host-Parasite Interactions

Recent advances have uncovered complex molecular interactions between A. galli and its avian host. The excretory-secretory (ES) proteins of A. galli and its extracellular vesicles (EVs) are central to host immune modulation. A. galli ES proteins suppress intestinal epithelial cell proliferation and trigger Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) mediated inflammation [6]. Sex-specific and stage-specific proteomic profiling has revealed distinct protein signatures that correlate with differential immunomodulatory capacities [7]. Female worms release EVs that are preferentially taken up by chicken immune cells, particularly macrophages and dendritic cells, compared to male-derived EVs [8]. The immunomodulatory effects of ES products and EVs alter host cytokine secretion profiles, shifting the balance toward a Th2 response and promoting parasite survival [9]. The presence of A. galli can influence the outcome of concurrent infections, such as Eimeria tenella, through modulation of the local immune environment [10]. Furthermore, A. galli has been identified as a potential vector for Histomonas meleagridis, the causative agent of blackhead disease, possibly through ingestion of H. meleagridis infected H. gallinarum eggs, though this transmission pathway remains under investigation [11].

Pathogenesis and Clinical Signs

The pathological impact of A. galli ranges from subclinical growth depression to overt disease. In heavy infections, adult worms can cause intestinal occlusion, intussusception, or rupture, leading to peritonitis and death. The histotropic larval phase induces an enteritis characterized by villous atrophy, crypt hyperplasia, and lymphocytic infiltration. Hepatic migration causes traumatic hepatitis with areas of necrosis and fibrosis. Clinical signs in affected flocks include decreased feed conversion ratio, reduced weight gain, poor feathering, and reduced egg production. In very young birds, acute mortality can occur. Co-infection with other pathogens, such as E. coli or Salmonella, exacerbates the pathology.

Diagnosis

Antemortem diagnosis relies on fecal flotation to detect the characteristic large, ellipsoidal eggs. Differential detection between A. galli and H. gallinarum eggs in excreta is possible using morphological features as well as molecular techniques such as species-specific PCR [12]. Morphologically, the eggs of A. galli are larger and have a smooth shell, whereas H. gallinarum eggs are smaller with a slightly pitted surface. Accurate identification is critical for epidemiological studies and for monitoring anthelmintic efficacy. Molecular identification methods targeting the ITS region have been developed and validated for definitive species identification [13, 14].

Anthelmintic Resistance

The emergence of anthelmintic resistance in A. galli is a growing global concern. Resistance to benzimidazoles, specifically fenbendazole, has been documented in multiple regions, including Scandinavia, South America, and Africa. In a small-scale survey, fenbendazole resistance was confirmed in A. galli and H. gallinarum using a fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) [15]. A broader survey of benzimidazole resistance in ascarid parasites of poultry further corroborated these findings, with reduced efficacy observed in various geographic isolates [16]. Additionally, resistance to levamisole has been reported. In experimentally infected poultry in Cajamarca, Peru, levamisole demonstrated low efficacy against A. galli [17]. The mechanisms of resistance include point mutations in the beta-tubulin isotype 1 gene at codons analogous to those well characterized in ruminant nematodes, particularly the F200Y substitution. However, other mechanisms, such as enhanced drug efflux via P-glycoproteins, may also contribute in some field populations.

Immunoprophylaxis and Alternative Control

The prospect of vaccination against A. galli has been explored using ES antigens incorporated into poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticles, which significantly enhanced the immunoprotective efficacy in experimental trials [18]. Dietary interventions with probiotics, particularly Lactobacillus johnsonii, have shown regulatory effects by modulating the gut microbiota and improving resistance against A. galli infection [19]. These strategies represent an important adjunct to chemical control, especially in light of emerging resistance.

Heterakis gallinarum

Etiology and Morphology

Heterakis gallinarum is a small, whitish cecal nematode of the order Ascaridida, family Heterakidae. Adult females reach 6 to 15 mm in length, while males are 3 to 10 mm. The posterior end of the male has a prominent precloacal sucker. Eggs are thick-shelled, slightly pitted, and measure 60 to 70 micrometers in length. H. gallinarum is one of the most common nematodes in galliform birds worldwide [20, 21].

Life Cycle and Epidemiology

The life cycle is direct. Eggs are passed in cecal feces and embryonate in the environment. The infective L2 stage develops within the egg. After ingestion, larvae hatch in the small intestine and migrate to the ceca, where they molt to adults. The prepatent period is approximately 24 to 30 days. H. gallinarum eggs are highly resistant to environmental extremes, persisting in soil for years.

Role as a Vector for Histomonas meleagridis

The primary clinical significance of H. gallinarum lies in its role as a vector for the protozoan parasite Histomonas meleagridis. H. meleagridis is the causative agent of histomoniasis (blackhead disease), a severe and often fatal disease of turkeys. H. gallinarum eggs become infected with H. meleagridis when adult worms ingest the protozoan from an infected cecal environment. The H. meleagridis trophozoites are then sequestered within the nematode eggs, providing a protective niche that allows the protozoan to survive outside the host for extended periods. When a susceptible bird ingests an H. meleagridis infected H. gallinarum egg, both the nematode and the protozoan are released, establishing dual infection. This transmission route is considered the most important mechanism for H. meleagridis spread in poultry flocks. The possibility of further transmission via A. galli has been molecularly investigated using PCR detection of H. meleagridis DNA within A. galli eggs, suggesting a broader vector potential [11].

Pathogenesis and Clinical Signs

H. gallinarum alone is generally considered of low pathogenicity, causing only mild cecal inflammation and slight thickening of the cecal mucosa. Heavy infections may contribute to reduced growth rates and feed efficiency. The major pathogenic impact is the indirect effect of H. meleagridis transmission. In turkeys, histomoniasis leads to necrotic typhlitis and hepatitis, with high mortality. In chickens, the disease is usually milder, but outbreaks can still cause significant losses, especially in younger birds.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of H. gallinarum infection is by fecal flotation. The eggs are morphologically similar to those of A. galli but are smaller and more ovoid, with a characteristic pitted or rough surface. However, definitive differentiation requires molecular methods such as species-specific PCR or sequencing of the ITS-1 region [12]. The level of H. gallinarum egg shedding can be quantified using McMaster counting chambers for epidemiological studies. At necropsy, the worms are visible within the cecal lumen.

Treatment and Control

Benzimidazoles, including fenbendazole and flubendazole, are effective against H. gallinarum adults and larvae. However, as noted, resistance to fenbendazole has been documented [15, 16]. The egg stage, particularly if infected with H. meleagridis, is highly resistant to chemical and physical destruction. The recommended approach includes long-lasting worming programs for breeder turkeys, strict all-in/all-out management, and rigorous biosecurity to prevent the introduction of infected H. gallinarum eggs.

Capillaria obsignata

Etiology and Morphology

Capillaria obsignata is a thin, thread-like nematode of the order Trichocephalida, family Capillariidae. It is a nematode of the small intestine in chickens, turkeys, and other galliform birds. The anterior body is slightly narrower than the posterior, giving a whip-like appearance. Adult males are 8 to 15 mm, and females are 12 to 20 mm in length. The eggs are distinctive: barrel-shaped with bipolar plugs, measuring 45 to 55 micrometers in length by 20 to 25 micrometers in width. The egg shell has a characteristic ringed or striated pattern. This species is often referred to as the "crop worm" although its primary localization is the small intestine. Note that Capillaria species affecting the crop (e.g., Capillaria annulata, Capillaria contorta) are distinct from C. obsignata in terms of tissue tropism and intermediate host requirements.

Life Cycle and Epidemiology

C. obsignata has a direct life cycle. Adult females lay barrel-shaped bipolar eggs which are passed in the feces. In the environment, first-stage larvae develop within the egg. The infective L1 stage hatches in the avian small intestine after ingestion. The prepatent period is 18 to 24 days. The eggs are moderately resistant to environmental degradation but are more susceptible to desiccation than ascarid eggs.

Pathogenesis and Clinical Signs

C. obsignata causes a catarrhal to hemorrhagic enteritis. The parasites embed their anterior ends deep within the intestinal mucosa, causing mechanical damage and irritation. In heavy infections, there is thickening of the intestinal wall with petechial hemorrhages. Clinical signs include diarrhea (often mucoid or bloody), weight loss, dehydration, anemia, and decreased egg production. The plasma protein loss associated with mucosal damage can lead to hypoproteinemia. In young birds, heavy burdens can be fatal. The clinical presentation can be confused with other causes of enteritis, including coccidiosis, bacterial infections, and other helminthoses.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis is by fecal flotation. The bipolar-plugged eggs are easily identified but must be differentiated from other Capillaria species based on egg morphology (size, shell texture) and anatomical location of the adult worm. The eggs of C. obsignata are smaller than those of A. galli and H. gallinarum. At necropsy, the delicate worms are often difficult to see with the naked eye; careful scraping of the intestinal mucosa and microscopic examination of the contents may be required.

Treatment and Control

Treatment is directed against the luminal adults. Benzimidazoles (fenbendazole, mebendazole) are effective. Levamisole is also active against Capillaria species. However, resistance has been reported for both drug classes in some geographic areas. Control relies on good sanitation, removal of litter between flocks, and avoidance of fecal contamination of feed and water.

Diagnostic Workflow for Poultry Nematodes

The following decision tree summarizes the diagnostic approach to suspected nematode infections in poultry.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical suspicion: respiratory signs, diarrhea, poor growth, reduced egg production]
    A, > B{Collect fecal samples from multiple birds}
    B, > C[Perform qualitative fecal flotation]
    C, > D{Identify egg morphology}
    D, >|Large, ellipsoidal, smooth shell| E[Ascaridia galli]
    D, >|Small, ellipsoidal, pitted shell| F[Heterakis gallinarum]
    D, >|Barrel-shaped with bipolar plugs, striated| G[Capillaria obsignata]
    D, >|Operculated, ellipsoidal| H[Syngamus trachea]
    E, > I[Perform quantitative FECRT for resistance monitoring]
    F, > I
    F, > J[Consider H. meleagridis testing if clinical signs of histomoniasis are present]
    G, > K[Consider necropsy and mucosal scraping for adult worm confirmation]
    H, > L[Consider tracheal examination if respiratory signs are prominent]
    I, > M{Compare FECR with baseline}
    M, >|FECR < 90-95%| N[Suspected anthelmintic resistance]
    N, > O[Perform molecular testing for beta-tubulin mutations]
    O, > P[Report resistance and adjust control strategy]
    M, >|FECR >= 90-95%| Q[Effective treatment]
    Q, > R[Continue integrated control: biosecurity, pasture rotation, monitoring]

Integrated Control Strategies

Effective management of poultry nematodes requires an integrated approach.

• Biosecurity and Hygiene: Prevent introduction of infected birds. Implement all-in/all-out stocking. Remove and compost litter effectively. Clean and disinfect housing between flocks. Control intermediate and paratenic hosts (earthworms, slugs, snails) for S. trachea.
• Pasture and Range Management: Rotate outdoor runs. Allow pasture rest periods to reduce egg burden. Avoid overstocking of free-range areas.
• Monitoring and Surveillance: Conduct routine fecal flotation (qualitative and quantitative) to monitor parasitic burden and drug efficacy. Perform FECRT at least annually to detect emerging resistance.
• Anthelmintic Use: Use drugs at the correct dose and for the correct duration. Rotate drug classes (e.g., benzimidazoles, levamisole, macrocyclic lactones) based on resistance testing. Avoid routine prophylactic use of a single drug class.
• Alternative Control: Consider the use of probiotics, phytogenic compounds (e.g., Artemisia extracts [22], Meyna laxiflora [23]), and other feed additives that have demonstrated anthelmintic properties. Sustainable control strategies are critical for free-range organic systems where anthelmintic options may be limited [24]. The wider context of One Health, encompassing environmental sustainability and the preservation of anthelmintic efficacy, is paramount [25].

Conclusions

Syngamus trachea, Ascaridia galli, Heterakis gallinarum, and Capillaria obsignata represent significant parasitic challenges to poultry production. Their diverse life cycles and anatomical niches require species-specific diagnostic approaches and integrated control programs. The emergence of anthelmintic resistance, particularly in A. galli and H. gallinarum, underscores the urgent need for molecular resistance surveillance, alternative control methods, and novel therapeutic strategies. A thorough understanding of the host-parasite interface, informed by contemporary molecular and proteomic research, will be essential for developing sustainable solutions for the poultry industry.

References

[1] Enigk K, Schanzel H, Dey-Hazra A. [Blood loss in turkeys through Syngamus trachea (Strongyloidea, Nematoda)]. Z Parasitenkd. 1970. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4246646/

[2] Borgers M, De Nollin S, De Brabander M, et al. Influence of the anthelmintic mebendazole on microtubules and intracellular organelle movement in nematode intestinal cells. Am J Vet Res. 1975. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1171646/

[3] Bogolepova II, Semenkov LD. [Action of anthelmintics on the intestine of Syngamus trachea]. Veterinariia. 1973. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4273543/

[4] Gornatti-Churria CD, Jerry CF, Fritz HM, et al. Accidental Ascaridia nymphii Infection Causing Gastrointestinal Impaction and Hepatic Migration in a Domestic Pigeon in California. Animals (Basel). 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42193757/

[5] Feyera T, Sharpe B, Ruhnke I, et al. Survival and temporal change in the viability of Ascaridia galli eggs exposed to refrigeration or freezing temperatures in the presence of a cryoprotectant. J Helminthol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41414880/

[6] Miao X, Cao Z, Chen Y, et al. Ascaridia galli Excretory-Secretory Proteins Suppress Intestinal Epithelial Proliferation and Trigger TLR4-Mediated Inflammation. FASEB J. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41801252/

[7] Feix AS, Mardahl M, Palmfeldt J, et al. Proteomic profiling of Ascaridia galli reveals sex- and stage-specific protein signatures. Vet Parasitol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41581493/

[8] Feix AS, Papanikolaou K, Kjærup RB, et al. Uptake of Ascaridia galli extracellular vesicles by chicken immune cells varies according to worm sex and in vitro culture duration. Int J Parasitol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41475531/

[9] Premathilaka C, Feix AS, Papanikolaou K, et al. Immunomodulatory effects of Ascaridia galli excretory-secretory products, including extracellular vesicles, on host immune cell function. Avian Pathol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40611742/

[10] Attia MM, Mahmoud MA, Abdelsalam M, et al. Molecular and histopathological characterization of Ascaridia galli and Eimeria tenella co-infection in Numida meleagris. Front Vet Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41078492/

[11] Junsiri W, Taweethavonsawat P. Molecular evidence of Histomonas meleagridis in Ascaridia galli from chickens in Thailand: Possibility of transmission pathways. Acta Trop. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41005593/

[12] Feyera T, Sharpe B, Ruhnke I, et al. Differential detection of Ascaridia galli and Heterakis gallinarum eggs in intestinal and caecal excreta of floor-housed laying hens: a longitudinal study. Parasitology. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41496677/

[13] Elsayed AN, Abd El-Hamed WF, Metwally AEM, et al. What's worming Egyptian chickens: Morphological and molecular identification of Raillietina echinobothrida and Ascaridia galli in domestic chickens in Egypt. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41354529/

[14] AbouLaila M, Mahmoud M, Wheeb H, et al. Prevalence and molecular characterization of Ascaridia galli in chickens from Minoufiya Governorate, Egypt. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39855858/

[15] Collins JB, Choo R, Shaver AO, et al. A small-scale survey of fenbendazole resistance in Ascaridia galli and Heterakis gallinarum, two common ascarid parasites of poultry. Poult Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40961778/

[16] Collins JB, Choo R, Shaver AO, et al. Survey of benzimidazole resistance in ascarid parasites of poultry. bioRxiv. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40832274/

[17] Zavala D, Rojas-Moncada J, Hobán C, et al. Low efficacy of levamisole for Ascaridia galli control in experimentally infected poultry: first report in Cajamarca (Peru). Vet Res Commun. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40991095/

[18] Miao X, Cao Z, Chen Y, et al. Poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticles significantly enhance the immunoprotective efficacy of Ascaridia galli excretory-secretory antigens. Poult Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41544437/

[19] Xu ZH, Mo KZ, Cai PX, et al. Regulation effect of Lactobacillus johnsonii on chickens infected with Ascaridia galli. Poult Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41539233/

[20] Walter I, Malatji MP, Nyagura I, et al. Epidemiology of gastrointestinal nematodes of free-ranging chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Helminthol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41947486/

[21] Kassaw S, Baylie M, Mulaw A, et al. Chicken gastrointestinal helminths parasites: Coprological prevalence, spatial distribution, and morph-anatomical species identification in South Gondar zone, north West Ethiopia. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40518241/

[22] Abdelqader A, Mahasneh Z, Albataineh S, et al. Anthelmintic effects of Artemisia herba-alba and Artemisia judaica extracts on Ascaridia galli in poultry. Poult Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41679004/

[23] Devi TB, Mohilal N, Singh CB. Structural and histological changes in Ascaridia galli exposed in vitro to underutilized anthelmintic plant, Meyna laxiflora Robyns seed extract. Poult Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42190468/

[24] León JA, Pérez-Anzúrez G, Ramos IA, et al. Testing a Sustainable Strategy Against Poultry Helminth Stages Developing in the Soil. Pathogens. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41305404/

[25] Mugo RM, Kramer-Schadt S, Krücken J, et al. Ascarids and One Health: Emerging Challenges in Sustainable Control. Trends Parasitol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41238456/

[26] Ssenyonga GS. Efficacy of fenbendazole against helminth parasites of poultry in Uganda. Trop Anim Health Prod. 1982. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6750887/

[27] Pinheiro RHDS, Rodrigues RRQP, Benigno RNM, et al. Ascaridia pavo n. sp. (Nematoda: Ascaridida), a new species of nematode in peafowl. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42207111/

[28] Pathak CR, Pandey DP, Khanal P. Species Diversity and Geographical Distribution of Poultry Ascaridids: A Scoping Review. J Parasitol Res. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42147740/

[29] Sulieman Y, Perveen N, Ali Al-Deeb M, et al. Helminth parasites infecting feral pigeons (Columba livia) in Al Ain City, United Arab Emirates. J Vet Res. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41953745/

[30] Collins JB, Andersen EC. Methods for single-pair Ascaridia galli genetic crosses. MicroPubl Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41928777/

[31] Matsubayashi M, Tsuchida S, Kobayashi A, et al. Surveillance of gastrointestinal parasites in pheasants reared at farms and zoos in Japan: High prevalence of Eimeria species infection. J Vet Med Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41813176/

[32] Khan N, Khan W, Shoaib M, et al. Risk factors, pathologies and control of gut-dwelling roundworms in chickens. Helminthologia. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41777291/

[33] de Carvalho EL, Dos Santos YDS, Santana RLS, et al. Occurrence of endohelminths in Cairina moschata (Linnaeus, 1758) of the Portel microregion, Marajó Island, Pará. Braz J Vet Med. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41737979/

[34] Rattanapitoon SK, Charoenphon N, Rattanapitoon NK. Beyond fenbendazole: Molecular and integrated pathways for managing poultry ascarid resistance. Poult Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41061416/

[35] Tefera M, Wasiyhun M. Coprological Detection of Gastrointestinal Nematodes in Intensively Managed Poultry Farms in Bishoftu, Ethiopia. J Parasitol Res. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40979211/

[36] Karima Z, Imane B, Nawel B, et al. Prevalence and diversity of parasites infecting pet birds in Guelma region (North-East Algeria). Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40967689/

[37] Midala CA, Kyari F, Thekisoe O, et al. Parasites of poultry in Nigeria from 1980 to 2022: a review. J Parasit Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40901410/

[38] Oladosu OJ, Reyer H, Trakooljul N, et al. Tissue-specific transcriptomic adaptation in three strains of chickens during coinfections with parasites. Gut Pathog. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40500794/

[39] Funk WS, Shadbolt T, Fox MT, et al. Identification of Porrocaecum moraveci in red kites in England and Wales, a species of conservation concern. Parasitol Res. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40493091/

[40] Cantin-Rosas B, Tomazic ML, Rodríguez AE, et al. Risk Factors and Spatial Distribution of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Backyard Poultry Production Systems in Central Chile. Vet Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40431541/

[41] Malatji DP, Ramantswana TM, Ledwaba MB. The Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Village Chickens in Africa Using Ethnoveterinary Intervention: A Systematic Review. Vet Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40431500/

[42] Moosavi M, Brødsgaard Kjærup R, Papanikolaou K, et al. Indications of trained innate immunity by Escherichia coli vaccination or chitin feed supplementation assessed during Ascaridia galli infection in chickens. Mol Immunol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40414091/

[43] Konicek C, Joachim A, Spergser J, et al. From Livestock to Companion: Admission Causes, Diagnostics, and Clinical Findings in Chickens Admitted to the Avian Clinic of the Vetmeduni Vienna, 2009-2019. Animals (Basel). 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40362101/

[44] Mohebati M, Lotfalizadeh N, Khedri J, et al. An Investigation into the Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Helminths in Pigeons from Zabol, Iran. Arch Razi Inst. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40292053/

[45] Santos OAS, Kanaan V, Rocha HLS, et al. Ascaridia hermaphrodita (Froelich, 1789) and Ascaridia columbae (Gmelin, 1780) in neotropical psittacine birds. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40266047/

[46] Saleh S, Elseadawy R, Elmorsy MA, et al. Intestinal parasites of domestic pigeons (Columba livia Domestica) in Egypt: update on the prevalence and species diversity. J Parasit Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39975613/

[47] Makouloutou-Nzassi P, Longo-Pendy NM, Nguema LKA, et al. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) and associated risk factors in M'passa department, Southeast Gabon. Open Vet J. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39927363/

[48] Horgan MJ, Sigg I, Poulopoulou I, et al. Microtubule inhibition as a proposed mechanism for the anthelmintic effect of phytochemicals isolated from Cicerbita alpina. Sci Rep. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900941/

[49] Md Khir NF, Ya'cob Z, Mansor MS, et al. Natural intestinal parasite infection in synanthropic migratory Barn Swallow, Hirundo rustica, in central Peninsular Malaysia. Trop Biomed. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39876500/

[50] Tiuria R, Sutardi LN, Nugraha AB, et al. In vitro anthelmintic activity of Phyllanthus niruri Linn., Andrographis paniculata, Curcuma xanthorrhiza Roxb., and Curcuma aeruginosa Roxb. ethanol extracts on the motility and cuticle damage of Ascaridia galli. Vet World. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39829662/