| Literature DB >> 29988828 |
Mary M Merrill1, Raoul K Boughton2, Cynthia C Lord3, Katherine A Sayler2, Bethany Wight2, Wesley M Anderson2, Samantha M Wisely2.
Abstract
As a result of shifts in the habitable range of ticks due to climate change and the ongoing threat of exotic tick species introductions, efficient surveillance tools for these pests and disease vectors are needed. Wild pigs are habitat generalists, distributed throughout most of the United States, and often hunted recreationally or removed as part of management programs, making them potentially useful sentinel hosts for ticks. We compared ticks collected from captured wild pigs and standard tick dragging methods on a south-central Florida cattle ranch from May 2015-August 2017. Three hundred and sixteen wild pigs were surveyed, and 84 km spanning three habitat types (seminative pasture, improved pasture, and hammock) were dragged. In total, 1023 adults of four species (Amblyomma auricularium, Amblyomma maculatum, Dermacentor variabilis, and Ixodes scapularis) were collected from wild pigs, while 39 adults of three species (A. auricularium, A. maculatum, and I. scapularis) were collected from drags. Only one immature specimen, a nymph, was collected from a pig, while dragging collected 2808 larvae and 150 nymphs. Amblyomma maculatum comprised 96% of adults collected from pigs, while A. maculatum, I. scapularis, and A. auricularium comprised 38%, 33%, and 28% of adults collected from drags, respectively. Adults of all tick species found on drags were found on pigs, and wild pig surveillance detected adults of an additional species not found on drags. Dragging was far superior for collection of immatures but not for adults of most species found in this study. These findings suggest wild pigs could be used as a sentinel for the detection of tick species. When combined with ongoing wild pig research, hunting, or management, wild pig surveillance can provide an effective method to survey for adult tick presence of some species of interest and may assist in tracking the range expansion of some tick species.Entities:
Keywords: Florida; Parasite-host ecology; Sus scrofa; Ticks; Vector surveillance; Wild pigs
Year: 2018 PMID: 29988828 PMCID: PMC6032497 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2018.04.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl ISSN: 2213-2244 Impact factor: 2.674
Review of tick species collected from wild pigs in the United States.
| Species | Location | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | ||
| Arkansas | ||
| Florida | ||
| Georgia | ||
| Kentucky | ||
| South Carolina | ||
| Texas | ||
| Virginia | ||
| Florida | ||
| Guam | ||
| Texas | ||
| Arkansas | ||
| Florida | ||
| Georgia | ||
| Mississippi | ||
| Texas | ||
| Texas | ||
| Texas | ||
| Texas | ||
| New Hampshire | ||
| Texas | ||
| Florida | ||
| Georgia | ||
| Kentucky | ||
| South Carolina | ||
| Tennessee | ||
| Texas | ||
| Florida | ||
| Georgia | ||
| Louisiana | ||
| South Carolina | ||
| Texas |
Non-native to the United States.
Based on available information at the time, specimens were originally identified by the authors as A. cajennense; however, in 2014, A. cajennense was confirmed to be a complex of six species (Nava et al., 2014), with previously identified A. cajennense from Texas likely representing the resurrected A. mixtum.
Fig. 1Location of Buck Island Ranch, Lake Placid, Florida denoted by blue circle. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Ticks collected by drag-sampling from May 14, 2015 to August 29, 2017 and from wild pigs from May 22, 2015 to May 09, 2017 at Buck Island Ranch, Lake Placid, Florida.
| Habitat | Cumulative drag distance (km) | Larvae | Nymphs | Adults | AMAU | AMMA | DEVA | IXSC | Unidentified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | ||||||
| Hammock | 18.3 | 2794 | 138 | 21 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
| Improved | 30.8 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Seminative | 34.9 | 13 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 84.0 | 2808 | 150 | 39 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 0 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Host | Total sampled | ||||||||||||
| Wild pigs | 316 | 0 | 1 | 1023 | 3 | 8 | 653 | 326 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 12 |
Species information included only for adults.
Unidentified specimens damaged beyond identification either on the host or during removal; AMAU = A. auricularium, AMMA = A. maculatum, DEVA = D. variabilis, IXSC = I. scapularis.
Fig. 2Mean intensity of infestation of adult ticks collected from wild pigs from May 22, 2015 to May 09, 2017. Ticks which could not be identified to species were excluded from this figure. Values of zero indicate that wild pigs were sampled during that month, but no adults of the indicated species were collected.
Fig. 3Average density of adults collected by dragging from May 14, 2015 to August 29, 2017. Values of zero indicate that drags were conducted during that month in the specified habitat, but no adults of the indicated species were collected. Symbol colors denote habitat and symbol shapes denote tick species. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 4Estimated mean density of host-seeking ticks per 10 m2 by life stage and habitat type with 95% confidence intervals shown as vertical bars. Numerical values for the estimated mean densities and 95% confidence intervals are reported in Table S5.
Prevalence, abundance, and intensity of tick infestation of wild pigs from May 22, 2015 to May 09, 2017 at Buck Island Ranch, Lake Placid, Florida. The 95% confidence intervals for prevalence, abundance, and intensity are included in Supplementary Tables 2–4.
| 2015 | Pigs sampled | Prevalence | Abundance | Intensity | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMAU | AMMA | DEVA | IXSC | AMAU | AMMA | DEVA | IXSC | AMAU | AMMA | DEVA | IXSC | ||
| May | 7 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 1.57 | 0.43 | 0.00 | – | 3.67 | 1.50 | – |
| June | 10 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 0.20 | 0.00 | – | 2.00 | 1.00 | – |
| August | 14 | 0.0 | 78.6 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 10.57 | 0.07 | 0.00 | – | 13.45 | 1.00 | – |
| December | 34 | 0.0 | 58.8 | 5.9 | 11.8 | 0.00 | 2.15 | 0.06 | 0.18 | – | 3.65 | 1.00 | 1.50 |
| 2016 | |||||||||||||
| January | 11 | 0.0 | 54.5 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0.00 | 1.36 | 0.18 | 0.09 | – | 2.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 |
| February | 4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | – | – |
| March | 26 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | 1.00 | – | – |
| August | 2 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 1.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | 3.00 | – | – |
| September | 26 | 0.0 | 96.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 9.65 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | 10.04 | – | – |
| October | 81 | 7.4 | 70.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.09 | 5.74 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.17 | 8.16 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| November | 1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 8.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | 8.00 | – | – |
| 2017 | |||||||||||||
| February | 7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | – | – |
| April | 85 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| May | 8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | – | – |
Calculations based on adults identified to species. Prevalence calculated as the number of pigs infested divided by the number of pigs surveyed and expressed as a percentage. Abundance calculated as the sum of ticks collected divided by the number of pigs surveyed. Intensity calculated as the sum of ticks collected divided by the number of pigs infested. AMAU = A. auricularium, AMMA = A. maculatum, DEVA = D. variabilis, IXSC = I. scapularis.