| Literature DB >> 31366124 |
Megan A Linske1, Kirby C Stafford1, Scott C Williams1, Charles B Lubelczyk2, Margret Welch2, Elizabeth F Henderson2.
Abstract
Blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis Say) are the vector for pathogens that cause more cases of human disease than any other arthropod. Lyme disease is the most common, caused by the bacterial spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi (Johnson, Schmid, Hyde, Steigerwalt, and Brenner) in the northeastern United States. Further knowledge of seasonal effects on survival is important for management and modeling of both blacklegged ticks and tick-borne diseases. The focus of our study was on the impact of environmental factors on overwintering success of nymphal blacklegged ticks. In a three-year field study conducted in Connecticut and Maine, we determined that ground-level conditions play an important role in unfed nymphal overwintering survival. Ticks in plots where leaf litter and snow accumulation were unmanipulated had significantly greater survival compared to those where leaf litter was removed (p = 0.045) and where both leaf litter and snow were removed (p = 0.008). Additionally, we determined that the key overwintering predictors for nymphal blacklegged tick survival were the mean and mean minimum temperatures within a year. The findings of this research can be utilized in both small- and large-scale management of blacklegged ticks to potentially reduce the risk and occurrence of tick-borne diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Ixodes scapularis; integrated tick management; overwintering survival
Year: 2019 PMID: 31366124 PMCID: PMC6723576 DOI: 10.3390/insects10080227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Percent survival and number of surviving, unfed, nymphal Ixodes scapularis over three winters in Connecticut (CT) and Maine (ME). Total survival values with the same letter assignment were not significantly different. For each winter, n = 24 pots for both CT and ME.
| Treatments | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | ME | CT | ME | CT | ME | ||
| Control | 94% 249 | 21% 56 | 61% 166 | 53% 145 | 54% 142 | 74% 167 | 59% A 925 |
| SR | 86% 239 | 23% 62 | 63% 153 | 28% 72 | 47% 123 | 33% 98 | 46% AB 747 |
| LR | 86% 226 | 3% 7 | 53% 138 | 24% 63 | 44% 111 | 52% 139 | 44% B 684 |
| LRSR | 77% 207 | 3% 7 | 40% 106 | 17% 44 | 52% 132 | 31% 84 | 36% B 580 |
Y1: year 1; Y2: year 2; Y2: year 3; SR: snow removal; LR: leaf removal; LRSR: a combination of both leaf and snow removal.
Figure 1Year 1 mean minimum temperatures (°C) for all four treatment types and ambient temperature for 5-day intervals starting from mid-December through to the end of February for Connecticut and Maine combined.
Figure 2Year 2 mean minimum temperatures (°C) for all four treatment types and ambient temperature for 5-day intervals starting from mid-December through to the end of February for Connecticut and Maine combined.
Figure 3Year 3 mean minimum temperatures (°C) for all four treatment types and ambient temperature for 5-day intervals starting from mid-December through to the end of February for Connecticut and Maine combined.
Median minimum temperature rank values (°C) for years 1–3 (Y1, Y2, Y3) for all four treatment types and ambient conditions. Values with different letter assignments within columns denotes significant differences using Tukey HSD with α ≤ 0.05.
| Treatment |
| Y1 | Y2 | Y3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 12 | −1.4 A | −1.7 A | −2.9 A |
| SR | 12 | −2.4 AB | −2.3 A | −4.6 AB |
| LR | 12 | −2.9 B | −2.7 AB | −3.3 A |
| LRSR | 12 | −3.8 BC | −4.5 BC | −6.2 BC |
| Ambient | 6 | −8.9 C | −9.8 C | −12.6 C |
Median mean temperature rank values (°C) for years 1–3 (Y1, Y2, Y3) for all four treatment types and ambient conditions. Values with different letter assignments within columns denotes significant differences using Tukey HSD with α ≤ 0.05.
| Treatment |
| Y1 | Y2 | Y3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 12 | 0.7 A | 0.4 A | −2.1 A |
| SR | 12 | 1.0 AB | 0.9 A | 0.1 AB |
| LR | 12 | 1.0 AB | 0.8 AB | −0.6 A |
| LRSR | 12 | 1.4 B | 1.1 B | 0.3 AB |
| Ambient | 6 | 1.2 B | 1.0 B | −0.2 B |
Total number of non-snow days compared to days with snow for both Connecticut and Maine over the course of three winter seasons. For days with snow, average monthly snow accumulation and total average snow accumulation were also reported.
| Location | Year | Month | # of Non-Snow Days | # of Snow Days | Avg. Monthly Snow Accumulation (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | 1 | Dec | 16 | 0 | 0.0 |
| CT | 1 | Jan | 25 | 6 | 8.5 |
| CT | 1 | Feb | 14 | 15 | 12.9 |
| CT | 2 | Dec | 13 | 2 | 1.0 |
| CT | 2 | Jan | 26 | 5 | 9.2 |
| CT | 2 | Feb | 16 | 13 | 18.2 |
| CT | 3 | Dec | 11 | 4 | 2.0 |
| CT | 3 | Jan | 16 | 15 | 11.4 |
| CT | 3 | Feb | 25 | 4 | 7.2 |
|
| 162 | 64 | 7.8 | ||
| ME | 1 | Dec | 16 | 0 | 0.0 |
| ME | 1 | Jan | 0 | 31 | 9.6 |
| ME | 1 | Feb | 3 | 26 | 10.9 |
| ME | 2 | Dec | 0 | 16 | 10.7 |
| ME | 2 | Jan | 6 | 25 | 26.4 |
| ME | 2 | Feb | 0 | 28 | 45.6 |
| ME | 3 | Dec | 0 | 16 | 20.2 |
| ME | 3 | Jan | 0 | 31 | 57.4 |
| ME | 3 | Feb | 0 | 28 | 16.1 |
|
| 25 | 201 | 21.9 | ||