| Literature DB >> 31623642 |
Barberine A Silatsa1,2,3, Gustave Simo4,5, Naftaly Githaka6, Stephen Mwaura6, Rolin M Kamga4,5, Farikou Oumarou7, Christian Keambou8, Richard P Bishop9, Appolinaire Djikeng10, Jules-Roger Kuiate4, Flobert Njiokou11, Roger Pelle12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ticks and tick-borne diseases are a major impediment to livestock production worldwide. Cattle trade and transnational transhumance create risks for the spread of ticks and tick-borne diseases and threaten cattle production in the absence of an effective tick control program. Few studies have been undertaken on cattle ticks in the Central African region; therefore, the need to assess the occurrence and the spatial distribution of tick vectors with the aim of establishing a baseline for monitoring future spread of tick borne-diseases in the region is urgent.Entities:
Keywords: Agro-ecological zones; Cattle; Identification; Tick-borne diseases; Ticks; cox1
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31623642 PMCID: PMC6796472 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3738-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Map showing the five AEZs of Cameroon and the sampling sites
Key geographical and climatic characteristics of agro-ecological zones of Cameroon
| Agro-ecological zones (AEZs) | Altitude (m) | Annual average temperature (°C) | Annual average precipitation (mm) | Rainy period | Vegetation | Cattle population |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sudano-sahelian zone (AEZ I) | 250–500 | 28.9 | 923.35 | June–August | Dry savannah, steppes | 1,898,890 |
| High guinea zone (AEZ II) | 500–1500 | 22.06 | 1515.3 | April–October | Savannah, degraded forest | 1,183,137 |
| Western Highlands (AEZ III) | 1500–2500 | 20.64 | 3080.5 | March–October | Savannah, degraded forest | 1,989,200 |
| Humid forest zone with mono-modal rainfall (AEZ IV) | 0–2500 | 24 | 4163.5 | March–October | Evergreen forest | 1472 |
| Humid forest zone with bimodal rainfall (AEZ V) | 400–1000 | 24.4 | 2456.8 | March–October | Humid forest-savannah mosaic | 276,855 |
Distribution of tick species per agroecological zone
| Tick genus | Tick species | No. of ticks collected (%) | Sex | AEZ I | AEZ II | AEZ III | AEZ IV | AEZ V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation type | |||||||||
| Dry savannah, steppes (%) | Savannah, degraded forest (%) | Savannah, degraded forest (%) | Evergreen forest (%) | Humid forest-savannah mosaic (%) | |||||
| Female | Male | ||||||||
|
|
| 4210 (59.4) | 1077 | 3133 | 499 (29.9) | 2735 (96.5) | 243 (43.1) | 55 (34.8) | 678 (36.3) |
|
|
| 1112 (15.6) | 1043 | 69 | 0 (0) | 5 (0.2) | 288 (51.1) | 103 (65.2) | 716 (38.3) |
|
| 708 (10.0) | 686 | 22 | 167 (10.0) | 73 (2.6) | 18 (3.2) | 0 (0) | 450 (24.1) | |
|
| 28 (0.4) | 13 | 15 | 9 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.4) | 0 (0) | 17 (0.9) | |
|
| 19 (0.3) | 9 | 10 | 5 (0.3) | 4 (0.1) | 5 (0.9) | 0 (0) | 5 (0.3) | |
| 33 (0.5) | 15 | 18 | 11 (0.7) | 13 (0.5) | 8 (1.4) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.1) | ||
|
|
| 210 (3.0) | 59 | 151 | 207 (12.4) | 3 (0.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
| 768 (10.8) | 250 | 518 | 766 (46.0) | 1 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.1) | |
| 3 (0) | 0 | 3 | 3 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||
| Total | 7091 (100) | 3152 | 3939 | 1667 | 2834 | 564 | 158 | 1868 | |
Male: female sex ratio per species
| Tick species | Male (♂) | Female (♀) | Total | M:F (♂: ♀) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3133 | 1077 | 4210 | 2.91:1 |
|
| 69 | 1043 | 1112 | 0.07:1 |
|
| 22 | 686 | 708 | 0.03:1 |
|
| 151 | 59 | 210 | 2.56:1 |
|
| 518 | 250 | 768 | 2.07:1 |
Fig. 2Tick burden on cattle in different agro-ecological zone (AEZ). The mean of each data set is indicated by the black centre square. The bars are confidence intervals at 95%. Values are statistically significant at P < 0.0001
Fig. 3Geographical distribution of A. variegatum, H. truncatum, H. rufipes and H. dromedarii
Occurrence data for R. microplus and R. decoloratus from Cameroon
| AEZ | Nsite | Ncattle | Ntick |
|
| Sympatric | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| l (%) | l (%) | l (%) | ||||||
| AEZ I | 9 | 99 | 1667 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 167 (10.0) | 5 (55.5) | 0 (0) |
| AEZ II | 20 | 238 | 2834 | 5 (0.2) | 2 (10) | 73 (2.6) | 12 (60) | 0 (0) |
| AEZ III | 8 | 95 | 564 | 288 (51.1) | 7 (87.5) | 18 (3.2) | 2 (25) | 2 (25) |
| AEZ IV | 3 | 20 | 158 | 103 (65.2) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| AEZ V | 14 | 149 | 1868 | 716 (38.3) | 8 (57.1) | 450 (24.1) | 9 (64.2) | 6 (42.8) |
| Total | 54 | 601 | 7091 | 1112 (15.6) | 20 (37) | 708 (10.0) | 28 (51.8) | 8 (14.8) |
Abbreviations: Nsite, total number of sites visited; Ncattle, total number of cattle sampled; Ntick, total number of ticks collected (all species); n, number of ticks collected; l, number of sites where the tick is present
Fig. 4Geographical distribution of R. microplus, R. decoloratus, R. annulatus and R. sanguineus
Fig. 5Phylogenic analysis of cox1 sequences of ticks from Cameroon. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the neighbor-joining method. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown above the branches. Major clades are indicated by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Sequences from this study are highlighted