Cargando…

Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017

The introduction of new tick species poses a risk to human and animal health. Systematic active surveillance programs are expensive and uncommon. We evaluated a passive animal surveillance program as a monitoring tool to document the geographic distribution and host associations of ticks in Wisconsi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Xia, Murphy, Darby S., Hoang Johnson, Diep, Paskewitz, Susan M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6780246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31500362
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects10090289
_version_ 1783457086312546304
author Lee, Xia
Murphy, Darby S.
Hoang Johnson, Diep
Paskewitz, Susan M.
author_facet Lee, Xia
Murphy, Darby S.
Hoang Johnson, Diep
Paskewitz, Susan M.
author_sort Lee, Xia
collection PubMed
description The introduction of new tick species poses a risk to human and animal health. Systematic active surveillance programs are expensive and uncommon. We evaluated a passive animal surveillance program as a monitoring tool to document the geographic distribution and host associations of ticks in Wisconsin. Passive surveillance partners included veterinary medical clinics, domestic animal shelters, and wildlife rehabilitation centers from 35 of the 72 Wisconsin counties. A total of 10,136 tick specimens were collected from 2325 animals from July 2011 to November 2017 and included Dermacentor variabilis Say (29.7% of all ticks), Ixodes texanus Banks (25.5%), Ixodes scapularis Say (19.5%), Haemaphysalis leporispalustris Packard (13.8%), Ixodes cookei Packard (4.4%), and Dermacentor albipictus Packard (1.7%). Less common species (<1% of collection) included Ixodes dentatus Marx, Ixodes sculptus Neumann, Ixodes marxi Banks, Amblyomma americanum Linnaeus, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus Latreille. Of the 2325 animals that were examined, most were domestic dogs (53%), eastern cottontail rabbits (16%), domestic cats (15%), and North American raccoons (11%). An additional 21 mammal and 11 bird species were examined at least once during the six years of the study. New county records are summarized for each species. Public health, academic, and veterinary and animal care partners formed a community of practice enabling effective statewide tick surveillance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6780246
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67802462019-10-30 Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017 Lee, Xia Murphy, Darby S. Hoang Johnson, Diep Paskewitz, Susan M. Insects Article The introduction of new tick species poses a risk to human and animal health. Systematic active surveillance programs are expensive and uncommon. We evaluated a passive animal surveillance program as a monitoring tool to document the geographic distribution and host associations of ticks in Wisconsin. Passive surveillance partners included veterinary medical clinics, domestic animal shelters, and wildlife rehabilitation centers from 35 of the 72 Wisconsin counties. A total of 10,136 tick specimens were collected from 2325 animals from July 2011 to November 2017 and included Dermacentor variabilis Say (29.7% of all ticks), Ixodes texanus Banks (25.5%), Ixodes scapularis Say (19.5%), Haemaphysalis leporispalustris Packard (13.8%), Ixodes cookei Packard (4.4%), and Dermacentor albipictus Packard (1.7%). Less common species (<1% of collection) included Ixodes dentatus Marx, Ixodes sculptus Neumann, Ixodes marxi Banks, Amblyomma americanum Linnaeus, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus Latreille. Of the 2325 animals that were examined, most were domestic dogs (53%), eastern cottontail rabbits (16%), domestic cats (15%), and North American raccoons (11%). An additional 21 mammal and 11 bird species were examined at least once during the six years of the study. New county records are summarized for each species. Public health, academic, and veterinary and animal care partners formed a community of practice enabling effective statewide tick surveillance. MDPI 2019-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6780246/ /pubmed/31500362 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects10090289 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Lee, Xia
Murphy, Darby S.
Hoang Johnson, Diep
Paskewitz, Susan M.
Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017
title Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017
title_full Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017
title_fullStr Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017
title_full_unstemmed Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017
title_short Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017
title_sort passive animal surveillance to identify ticks in wisconsin, 2011–2017
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6780246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31500362
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects10090289
work_keys_str_mv AT leexia passiveanimalsurveillancetoidentifyticksinwisconsin20112017
AT murphydarbys passiveanimalsurveillancetoidentifyticksinwisconsin20112017
AT hoangjohnsondiep passiveanimalsurveillancetoidentifyticksinwisconsin20112017
AT paskewitzsusanm passiveanimalsurveillancetoidentifyticksinwisconsin20112017