4.7 Article

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

Journal

INSECTS
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/insects10090289

Keywords

Ixodidae; hard ticks; host record; county record

Categories

Funding

  1. Wisconsin Department of Health Services under the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases program - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U01CK000505]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available