4.2 Article

Comparison of Flea Sampling Methods and Yersinia pestis Detection on Prairie Dog Colonies

Journal

VECTOR-BORNE AND ZOONOTIC DISEASES
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages 753-761

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2021.0025

Keywords

Cynomys; burrow; Siphonaptera; surveillance; Yersinia pestis

Funding

  1. U.S. Geological Survey
  2. Turner Endangered Species Fund
  3. Turner Enterprises Incorporated
  4. Colorado State University
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  6. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  7. Charles M. Russell (CMR) National Wildlife Refuge
  8. Shortgrass Steppe Long-Term Ecological Research Project [DEB 021763, 0823405]
  9. National Science Foundation [1027319]
  10. U.S. Department of Defense Strategic Environment Research and Development Program [16 RC01-012]
  11. Direct For Biological Sciences
  12. Division Of Environmental Biology [1027319] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Analysis of data from different time periods and regions revealed that using the method of swabbing fleas from burrows does not consistently explain flea burdens on prairie dogs or provide reliable information on plague prevalence. The study also highlights the limitations of burrow swabbing in accurately representing flea species composition and phenology on prairie dogs.
Scientists collect fleas (Siphonaptera) to survey for Yersinia pestis, the bacterial agent of plague. When studying fleas parasitizing prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), two primary methods are used: (1) combing fleas from live-trapped prairie dogs and (2) swabbing fleas from burrows with cloth swabs attached to metal cables. Ideally, burrow swabbing, the cheaper and easier method, would explain flea burdens on prairie dogs and provide reliable information on plague prevalence. In a linear regression analysis of data from 1-month intervals (June-August 2010-2011) on 13 colonies of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus, BTPDs) in New Mexico, flea abundance on swabs explained 0-26% of variation in BTPD flea burdens. In an analysis of data (May-August 2016) from six colonies of BTPDs in Montana, flea abundance on swabs explained 2% of variation in BTPD flea burdens. In an analysis of data from a short-term interval (July 23-27, 2019) on four colonies of BTPDs in Montana, flea abundance on swabs explained 0.1% of variation in BTPD flea burdens. In an analysis of data from 1-week intervals (August-October 2000) on four colonies of white-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys leucurus, WTPD) in Utah, swabbing data explained 0.1% of variation in WTPD flea burdens. Pools of fleas from two WTPD colonies were tested for Y. pestis by mouse inoculation and isolation; 65% from WTPDs tested positive, whereas 4% from burrows tested positive. Data herein also show that results from burrow swabbing can misrepresent flea species composition and phenology on prairie dogs. Burrow swabbing is useful for some purposes, but limitations should be acknowledged, and accumulated data should be interpreted with caution.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available