4.1 Article

Association of sarcoptic mange with kinship and habitat use in raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides)

Journal

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICAL SCIENCE
Volume 82, Issue 9, Pages 1306-1311

Publisher

JAPAN SOC VET SCI
DOI: 10.1292/jvms.19-0699

Keywords

habitat; kinship; raccoon dog; rarcoptic mange; Sarcoptes scabiei

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although kinship (parent-offspring or siblings) contact has been suggested as a driving factor for sarcoptic mange epizootic in raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), no effect has been reported. In contrast, habitat fragmentation caused by urbanization may result in a high occurrence of sarcoptic mange, because habitat fragmentation may promote contact infection by increasing the population density of raccoon dogs. The habitat distribution of raccoon dogs may therefore influence epizootic sarcoptic mange. The genetic relationship between raccoon dogs was analyzed to examine Sarcoptes scabiei transmission between kin. The relationship between S. scabiei infection and the habitat of raccoon dogs was also investigated. Seventy-five raccoon dogs from Takasaki, Gunma prefecture, were examined from 2012 to 2018; 23 were infested with S. scabiei. The genotypes were determined using 17 microsatellite loci, and the relationships were categorized into four patterns by the ML-Relate software. There was no significant difference between infested pairs and other two pairs (Chi-squared test: chi(2)=0.034, df=1, P=0.85). Although it was difficult to predicate because the mortality rate was unclear in this study, kinship contact does not seem to be an important factor for sarcoptic mange epizootic. S. scabiei infection rates were significantly associated with the location of village sections (OR=1.55, 95% CI=1.11-2.17, P=0.011). It is suggested that direct/indirect contact between individuals living closely together is an important factor for the transmission of S. scabiei.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available