4.3 Article

Relative Humidity and Activity Patterns of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 769-776

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/ME13186

关键词

Ixodes scapularis; relative humidity; tick activity

资金

  1. Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension [HI-672]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Education [USDA-CSREES-SRGP-2009-3452-20120, USDA-CSREES-SRGP-2010-34520-21690]
  3. Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station [5347]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laboratory studies have shown clear relationships between relative humidity (RH) and the activity and survival of Ixodes scapularis Say (blacklegged tick). However, field studies have produced conflicting results. We examined this relationship using weekly tick count totals and hourly RH observations at three field sites, stratified by latitude, within the state of Rhode Island. Records of nymphal tick abundance were compared with several RH-related variables (e.g., RH at time of sampling and mean weekly daytime RH). In total, 825 nymphs were sampled in 2009, a year of greater precipitation, with a weighted average leaf litter RH recorded at time of sampling of 85.22%. Alternatively, 649 nymphs were collected in 2010, a year of relatively low precipitation, and a weighted average RH recorded at time of sampling was 75.51%. Negative binomial regression analysis of tick count totals identified cumulative hours <82% RH threshold as a significant factor observed in both years (2009: P = 0.0037; 2010: P < 0.0001). Mean weekly daytime RH did not significantly predict tick activity in either year. However, mean weekly daytime RH recorded with 1-wk lag before sample date was a significant variable (P = 0.0016) in 2010. These results suggest a lag effect between moisture availability and patterns of tick activity and abundance. Differences in the relative importance of each RH variable between years may have been due to abnormally wet summer conditions in 2009.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据