4.3 Article

Survey of ixodid ticks in domestic ruminants in Bedelle district, Southwestern Ethiopia

期刊

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 1677-1683

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-010-9620-4

关键词

Bedelle; Ixodid ticks; Amblyomma; Rhipicephalus; Boophilus; Abundance

资金

  1. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hawassa University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A survey aimed at determining the status of ticks in cattle, sheep and goats in Bedelle district (Southwestern Ethiopia) was carried out from November 2007 to April 2008. Out of the total 330 animals examined, 314 (95.2%) were found to be infested (harbouring of at least a single tick). High rates of infestations were recorded across all three host species. Factors like month of collection, age and sex of host species did not show significant association with infestation rates. A total of 5,507 ticks belonging to three genera (i.e. Amblyomma, Boophilus and Rhipicephalus) were collected during the study period of which six species were identified. The species of ticks encountered comprise of Amblyomma cohaerens (44.1%), Amblyomma variegatum (13.8%), Amblyomma lepidum (1.2%), Boophilus decoloratus (24.9%), Rhipicephalus evertsi evertsi (14.3%) and Rhipicephalus lunulatus (1.7%). As about 86.7% (4,772) of the ticks were collected from cattle, it was recognised that this could be an evidence of host preference where cattle are serving as principal host while sheep and goats serve as alternative hosts. The role of ecological factors and little attention paid by livestock owners for treatment of animals against ticks are suggested to result in the abundance of ticks. Acaricide spraying should be strategically applied to control ticks. Better result could be achieved if an emphasis is being put on spraying cattle. Studies on tick-borne diseases, involvement of wildlife species as well as related factors are recommended as they may provide a valuable basis for designing and launching an all-round control programme in the country.

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