4.6 Article

Surveys for ticks on wildlife hosts and in the environment at Asian longhorned tick (Haemaphysalis longicornis)-positive sites in Virginia and New Jersey, 2018

期刊

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 605-614

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13722

关键词

epidemiology; introduced species; Ixodidae; public health; ticks; wild animals

资金

  1. US Department of Interior [G11AC20003]
  2. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [91130808CA]
  3. National Institutes of Health [GM109435]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified the wildlife host range of Asian longhorned ticks (ALT) in the US, with 51 infested individuals from seven different species found in two states. ALT was also detected in the environment in both states, along with three native tick species known to carry pathogens of public health and veterinary importance.
Haemaphysalis longicornis, the Asian longhorned tick (ALT), is native to eastern Asia, but it has become invasive in several countries, including Australia, New Zealand and recently in the eastern United States (US). To identify wild mammal and avian host species in the US, we conducted active wildlife surveillance in two states with known ALT infestations (Virginia and New Jersey). In addition, we conducted environmental surveys in both states. These surveillance efforts resulted in detection of 51 ALT-infested individuals from seven wildlife species, including raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). We found ALT in the environment in both states and also collected three native tick species (Amblyomma americanum, Dermacentor variablisandIxodes scapularis) that are vectors of pathogens of public health and veterinary importance. This study provides important specific information on the wildlife host range of ALT in the US.

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

4.6
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