4.4 Article

Mitochondrial DNA in Ixodus ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae) on birds reflects ticks' transportation routes to Lista, Norway

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2020.101553

关键词

Ixodes ricinus; Dispersal; Mitochondrial DNA; Population genetics

资金

  1. Pfizer Norway AS [WI231016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found significant genetic differences between Ixodes ricinus found on blackbirds and robins, with the former primarily originating in continental Europe. Early spring blackbirds were found to carry ticks of mixed origins from both Great Britain and continental Europe, while later in the season, ticks carried by blackbirds were mainly acquired locally.
Ticks are important pathogen vectors, and large mammals and birds have the greatest potential for dispersing them. To study tick dispersal by migrating birds, we have analysed genetic variations in mitochondrial DNA control region from Ixodes ricinus from northward migrating blackbird, Turdus merula, and (European) robin, Erithacus rubecula, at the Lista Bird Observatory in southwestern Norway. We compared their genetic structure with that of resident tick populations from areas covering their expected last stop (i.e. Great Britain and Jutland, Denmark) before taking off for southern Norway, and the resident tick population at Lista. The statistical analysis showed that the I. ricinus found on blackbirds differed significantly from those found on robins, which is consistent with the birds' differential migration routes. I. ricinus from robins did not differ genetically from those flagged at Jutland, suggesting that the former mainly originate in continental Europe. Bayesian analysis indicated that most of the blackbirds caught early in the spring (i.e. before or on the 1st of April) carried ticks of a mixed origin from both Great Britain and continental Europe, while blackbirds caught later in the season carried an increasing amount of ticks acquired locally.

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

4.4
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