4.3 Article

Life cycle of Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae):: Timing of developmental processes under field and laboratory conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 684-693

出版社

ENTOMOL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1603/0022-2585-38.5.684

关键词

Rodes pacificus; life history; microhabitat; development; Lyme disease

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI22501] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The developmental timing of Ixodes pacificus Cooley & Kohls, the primary vector of the Lyme disease spirochete and the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis in the far-western United States, was determined under field and laboratory conditions. During their seasonal peaks of abundance, each of the three parasitic stages of L pacificus, both fed and unfed, was placed inside silk-screen packets. These packets were apportioned between four topographic exposures of two hilltop sites in northwestern California. The sites differed in vegetational composition and elevation: the first (elevation 390 m) was dominated by woodland-grass, the second (elevation 914 m) by chaparral. The timing of oviposition, larval eclosion, molting, and mortality were recorded in the field every 2-3 wk for 2.5 yr. Microenvironmental temperatures were measured on all four exposures at both sites. Accelerated developmental rates of all three stages were correlated with warmer soil temperatures and the time of placement in the field. In the laboratory, replete female I. pacificus maintained under uniform environmental conditions sustained constant preovipositional and prehatch periods independent of date-of-feeding. In the field, all unfed stages survived through one active feeding season with most larvae and nymphs remaining in behavioral diapause between late summer and early spring. No life stage survived through two active feeding periods which suggests that cohorts do not overlap. We concluded that 1. pacificus takes a minimum of 3 yr to complete its life cycle in northwestern California.

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