Impact of vertebrate communities on Ixodes ricinus-borne disease risk in forest areas.
Anaplasma
/ isolation & purification
Animal Diseases
/ epidemiology
Animals
Biota
Borrelia
/ isolation & purification
Ehrlichia
/ isolation & purification
Forests
Ixodes
/ growth & development
Population Density
Risk Assessment
Tick Infestations
/ epidemiology
Tick-Borne Diseases
/ epidemiology
Vertebrates
/ parasitology
Anaplasma phagocytophilum
Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.)
Borrelia miyamotoi
Ixodes ricinus
Lyme borreliosis
Neoehrlichia mikurensis
Transmission dynamics
Vector-borne disease
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Sep 2019
06 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
07
03
2019
accepted:
03
09
2019
entrez:
8
9
2019
pubmed:
8
9
2019
medline:
2
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The density of questing ticks infected with tick-borne pathogens is an important parameter that determines tick-borne disease risk. An important factor determining this density is the availability of different wildlife species as hosts for ticks and their pathogens. Here, we investigated how wildlife communities contribute to tick-borne disease risk. The density of Ixodes ricinus nymphs infected with Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato), Borrelia miyamotoi, Neoehrlichia mikurensis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum among 19 forest sites were correlated to the encounter probability of different vertebrate hosts, determined by encounter rates as measured by (camera) trapping and mathematical modeling. We found that the density of any tick life stage was proportional to the encounter probability of ungulates. Moreover, the density of nymphs decreased with the encounter probability of hare, rabbit and red fox. The density of nymphs infected with the transovarially-transmitted B. miyamotoi increased with the density of questing nymphs and the encounter probability of bank vole. The density of nymphs infected with all other pathogens increased with the encounter probability of competent hosts: bank vole for Borrelia afzelii and N. mikurensis, ungulates for A. phagocytophilum and blackbird for Borrelia garinii and Borrelia valaisiana. The negative relationship we found was a decrease in the density of nymphs infected with B. garinii and B. valaisiana with the encounter probability of wood mouse. Only a few animal species drive the densities of infected nymphs in forested areas. There, foxes and leporids have negative effects on tick abundance, and consequently on the density of infected nymphs. The abundance of competent hosts generally drives the abundances of their tick-borne pathogen. A dilution effect was only observed for bird-associated Lyme spirochetes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The density of questing ticks infected with tick-borne pathogens is an important parameter that determines tick-borne disease risk. An important factor determining this density is the availability of different wildlife species as hosts for ticks and their pathogens. Here, we investigated how wildlife communities contribute to tick-borne disease risk. The density of Ixodes ricinus nymphs infected with Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato), Borrelia miyamotoi, Neoehrlichia mikurensis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum among 19 forest sites were correlated to the encounter probability of different vertebrate hosts, determined by encounter rates as measured by (camera) trapping and mathematical modeling.
RESULT
RESULTS
We found that the density of any tick life stage was proportional to the encounter probability of ungulates. Moreover, the density of nymphs decreased with the encounter probability of hare, rabbit and red fox. The density of nymphs infected with the transovarially-transmitted B. miyamotoi increased with the density of questing nymphs and the encounter probability of bank vole. The density of nymphs infected with all other pathogens increased with the encounter probability of competent hosts: bank vole for Borrelia afzelii and N. mikurensis, ungulates for A. phagocytophilum and blackbird for Borrelia garinii and Borrelia valaisiana. The negative relationship we found was a decrease in the density of nymphs infected with B. garinii and B. valaisiana with the encounter probability of wood mouse.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Only a few animal species drive the densities of infected nymphs in forested areas. There, foxes and leporids have negative effects on tick abundance, and consequently on the density of infected nymphs. The abundance of competent hosts generally drives the abundances of their tick-borne pathogen. A dilution effect was only observed for bird-associated Lyme spirochetes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31492171
doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3700-8
pii: 10.1186/s13071-019-3700-8
pmc: PMC6731612
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
434Références
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Jul;37(7):2215-22
pubmed: 10364588
Int J Med Microbiol. 2002 Jun;291 Suppl 33:6-10
pubmed: 12141761
Parasitology. 2003 Jan;126(Pt 1):11-20
pubmed: 12613759
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 May;69(5):2825-30
pubmed: 12732554
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2002 Winter;2(4):209-15
pubmed: 12804161
Parasitology. 2004;129 Suppl:S37-65
pubmed: 15938504
Ecol Lett. 2006 Apr;9(4):485-98
pubmed: 16623733
PLoS Biol. 2006 Jun;4(6):e145
pubmed: 16669698
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Sep;4(9):660-9
pubmed: 16894341
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Dec;72(12):7594-601
pubmed: 17028227
Biometrics. 2008 Jun;64(2):377-85
pubmed: 17970815
Med Vet Entomol. 2008 Sep;22(3):238-47
pubmed: 18816272
Epidemics. 2009 Sep;1(3):196-206
pubmed: 21352766
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2011 Jun;2(2):67-74
pubmed: 21771540
Parasit Vectors. 2011 Oct 03;4:192
pubmed: 21967706
Parasitology. 2012 Jun;139(7):847-63
pubmed: 22336330
Parasit Vectors. 2012 Apr 19;5:74
pubmed: 22515314
Parasit Vectors. 2012 Dec 17;5:294
pubmed: 23244453
Environ Microbiol. 2013 Feb;15(2):663-73
pubmed: 23279105
Parasit Vectors. 2013 Jan 02;6:1
pubmed: 23281838
Infect Genet Evol. 2013 Jul;17:216-22
pubmed: 23602839
PLoS One. 2013 May 16;8(5):e64361
pubmed: 23696884
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013 Jul 22;3:31
pubmed: 23885337
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013 Jul 30;3:36
pubmed: 23908971
Lancet. 2013 Aug 17;382(9892):658
pubmed: 23953389
Parasit Vectors. 2013 Dec 04;6:338
pubmed: 24304944
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014 Apr;5(3):245-51
pubmed: 24582511
Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Jul;20(7):1244-5
pubmed: 24963562
Front Public Health. 2014 Jul 07;2:73
pubmed: 25072045
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014 Oct;5(6):810-7
pubmed: 25113977
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Aug 15;7:365
pubmed: 25127547
Trends Parasitol. 2015 Jun;31(6):260-9
pubmed: 25892254
Infect Genet Evol. 2016 Aug;42:66-76
pubmed: 27125686
Methods Ecol Evol. 2015 May;6(5):500-509
pubmed: 27547297
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2017 Feb;17(2):99-107
pubmed: 27893309
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Jul 26;284(1859):null
pubmed: 28724731
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 24;12(7):e0181807
pubmed: 28742149
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Jul 19;4:115
pubmed: 28770219
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018 Feb;9(2):141-145
pubmed: 28869190
Parasit Vectors. 2017 Sep 19;10(1):433
pubmed: 28927432
Parasit Vectors. 2017 Oct 18;10(1):497
pubmed: 29047399
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Mar 6;11(1):145
pubmed: 29510749
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018 Jul;9(5):1143-1152
pubmed: 29716838
Ecology. 2018 Jul;99(7):1562-1573
pubmed: 29738078
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Aug 6;11(1):454
pubmed: 30081938
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Aug 29;11(1):477
pubmed: 30153856
J Med Entomol. 1995 Nov;32(6):765-77
pubmed: 8551498
Zentralbl Bakteriol. 1997 Jun;286(1):93-106
pubmed: 9241805
Exp Appl Acarol. 1997 Dec;21(12):755-71
pubmed: 9423270
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Apr;64(4):1169-74
pubmed: 9546150