Next Article in Journal
Tolerance of High Oral Doses of Nonradioactive and Radioactive Caesium Chloride in the Pale Grass Blue Butterfly Zizeeria maha
Next Article in Special Issue
A Survey of Tick-Borne Bacterial Pathogens in Florida
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Propoxur Exposure on Insecticidal Susceptibility and Developmental Traits in Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Standardized Ixodid Tick Survey in Mainland Florida
Open AccessArticle

Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017

1
Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
2
MPH program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
3
Infection Control, University of Wisconsin Health, Madison, WI 53715, USA
4
Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2019, 10(9), 289; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10090289
Received: 14 August 2019 / Revised: 29 August 2019 / Accepted: 5 September 2019 / Published: 8 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tick Surveillance and Tick-borne Diseases)
The introduction of new tick species poses a risk to human and animal health. Systematic active surveillance programs are expensive and uncommon. We evaluated a passive animal surveillance program as a monitoring tool to document the geographic distribution and host associations of ticks in Wisconsin. Passive surveillance partners included veterinary medical clinics, domestic animal shelters, and wildlife rehabilitation centers from 35 of the 72 Wisconsin counties. A total of 10,136 tick specimens were collected from 2325 animals from July 2011 to November 2017 and included Dermacentor variabilis Say (29.7% of all ticks), Ixodes texanus Banks (25.5%), Ixodes scapularis Say (19.5%), Haemaphysalis leporispalustris Packard (13.8%), Ixodes cookei Packard (4.4%), and Dermacentor albipictus Packard (1.7%). Less common species (<1% of collection) included Ixodes dentatus Marx, Ixodes sculptus Neumann, Ixodes marxi Banks, Amblyomma americanum Linnaeus, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus Latreille. Of the 2325 animals that were examined, most were domestic dogs (53%), eastern cottontail rabbits (16%), domestic cats (15%), and North American raccoons (11%). An additional 21 mammal and 11 bird species were examined at least once during the six years of the study. New county records are summarized for each species. Public health, academic, and veterinary and animal care partners formed a community of practice enabling effective statewide tick surveillance. View Full-Text
Keywords: Ixodidae; hard ticks; host record; county record Ixodidae; hard ticks; host record; county record
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, X.; Murphy, D.S.; Hoang Johnson, D.; Paskewitz, S.M. Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017. Insects 2019, 10, 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10090289

AMA Style

Lee X, Murphy DS, Hoang Johnson D, Paskewitz SM. Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017. Insects. 2019; 10(9):289. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10090289

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Xia; Murphy, Darby S.; Hoang Johnson, Diep; Paskewitz, Susan M. 2019. "Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017" Insects 10, no. 9: 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10090289

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop