Next Article in Journal
Hyperhydricity Syndrome in In Vitro Plants: Mechanisms, Physiology, and Control
Previous Article in Journal
Peas in Rouge: Tyrosine Supplementation Enhances RUBY Reporter Visibility in Pisum sativum
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/plants14243720
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Plants Used for Tick and Tick-Borne Disease Control in South Africa: Ethnoveterinary Knowledge, Bioactivity Evidence, and Translation Pathways

by
Tsireledzo Goodwill Makwarela
1,*,
Nimmi Seoraj-Pillai
1,
Dikeledi Petunia Malatji
2 and
Tshifhiwa Constance Nangammbi
1,2
1
Department of Nature Conservation, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Staatsartillerie Rd, Pretoria West, Pretoria 0183, South Africa
2
Department of Agriculture and Animal Health, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida Campus, Roodepoort 1710, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(24), 3720; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14243720
Submission received: 14 November 2025 / Revised: 30 November 2025 / Accepted: 2 December 2025 / Published: 5 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Phytochemistry)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Ticks and tick-borne diseases (TBDs) impose a heavy burden on South African livestock systems, particularly in resource-limited communal areas. Conventional acaricides are effective but face rising challenges of resistance, high costs, and concerns for environmental and human health. As a result, there is growing interest in plant-based tick control rooted in ethnoveterinary knowledge. This review examines the landscape of South African ethnoveterinary practices for tick control and assesses the supporting evidence of bioactivity and pathways for translating these remedies into safe, registered products. A narrative review method was applied, drawing on the literature (2000–2025) from databases and local repositories, with emphasis on South African studies documenting plant use against ticks. Communities in Limpopo, Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, and other provinces utilise a diverse range of botanicals (e.g., Lippia javanica, Tetradenia riparia, Clausena anisata, Tagetes minuta, Melia azedarach, Eucalyptus spp., Cymbopogon spp.) to repel or kill ticks, often through topical applications, fumigation, or livestock housing treatments. Laboratory assays have confirmed acaricidal or repellent activity in many of the cited taxa. For example, Lippia javanica and Tagetes minuta oils demonstrate strong tick repellency, while extracts of Tetradenia riparia and Calpurnia aurea exhibit greater than 70% mortality in vitro. Field studies are fewer but promising: a community-led trial with L. javanica leaf spray achieved substantial tick reduction (albeit slightly less efficacious than synthetic amitraz). Key gaps include standardisation of plant preparations, safety evaluations (toxicity and residue studies), and alignment with regulatory requirements. Recent regulatory updates in South Africa (Act 36 of 1947) underscore the need for quality, safety, and efficacy data but also create avenues for low-risk botanical remedies. Ethnoveterinary plants offer a culturally appropriate and eco-friendly complement to conventional acaricides. Bridging the gap to practical use will require multidisciplinary efforts: validating efficacy in well-designed field trials, ensuring consistency in preparation, assessing safety margins, and navigating registration pathways for plant-based stock remedies. With supportive policy and community engagement, South Africa could pioneer farmer-ready botanical acaricides that mitigate resistance, reduce costs, and advance One Health objectives.

1. Introduction

Ticks and the diseases they transmit are a significant threat to livestock health and production in South Africa’s cattle and wildlife systems [1]. Ticks are a substantial source of economic damage to the global livestock industry, with estimated annual costs ranging from USD 20 to 30 billion, primarily due to productivity losses and control measures [2,3]. In South Africa, resource-poor farmers bear a disproportionate burden: tick infestations lead to anaemia, weight loss, hide damage, and deadly TBDs such as heartwater, redwater (babesiosis), and gallsickness (anaplasmosis) [4]. Communal and smallholder farmers rely heavily on government-sponsored dipping programmes and commercial acaricides, yet these face mounting challenges. Widespread acaricide resistance has emerged in multiple tick species, thereby undermining the efficacy of chemical control measures [5,6]. For example, multi-acaricide-resistant populations of the blue tick (Rhipicephalus microplus) have been reported in various African regions [6,7,8]. At the same time, the costs of commercial acaricides and limited access to regular dipping make it difficult for small-scale farmers to maintain effective tick control [5,9,10]. Inconsistent dipping services (due to infrastructure or funding issues) further exacerbate tick problems, as noted in surveys where nearly 60% of communal farmers reported gaps in government dipping and had to resort to their own methods [11,12].
These challenges have significant implications for One Health. Improper or excessive use of synthetic acaricides can leave residues in meat and milk, posing food safety risks, and contaminate the environment (soil and water) [13]. Cases of pesticide misuse have raised concerns about human toxicity and environmental pollution [14]. Morpreparation methods (including decoctions and essential oils), and public health concern. Thus, sustainable tick management solutions that are affordable, effective, and environmentally benign are urgently needed. Within this context, ethnoveterinary knowledge, the body of traditional animal healthcare practices, offers promising leads. Across South Africa, indigenous communities have long utilised medicinal plants to protect livestock from ectoparasites [15,16,17]. Ethnoveterinary medicine (EVM) remains prevalent, particularly in areas where access to veterinarians and modern pharmaceuticals is limited [18]. Smallholder farmers often prefer EVM remedies due to their local availability and perceived safety or efficacy [19,20]. In the realm of tick control, numerous plant species have been identified in different provinces as traditional acaricides or repellents. These include aromatic shrubs and trees whose smoke or extracts are believed to deter ticks on animals or in kraals. Recent studies have begun to validate some of these uses under lab conditions, lending scientific credence to traditional practices. Integrating such plant-based methods could enhance tick control in smallholder systems while reducing reliance on expensive chemicals [21].
Early ethnoveterinary research laid a strong historical foundation for botanical tick control studies in Africa. Van Puyvelde et al. [22] conducted one of the first systematic screenings of African plants for acaricidal activity, testing 108 extracts from 42 Rwandan medicinal species and identifying significant tick-killing effects in Solanum dasyphyllum fruit and Neorautanenia mitis root. These findings highlighted the latent potential of plant-based acaricides as early as the mid-1980s, although traditional practices predated formal research; for instance, farmers in East and West Africa historically used Nicotiana tabacum washes, Tephrosia spp., and other local remedies to protect livestock from ticks [23]. By the early 1990s, formal reports emerged from Kenya, where Dipeolu et al. [24] pioneered studies on Gynandropsis gynandra (syn. Cleome gynandra). Their study demonstrated in vitro and in vivo anti-tick efficacy, confirming pastoralist observations that cattle treated with crushed Cleome leaves had reduced tick infestations. Subsequent work by Ndungu et al. [25] isolated essential oils from Cleome, showing strong repellency against Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, while Lwande et al. [26] characterised sulfurous and terpenoid compounds responsible for this activity. These foundational studies validated indigenous knowledge and identified plants such as Cleome, Ocimum, Tephrosia, and Neorautanenia as promising sources of acaricidal agents. Concurrent research outside Africa reinforced this concept: Chungsamarnyart et al. [27] in Thailand reported >90% larval mortality in Boophilus microplus using local plant extracts, while Indian and Brazilian groups explored neem and tropical weeds for similar effects.
The scope of this review was to examine plants used as tick repellents or acaricides in South Africa, bridging indigenous knowledge and scientific evidence. We focus on botanicals used against ticks (and closely related applications, such as managing tick-infested wounds or maggot infestations), primarily in cattle but also relevant to other livestock. Emphasis is given to South African taxa and ethnoveterinary contexts (e.g., communal dipping tanks, traditional herd management). To structure the evidence pipeline, we review: (i) documentation of ethnoveterinary knowledge (which plants, where, and how they are used), (ii) in vitro bioassays confirming repellency or acaricidal activity of these plants, (iii) in vivo or on-animal studies demonstrating efficacy under field conditions, and (iv) considerations of safety and the regulatory framework (notably South Africa’s Act 36 of 1947 governing stock remedies). This pipeline reflects the translational path from folk remedy to a formally recognised tick control product.

2. Methods

This review adopted a narrative synthesis approach to collate ethnoveterinary knowledge and scientific evidence on plants used for tick and tick-borne disease control in South Africa. The objective was to document plant species and traditional preparation methods, evaluate laboratory and field evidence of acaricidal or repellent efficacy, summarise safety and regulatory considerations, and outline pathways for translating folk remedies into registered products. Unlike previous reviews that focused primarily on recent decades, this work deliberately included foundational studies from the mid-1980s onward. The regulatory context was documented with reference to Act 36 of 1947, and the study published in 1985 by Van Puyvelde and colleagues provided seminal acaricidal screening data.
Information sources comprised major scientific databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, as well as Africa-specific platforms like Sabinet and institutional repositories from South African universities. Searches combined geographic, tick-related, and ethnoveterinary keywords using Boolean operators. Representative search strings included combinations such as “(South Africa OR Eastern Cape OR Limpopo OR KwaZulu-Natal OR Mpumalanga OR North West OR Northern Cape OR Western Cape) AND (tick OR Rhipicephalus OR Amblyomma OR Hyalomma OR Haemaphysalis OR Dermacentor) AND (ethnoveterinary OR ethnobotany OR traditional OR plant OR herbal OR essential oil OR extract OR decoction OR repellent)”. Additional searches targeted botanical acaricides and plant-based repellents in livestock contexts, and citation chaining was used to capture older influential works and locally published reports that might not appear in indexed databases.
No lower time limit was imposed during screening to ensure historical continuity. While primary database searches emphasised the literature published between 2010 and 2025, particularly from 2015 onward, reference list mining allowed inclusion of landmark studies from the 1980s and 1990s. Regional studies from neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe and Tanzania were considered only when the plant species were traditionally used in South Africa, the tick species occurred locally, or the data provided methodological or comparative value. These entries are clearly indicated in the Supplementary Materials.
Eligibility criteria required that sources either documented the use of plants for tick or ectoparasite control in South Africa or evaluated the acaricidal or repellent efficacy of plant materials traditionally used in the country. Ethnographic surveys, laboratory bioassays, field trials, and reviews were included if they were explicitly relevant to ticks or tick-borne diseases. Studies focusing exclusively on internal parasites or human tick-bite treatments were excluded unless they also addressed livestock tick control. Reports lacking sufficient detail to identify plant species, preparation, application, or tick targets were also excluded.
Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance, and full texts were retrieved for potentially eligible records. Duplicates were removed across databases and repositories. Each record was categorised by study type—ethnobotanical survey, laboratory bioassay (including Adult Immersion Test, Larval Packet Test, Larval Immersion Test, and repellency assays), field trial, safety or toxicology assessment, and regulatory guidance—and by geography (South Africa or regional comparator). Where plant identity or tick taxonomy was unclear, species authorities and voucher specimens were cross-checked to resolve ambiguities.
Data extraction captured botanical details such as scientific and common names, plant parts used, and preparation methods, including decoctions and essential oils, along with application techniques and dosage information expressed in standard units (e.g., weight per volume, percentage, milligrams per millilitre). Assay modalities and endpoints were recorded, including mortality rates, repellency measures, LC50 and LD50 values, and oviposition inhibition. Tick species and life stages were noted, as were safety and toxicity findings, operator protection requirements, and residue considerations for food-producing animals. Regulatory context was documented with reference to Act 36 of 1947 and associated requirements for stock remedy registration.
To ensure comparability across decades, units and symbols were harmonised, assay acronyms standardised, and tick nomenclature aligned with accepted taxonomic conventions. Supplementary Table S1 was updated to consolidate quantitative efficacy metrics such as LC50, LC90, and LD50 values across studies from 1985 to 2025, providing a comprehensive dose–response reference. Where older reports used different units or protocols, values were normalised where possible; otherwise, original units were retained with annotations. Supplementary Table S2 summarises GC–MS chromatographic profiles of key taxa, listing dominant constituents and supporting interpretation of chemotype variation and standardisation requirements.
Although this review did not follow a formal PRISMA protocol, quality checks were applied pragmatically. Ethnobotanical surveys were assessed for clarity of sampling frames and plant identification, laboratory bioassays for adherence to standard protocols and replication, and field trials for design features such as controls and tick burden endpoints. Safety and residue studies were evaluated for species relevance and food-animal implications. Potential sources of bias include publication bias favouring positive outcomes and heterogeneity in protocols across decades. These were mitigated by triangulating ethnoveterinary use reports with experimental evidence and clearly distinguishing strong evidence from anecdotal claims.
Findings are synthesised to trace the translational pipeline from traditional knowledge to scientific validation and regulatory compliance. Results are organised into ethnoveterinary documentation, in vitro and field efficacy (summarised in Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1), phytochemical profiles (Section 4.2 and Supplementary Table S2), and safety and regulatory considerations (Table 2 and Section 5). Limitations include the narrative design and lack of quantitative meta-analysis due to protocol diversity. Nonetheless, inclusion of studies spanning four decades strengthens historical continuity and provides a robust foundation for future research and product development.

3. Ethnoveterinary Knowledge Landscape in South Africa

Ethnoveterinary tick control in South Africa is deeply embedded within communal, smallholder, and peri-urban livestock systems, reflecting diverse ecological settings, socio-economic realities, and cultural knowledge networks. Across provinces, farmers adopt a combination of state-led dipping programmes and traditional plant-based remedies, with their choice often determined by resource availability and local practice [10,21,28]. In the Eastern Cape, communal dipping schemes are near-universally attended. Yet, farmers frequently resort to locally sourced adjuncts, most notably Aloe ferox, whose leaves are prepared as soaks or sprays to complement dips during shortages or funding constraints [29]. In Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal, Lippia javanica (“zumbani/beukruie”) is the most frequently cited ethnoveterinary plant, prepared as simple aqueous decoctions (10–20% w/v) and applied as washes or sprays. Field trials confirm its efficacy in reducing tick burdens; however, its performance is inferior to that of synthetic acaricides, such as amitraz-based formulations [30,31]. Other prominent taxa include the exotic Azadirachta indica (neem), whose seed oils and kernel extracts are valued for acaricidal properties; Tagetes minuta (khakibos), widely applied as an essential-oil repellent; Clausena anisata (perdepis), used as spot-on essential oils around the ears and neck; Ricinus communis (castor), applied as topical pastes of crushed leaves for engorged ticks; and Zanthoxylum capense, cited less consistently but employed in some smallholder settings through crushed stem preparations at infestation sites [32,33,34]. Modes of preparation are pragmatic and community-driven: decoctions of leaves or aerial parts dominate for L. javanica and T. minuta; essential oils are steam-distilled or purchased for Tagetes and Clausena, while topical pastes are applied to bite wounds and engorged ticks [35,36]. Application methods range from whole-body washes and hand-sprayed rinses on high-burden areas (such as the neck, brisket, and perineum) to targeted “spot-ons” at the ear bases and tail head. Knowledge transfer is mediated by elder farmers, herders, and herbalists, with occasional support from extension officers who catalogue ethnoveterinary plants or circulate bulletins highlighting promising species, such as provincial guidelines on L. javanica [37,38]. Despite their widespread use, ethnoveterinary practices remain unevenly documented and validated. While particular species, including L. javanica, A. indica, T. minuta, C. anisata, and R. communis, have at least some experimental backing through in vitro assays or limited field trials, others persist primarily as use reports with no systematic biological corroboration. Patterns of reliance also mirror provincial ecology and access (Figure 1): A. ferox dominates in the Eastern Cape, L. javanica in Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal, T. minuta in Gauteng and Limpopo, neem where commercial products are accessible, and Clausena in pockets of KwaZulu-Natal [39,40]. This fragmented yet resilient ethnoveterinary landscape underscores both the adaptive strategies of resource-limited farmers and the critical need for systematic validation, standardisation, and integration of plant-based remedies within sustainable tick management frameworks.

4. Experimental Evidence and Bioactive Basis for Efficacy

The validation of ethnoveterinary practices relies on a suite of standardised bioassays that measure the direct and sublethal effects of plant extracts on ticks. Core in vitro methods include the Adult Immersion Test (AIT), which assesses mortality and reproductive impairment in engorged females; the Larval Packet Test (LPT) and Larval Immersion Test (LIT), which evaluate mortality in first-instar larvae; and various repellency assays that measure the ability of a substance to deter tick attachment [44,45,46]. The efficacy observed in these assays is driven by a diverse array of plant secondary metabolites, including terpenoids, phenolics, flavonoids, and alkaloids, which act through neurotoxic, metabolic, and reproductive disruption mechanisms. Detailed quantitative efficacy metrics, including LC50 and LC90 values for various plant extracts and essential oils tested against tick species, are provided in Supplementary Table S1. These data complement the summary in Table 1 by offering precise dose–response benchmarks for comparative evaluation.

4.1. In Vitro and Field Efficacy

South African ethnobotanical taxa have been extensively screened using these bioassays, yielding promising results. As summarised in Table 1, Lippia javanica aqueous leaf decoctions (10–20% w/v) significantly reduced cattle tick burdens in a field trial, demonstrating efficacy that was significant, though slightly inferior to synthetic amitraz [30]. Azadirachta indica (neem) seed oil achieved 100% mortality against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus larvae in LPT assays within 27 h at concentrations as low as 20% [47]. Tagetes minuta essential oil has demonstrated high repellency, with a low RD50 against R. appendiculatus, confirming its traditional use as a potent deterrent [40,48]. Extracts from other plants, such as Calpurnia aurea, Cleome gynandra, and Schkuhria pinnata, have also demonstrated high adulticidal activity (greater than 65% mortality) in AITs [49]. Furthermore, Ricinus communis leaf extracts have proven effective against organophosphate- and pyrethroid-resistant R. microplus, inhibiting oviposition by 36–63% [32,50]. Despite these encouraging laboratory results, field validation remains scarce, with the L. javanica trial being a notable exception. This highlights the crucial need for more standardised on-farm studies to confirm efficacy under real-world conditions.
Table 1. Experimental evidence of acaricidal and repellent activity of selected South African plants against ticks.
Table 1. Experimental evidence of acaricidal and repellent activity of selected South African plants against ticks.
Plant (Family)Preparation/ExtractAssayTick Species/StageDoses TestedOutcomeRefs.
Lippia javanica (Verbenaceae)Aqueous leaf (10–20% w/v)Field spray on cattleMixed cattle ticks10–20%↓ tick burdens; less effective than amitraz but significant[30,51]
Lippia javanica (Verbenaceae)Various leaf extractsRepellency/Field summaryMixed species—Efficacy near commercial industrial levels (contextual)
Azadirachta indica (Meliaceae)Seed kernel water extract (5–10%)Field (goats/cattle)Rhipicephalus spp.5–10%↓ infestation vs. controls; variable efficacy vs. flumethrin/amitraz[52]
Azadirachta indica (Meliaceae)Neem seed oilLPT (larvae)R. (B.) decoloratus larvae20–100%100% mortality within 27 h (at ≥20% concentration)[47]
Calpurnia aurea (Fabaceae)Acetone/ethanol leaf/flowerAIT (adults)Rhipicephalus turanicus adults~1–20%Adult mortality up to ~81%[49]
Cleome gynandra (Cleomaceae)Acetone leafAIT (adults)R. turanicus adults~1–20%Adult mortality ~78%[49]
Tabernaemontana elegans (Apocynaceae)Leaf hydroethanolAIT (adults)R. turanicus adultsUp to 20%High adult mortality (≥65% at top dose)[49]
Schkuhria pinnata (Asteraceae)Whole-plant extractAIT (adults)R. turanicus adultsUp to 20%Adult mortality ~67% (top dose)[49]
Aloe rupestris (Asphodelaceae)Leaf extractAIT (adults)R. turanicus adultsUp to 20%Adult mortality ~66% (top dose)[49]
Tagetes minuta (Asteraceae)Essential oilRepellency; In vitroRhipicephalus spp.; R. appendiculatus0.025–1%High repellency; significant in vitro efficacy[40,53]
Cymbopogon citratus (Poaceae)Essential oil; DecoctionLPT; AIT; RepellencyR. microplus; R. sanguineus10–40 mg/mL; TopicalDose-dependent mortality and repellency[54,55]
Clausena anisata (Rutaceae)Essential oilLPT; Topical testsA. variegatum; R. (B.) spp. (larvae, engorged ♀)μL/mL;
5–75 μL topical		Low larval LC50; impaired oviposition/egg hatch[33,56]
Aloe ferox (Asphodelaceae)Powdered crystals (oral)Field trial (oral)R. (B.) decoloratusLabel-like dosingMixed/insufficient efficacy; palatability issues[57,58]
AIT: Adult Immersion Test. A standard bioassay where adult ticks are immersed in a treatment solution to assess mortality. LPT: Larval Packet Test. A standard bioassay where larval ticks are exposed to a treated substrate to determine mortality. LC50: Lethal Concentration 50. The concentration of a substance required to kill 50% of the test population. ↓: Decrease or reduction. w/v: Weight per Volume (e.g., 10 g in 100 mL = 10%). Engorged ♀: Fully fed adult female ticks. R. (B.): Rhipicephalus (Boophilus), a typical subgenus of ticks.

4.2. Phytochemical Profiles and Bioactivity of Key Species

Most acaricidal plants exhibit distinct chemical profiles that directly shape their bioactivity. Lippia javanica presents clear chemotypic variation, with myrcenone-rich, ocimene-rich, and ipsenone-rich profiles, and the strongest activity is consistently linked to monoterpenoid-enriched chemotypes harvested at the pre-flowering stage, when these compounds peak [53,59]. Azadirachta indica maintains relatively stable limonoid profiles across environments, with azadirachtin acting through multiple pathways that include feeding deterrence, growth disruption, oviposition inhibition, and contact toxicity, and formulations containing 5 to 10% neem oil reliably achieve complete mortality and reproductive suppression in several tick species [60,61,62]. Tagetes minuta contains monoterpene ketones such as tagetone and tagetenone, supported by alpha-terthienyl, and its efficacy depends on chemotypic differences between tagetone-dominated and ocimene-dominated oils, together with phenological transitions from dihydrotagetone-rich pre-flowering leaves to tagetenone-rich post-flowering tissues [63,64]. Clausena anisata shows vigorous larvicidal and adulticidal activity due to phenylpropanoids such as trans-anethole and estragole, which induce rapid mortality and marked reproductive failure even at concentrations near 6.25%, making quantification of these markers central to standardisation [65,66]. Comprehensive GC–MS chromatographic profiles of plant extracts and essential oils, including key bioactive compounds, are presented in Supplementary Table S2. These profiles support the interpretation of efficacy trends and standardisation requirements discussed above

5. Safety, Toxicity, and Regulatory Considerations

For any ethnoveterinary remedy to transition from traditional use to a registered, marketable product, demonstrating safety is as crucial as proving efficacy. Under South Africa’s Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act 36 of 1947, the registration of stock remedies requires scientifically generated dossiers that unequivocally demonstrate quality, safety, and efficacy. This is especially important for plant-based products, where the assumption that “natural” equates to “safe” is a dangerous oversimplification.

Target Animal and User Safety

The safety profile of a botanical acaricide must be evaluated for the target livestock, the operators handling the product, and the environment. As summarised in Table 2, while many plants show a good safety margin at acaricidal concentrations, critical data gaps persist. For example, Lippia javanica spray caused no adverse effects in cattle at concentrations of 10–20% [30]; however, its essential oil requires standard personal protective equipment (PPE) due to potential dermal and ocular irritation. Azadirachta indica (neem) is widely used. Yet, high oral doses can cause gastrointestinal upset in livestock, and neem oil handling requires PPE to avoid user exposure [33,67,68]. Essential oils from plants like Tagetes minuta and Clausena anisata, while effective, have limited livestock safety data and carry risks of dermal irritation or photosensitisation, necessitating careful formulation and usage guidelines [33,69].
Table 2. Summary of safety and toxicity considerations for key South African plants used for tick control.
Table 2. Summary of safety and toxicity considerations for key South African plants used for tick control.
Plant (Family)Safety in Target SpeciesKey Mammalian Toxicity DataOperator and Environmental SafetyRegulatory Status and RemarksReferences
Lippia javanica (Verbenaceae)No adverse effects in cattle at 10–20% spray.Mixed results in mouse studies at high doses; generally tolerable.Standard PPE is advised for EO due to low environmental persistence.Widespread community use requires a crucial formulation.[30]
Azadirachta indica (Meliaceae)Practical: monitor for GI upset with high oral doses.Neem oil rat LD50 ~31.95 g/kg; toxicity in livestock with improper use.Avoid aquatic release; use PPE for oil handling.Widely adopted; requires quality standardisation.[67,68,70]
Clausena anisata (Rutaceae)No livestock field safety data (lab use only).Mammalian data are sparse; however, they indicate that these species are highly active against ticks.Potential dermal/eye irritation; standard EO precautions.Further toxicity and residue studies are needed.[56,71]
Tagetes minuta (Asteraceae)Dog studies show efficacy; however, there is limited data on livestock.Can be irritating at high dermal doses; limited LD data.Risk of dermal irritation and photosensitisation; use PPE.Best as a repellent adjunct; needs livestock data.[69]
Cymbopogon citratus (Poaceae)Limited field safety data for tick control.Generally favourable toxicology at low dermal doses.EO volatility reduces residue risk; PPE advised.Promising repellent; requires cattle studies.[54]
Calpurnia aurea (Fabaceae)No field safety data (lab use only).Limited data indicate that some related species contain alkaloids.Unknown residue profile; avoid in food animals.Prioritise toxicity studies before field use.[49]
Schkuhria pinnata (Asteraceae)No field safety data (lab use only).Very sparse mammalian toxicity data.Unknown operator and environmental risks.Requires a complete safety assessment.[49]
Aloe ferox (Asphodelaceae)Poor palatability; practicality concerns.Known anthraquinone laxative effects: GI distress.Residue data unclear; avoid in dairy cattle.Not recommended for tick control.[57,58]
GI: Gastrointestinal. PPE: Personal Protective Equipment (e.g., gloves, masks, goggles). EO: Essential Oil. LD50: Lethal Dose 50. The dose required to kill 50% of test subjects.

6. Tick Vectors, Small Mammal Hosts, and Ecology

In sub-Saharan Africa, including South Africa, small mammals are important hosts for immature ixodid ticks, sustaining tick populations that later infest livestock and influence farm-level disease risk [72,73,74]. Studies have documented species such as elephant shrews, hedgehogs, and murid rodents hosting larvae and nymphs, creating multi-host networks that shape seasonal and spatial tick abundance in agro-ecological mosaics [73,74]. These hosts maintain tick populations even when cattle are treated, linking wildlife and livestock reservoirs within mixed-use landscapes [72,73]. Beyond vector ecology, small mammals may indirectly affect pathogen cycles, including Theileria spp., by sustaining tick vectors in grazing systems with wildlife–livestock interfaces [75,76,77]. Pathogen profiling in ixodid ticks from the Eastern Cape further underscores the role of vertebrate hosts, including small mammals, in shaping pathogen dynamics such as circulating piroplasms and Theileria-like agents [75]. Collectively, evidence from South Africa and broader African contexts supports a One Health perspective that recognises interconnected wildlife, livestock, and environmental factors in tick-borne disease systems [77]. Future research should integrate longitudinal field data and molecular surveillance to quantify the contribution of small mammals to tick ecology and pathogen transmission, reinforcing the need for integrated tick control strategies beyond livestock treatment [73,74,75].

7. Cost and Accessibility of Ethnoveterinary Acaricides Compared with Commercial Synthetics

Ethnoveterinary plant-based acaricides offer high cost and accessibility advantages for South African smallholder farmers compared with commercial synthetic products. Conventional acaricides remain effective but impose high financial burdens, with Amitraz priced at R 347 to R 569 per litre, pour-on formulations ranging from R 284 to more than R 4 039, and large-scale dips exceeding R 6 212, resulting in annual per-animal treatment costs of R 9.29 to R 126.86 [78]. These pressures are intensified by supply disruptions and resistance linked to improper use [3,79]. In contrast, communities often rely on locally available plants such as Lippia javanica, Azadirachta indica, Maerua edulis, Tagetes minuta, Aloe ferox, and Aloe marlothii, which can be harvested at minimal cash cost, with labour being the primary input [80,81]. Empirical studies report that Lippia javanica water extracts and 2% neem seed preparations can achieve control comparable to that of standard pyrethroids. At the same time, Maerua edulis formulations have matched Amitraz efficacy under field conditions [82,83,84]. Although plant-based acaricides require time for preparation and show variable efficacy, they bypass transport and retail markups that restrict access to commercial products in remote areas. At the development stage, botanical pesticides cost approximately USD 3 million to USD 7 million and take about 3 years to reach the market, compared with USD 250 million to USD 400 million and 8 to 10 years for synthetic chemicals [85]. Integrating validated plant-based treatments with the prudent use of commercial acaricides or vaccines, such as Bm eighty-six, offers a more economically sustainable and context-appropriate strategy for tick control in South Africa [86,87].

8. Residue and Environmental Considerations

When plant-based acaricides are applied to food-producing animals, residue depletion becomes a paramount concern. While many essential oil constituents are rapidly metabolised, lipophilic compounds, such as terpenoids, can accumulate in fat depots [88]. In the absence of comprehensive residue depletion studies, regulators often mandate conservative withdrawal periods for meat and milk to safeguard consumer health and comply with international trade standards [89]. Environmental safety must also be considered; for instance, neem oil should be kept out of aquatic systems. The high volatility of some essential oils, while reducing residue risk, requires an assessment of inhalation exposure for operators [90].

Sustainability Considerations for Ethnoveterinary Acaricides

Sustainable ethnoveterinary tick control depends on the effectiveness of plant-based acaricides and their alignment with conservation, cultivation potential, and local knowledge systems. The literature emphasises that wild harvesting must be balanced with deliberate cultivation and ecological risk assessment to avoid depletion of vulnerable taxa [23]. Early findings on Neorautanenia mitis root extracts illustrated how high acaricidal demand can pressure wild populations without cultivation efforts [22]. Surveys across eastern and southern Africa show frequent use of Lippia javanica, Tagetes minuta, and Aloe species, with rising concerns over sustainable harvesting thresholds [91]. Cultivation studies confirm that Lippia javanica, Tagetes minuta, and Azadirachta indica can be integrated into small-scale farming systems to supply renewable biomass and minimise wild extraction [30,92]. Initiatives such as ADAPPT offer farmer-led models for propagation, training, and seed distribution [93]. Botanical pesticides also present environmental advantages through faster degradation and narrower toxicity spectra, although recent reviews recommend careful non-target risk assessment [94,95]. Finally, ethnoveterinary knowledge and plant resources remain vulnerable to overuse and cultural erosion, highlighting the need for documentation, community-based conservation, and integration of traditional practices with formal veterinary and extension platforms [92,96].

9. The Regulatory Pathway for Botanicals in South Africa

Navigating Act 36 of 1947 is the definitive pathway to market for a plant-based stock remedy, a process that requires the compilation of a rigorous, comprehensive dossier. This dossier must include a standardised formulation with clearly defined botanical sources, extraction methods, and chemical profiles, supported by marker compounds to ensure batch-to-batch consistency. It further requires robust efficacy data derived from standardised bioassays, such as the Adult Immersion Test and Larval Packet Test, supported by at least one controlled field trial demonstrating significant tick reduction. Comprehensive safety studies are essential and should encompass Target Animal Safety assessments at intended and elevated doses, including evaluations of dermal and ocular tolerance, as well as operator exposure risk assessments. For food animals, residue depletion studies are needed to establish scientifically justified withdrawal periods for meat and milk. Finally, the dossier is completed with product stability data and transparent, compliant labelling. Bridging the rich ethnoveterinary knowledge base to compliant products, therefore, depends on a dual focus: the methodological harmonisation of bioassays to yield comparable data and the generation of regulatory-grade safety and residue studies. Only through this comprehensive and evidence-based approach can promising plant taxa be successfully advanced into marketable tools for integrated tick management.

10. Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Priorities

Several interdisciplinary research gaps hinder the translation of ethnoveterinary knowledge into practical tick control tools. First and foremost, there is a need for standardised bioassays and formulations. The heterogeneity in extraction solvents, bioassay protocols, and tick life stages tested makes meta-analysis and product benchmarking difficult [97]. Research must prioritise the development and adoption of standardised methods, potentially including emerging tools such as the Resistance Intensity Test (RIT), for evaluating both synthetic and botanical acaricides [46]. A critical bottleneck is the scarcity of field trials. While laboratory results are promising, robust, replicated on-farm studies assessing tick load reduction, animal productivity metrics, and cost-effectiveness are rare [98]. Future work must validate laboratory findings in real-world settings by exploring integration strategies, such as weekly botanical repellents between conventional dipping cycles.
Furthermore, comprehensive safety and residue profiles for the most promising plants are lacking. Priority should be given to generating regulatory-grade Target Animal Safety (TAS) data and residue depletion curves for key species, such as L. javanica, T. minuta, and C. anisata, to facilitate registration. Finally, innovative research should explore multi-herb synergies and novel delivery systems. Combining plant extracts may enhance efficacy and delay the development of resistance [99]. Investigating nanoformulations and slow-release systems could also improve product performance, stability, and user compliance [100]. Addressing these gaps through collaborative, multidisciplinary research is essential for developing effective, safe, and commercially viable botanical acaricides for South African farmers.

11. Conclusions and Recommendations

The significant burden imposed by ticks and tick-borne diseases on South African livestock, particularly in resource-limited communal farming systems, underscores the urgent need for sustainable, accessible control strategies. This review confirms that ethnoveterinary knowledge offers a rich and culturally relevant repository of potential solutions, utilising a diverse array of botanicals, including Lippia javanica, Azadirachta indica, and Tagetes minuta, for this purpose. A growing body of scientific evidence now validates these traditional practices, with in vitro bioassays consistently demonstrating the potent acaricidal and repellent properties of these plants and identifying key bioactive constituents, including terpenoids, phenolics, and alkaloids, that underpin their efficacy.
Despite this promising foundation, a substantial translational gap remains between traditional use and the availability of registered, standardised products. The scarcity of robust field trials, coupled with a lack of comprehensive safety evaluations and residue data, represents the primary bottleneck. The South African regulatory framework, governed by the Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act (Act 36 of 1947), while rigorous, provides a clear, science-based pathway for registering plant-based stock remedies, mandating demonstrable quality, safety, and efficacy.
To bridge this gap and harness the full potential of ethnoveterinary plants within integrated tick management programmes, a concerted, multidisciplinary effort is required. Future research must prioritise field validation through well-controlled trials that assess not only tick reduction but also animal productivity and economic viability. Concurrently, there is a critical need to standardise bioassay methodologies and develop stable, farmer-friendly formulations from well-characterised plant materials. Generating regulatory-grade data on target animal safety and residue depletion for the most promising candidate species is a crucial step in compiling compliant registration dossiers. Furthermore, exploring synergistic effects in multi-plant formulations could enhance efficacy and delay the development of resistance.
For policymakers and regulatory bodies, developing specific guidelines for these “low-risk” botanicals within the existing Act 36 framework would provide much-needed clarity and streamline the development process. Fostering collaborative platforms that unite traditional knowledge holders, researchers, and commercial partners is crucial for driving innovation. For extension services and farmers, promoting best practices for the safe and effective preparation of traditional remedies remains a vital interim measure, alongside efforts to document and preserve this invaluable knowledge. In conclusion, by championing a translational pathway that respects indigenous expertise while adhering to scientific and regulatory rigour, South Africa can pioneer the development of effective, farmer-ready botanical acaricides. Such innovations promise to mitigate acaricide resistance, reduce economic burdens on smallholder farmers, and advance the integrated, sustainable management of livestock health in line with One Health principles.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants14243720/s1, Supplementary Table S1: Updated quantitative efficacy metrics (LC50, LC90, LD50) for plant extracts and essential oils tested against tick species (1985–2025). Supplementary Table S2: GC–MS chromatographic analysis of plant extracts and essential oils used in ethnoveterinary tick control, including key bioactive compounds and references. References [54,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing, original draft preparation, writing, review and editing, T.G.M.; methodology, validation, resources, supervision, funding acquisition, T.C.N.; resources, supervision, funding acquisition, N.S.-P.; writing, review, and editing, D.P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are provided within the body of the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

%Percentage
↑Increase
↓Decrease or reduction
♀Female (engorged adult tick stage)
A. sculptumAmblyomma sculptum
A. variegatumAmblyomma variegatum
Act 36 of 1947Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act (South Africa)
ADMETAbsorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion and Toxicity
AIArtificial Intelligence
AITAdult Immersion Test
Anaplasma spp.Anaplasma species
Babesia spp.Babesia species
Bm86Boophilus microplus antigen used in anti-tick vaccines
CFUColony Forming Unit
D. nitensDermacentor nitens
DNADeoxyribonucleic Acid
EOEssential Oil
EOsEssential Oils (plural)
EVMEthnoveterinary Medicine
GC–MSGas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry
GIGastrointestinal
GISGeographic Information Systems
H. anatolicumHyalomma anatolicum
H. longicornisHaemaphysalis longicornis
H. rufipesHyalomma rufipes
H. scupenseHyalomma scupense
LC50Lethal Concentration 50
LD50Lethal Dose 50
LITLarval Immersion Test
LPTLarval Packet Test
mg/mLMilligram per millilitre
NMRNuclear Magnetic Resonance
PPEPersonal Protective Equipment
R. (B.)Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) subgenus designation
R. (B.) decoloratusRhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus
R. appendiculatusRhipicephalus appendiculatus
R. microplusRhipicephalus microplus
R. sanguineusRhipicephalus sanguineus
R. turanicusRhipicephalus turanicus
RD50Repellent Dose 50
RITResistance Intensity Test
spp.Species plural (multiple species within a genus)
TASTarget Animal Safety
TBDTick-Borne Disease
Theileria spp.Theileria species
USDUnited States Dollar
w/vWeight per Volume
μLMicrolitre

References

  1. Makwarela, T.G.; Nyangiwe, N.; Masebe, T.; Mbizeni, S.; Nesengani, L.T.; Djikeng, A.; Mapholi, N.O. Tick Diversity and Distribution of Hard (Ixodidae) Cattle Ticks in South Africa. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 14, 42–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Giraldo-Ríos, C.; Betancur, O. Economic and Health Impact of the Ticks in Production Animals. In Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens; Abubakar, M., Kanchana Perera, P., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Makwarela, T.G.; Seoraj-Pillai, N.; Nangammbi, T.C. Tick Control Strategies: Critical Insights into Chemical, Biological, Physical, and Integrated Approaches for Effective Hard Tick Management. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Monakale, K.S.; Ledwaba, M.B.; Smith, R.M.; Gaorekwe, R.M.; Malatji, D.P. A systematic review of ticks and tick-borne pathogens of cattle reared by smallholder farmers in South Africa. Curr. Res. Parasitol. Vector-Borne Dis. 2024, 6, 100205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dzemo, W.; Thekisoe, O.; Vudriko, P. Risk factors contributing to tick-acaricide control failure in communal areas of the Oliver Tambo district eastern cape province, South Africa. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2024, 93, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Heylen, D.J.A.; Labuschagne, M.; Meiring, C.; van der Mescht, L.; Klafke, G.; Costa Junior, L.M.; Strydom, T.; Wentzel, J.; Shacklock, C.; Halos, L.; et al. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of acaricide resistance in Rhipicephalus microplus field isolates from South Africa and Brazil. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2024, 24, 100519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Githaka, N.W.; Kanduma, E.G.; Wieland, B.; Darghouth, M.A.; Bishop, R.P. Acaricide resistance in livestock ticks infesting cattle in Africa: Current status and potential mitigation strategies. Curr. Res. Parasitol. Vector Borne Dis. 2022, 2, 100090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dzemo, W.D.; Vudriko, P.; Ramatla, T.; Thekisoe, O. Acaricide Resistance Development in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) Populations Against Amitraz and Deltamethrin on Communal Farms of the King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality, South Africa. Pathogens 2023, 12, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Masika, P.J.; Sonandi, A.; Van Averbeke, W. Tick control by small-scale cattle farmers in the Central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 1997, 68, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Mollong, E.; Lébri, M.; Marie-Magdeleine, C.; Lagou, S.M.; Naves, M.; Bambou, J.-C. Sustainable management of tick infestations in cattle: A tropical perspective. Parasites Vectors 2025, 18, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Murapa, R.E. Spatio-Temporal Variation in the Dipping Frequency of Communal Cattle at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface in the Mnisi Study Area Mpumalanga South Africa. Master’s Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nyangiwe, N.; Matthee, S. Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and tick-borne diseases affecting communal cattle and the control methods practiced by farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Vet. World 2025, 18, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rosario-Cruz, R.; Domínguez-García, D.I.; Almazán, C. Inclusion of Anti-Tick Vaccines into an Integrated Tick Management Program in Mexico: A Public Policy Challenge. Vaccines 2024, 12, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zhou, W.; Li, M.; Achal, V. A comprehensive review on environmental and human health impacts of chemical pesticide usage. Emerg. Contam. 2025, 11, 100410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sanhokwe, M.; Mupangwa, J.; Masika, P.J.; Maphosa, V.; Muchenje, V. Medicinal plants used to control internal and external parasites in goats. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2016, 2016, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ndou, R.V.; Materechera, S.A.; Mwanza, M.; Otang-Mbeng, W. Perceptions of ethnoveterinary medicine among animal healthcare practitioners in South Africa. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2024, 2024, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ndou, R.V.; Materechera, S.A.; Mwanza, M.; Otang-Mbeng, W.; Ijane, M.F. Indigenous knowledge and use of medicinal plants for ethnoveterinary within the North West Province, South Africa. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1273562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zantsi, S.; Ngcobo, N.; Nqandeka, M.H. Animal health care and ethnoveterinary animal remedies among smallholder farming households in South Africa. Dev. Pract. 2025, 35, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tayo, G.M.; Poné, J.W.; Komtangi, M.C.; Yondo, J.; Ngangout, A.M.; Mbida, M. Anthelminthic activity of Moringa oleifera leaf extracts evaluated in vitro on four developmental stages of Haemonchus contortus from goats. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 1702–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chitura, T.; Shiba, M.R.; Afful, D.B.; Shai, K.; Muvhali, P.T.; Tsotetsi-Khambule, A.M. In vitro anthelmintic activity of seven medicinal plants used to control livestock internal parasites in chief Albert Luthuli municipality, South Africa. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2019, 31, 3. [Google Scholar]
  21. Phaahla, C.S.; Shai, J.L.; Maduna, V.; Moropeng, R.C.; Magano, S.R. Documentation of ethnoveterinary knowledge and alternative practices for cattle tick control in Sekhukhune District, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1488960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Van Puyvelde, L.; Geysen, D.; Ayobangira, F.X.; Hakizamungu, E.; Nshimiyimana, A.; Kalisa, A. Screening of medicinal plants of Rwanda for acaricidal activity. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1985, 13, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wanzala, W. Potential of Traditional Knowledge of Plants in the Management of Arthropods in Livestock Industry with Focus on (Acari) Ticks. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 2017, 8647919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dipeolu, O.; Mongi, A.; Punyua, D.; Latif, A.; Amoo, A.; Odhiambo, T.R. Current concepts and approach to control of livestock ticks in Africa. Discov. Innov. 1992, 4, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ndungu, M.; Lwande, W.; Hassanali, A.; Moreka, L.; Chhabra, S.C. Cleome monophylla essential oil and its constituents as tick (Rhipicephalus appendiculatus) and maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) repellents. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1995, 76, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lwande, W.; Ndakala, A.J.; Hassanali, A.; Moreka, L.; Nyandat, E.; Ndungu, M.; Amiani, H.; Gitu, P.M.; Malonza, M.; Punyua, D. Gynandropsis gynandra essential oil and its constituents as tick (Rhipicephalus appendiculatus) repellents. Phytochemistry 1999, 50, 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chungsamarnyart, N.; Jiwajinda, S.; Jansawan, W.; Kaewsuwan, U.; Buranasilpin, P. Effective Plant Crude-Extracts on the Tick (Boophilus miscroplus) I. Larvicidal Action. Agric. Nat. Resour. 1988, 22, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mthi, S.; Rust, J.; Yawa, M.; Tyasi, L. Ethnoveterinary medicinal plants application for the treatment of tick-borne diseases in cattle around the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. J. Med. Plants Econ. Dev. 2020, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shava, E.; Thakhathi, R. Challenges in the Implementation of Community Development Projects in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. J. Hum. Ecol. 2016, 56, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Madzimure, J.; Nyahangare, E.T.; Hamudikuwanda, H.; Hove, T.; Stevenson, P.C.; Belmain, S.R.; Mvumi, B.M. Acaricidal efficacy against cattle ticks and acute oral toxicity of Lippia javanica (Burm F.) Spreng. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2011, 43, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sandasi, M.; Malope, F.; Kamatou, G.; Combrinck, S. Chapter 16—Lippia javanica. In The South African Herbal Pharmacopoeia; Viljoen, A., Sandasi, M., Fouche, G., Combrinck, S., Vermaak, I., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 345–363. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ghosh, S.; Tiwari, S.; Srivastava, S.; Sharma, A.K.; Kumar, D.; Ray, D.; Rawat, A. Acaricidal properties of Ricinus communis leaf extracts against organophosphate and pyrethroids resistant Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 192, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Eyabana, M.; Nuto, Y.; Akpéni, B.; Kasseney, B.D.; Gomina, M.; Panawé, T. Effect of the Essential Oil of Clausena anisata (Rutaceae) and Palm Kernel Vegetable Oil on Engorged Females of Three Species of Ixodidae Cattle Ticks. Eur. Sci. J. 2018, 14, 517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Islam, S.; Talukder, S.; Ferdous, J.; Hasan, M.; Sarker, Y.; Sachi, S.; Alim, M.; Sikder, D.M. In-Vitro Efficacy of Verenda (Ricinus communis) Leaves Extract Against Ticks in Cattle. Bangladesh J. Vet. Med. 2018, 16, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Lawal, I.O.; Ajayi, H.; Dairo, P.O.; Ogunbamowo, P.O. Comparative studies of essential oils of Clausena anisata (Hook) using solvent-free microwave extraction and hydrodistillation methods. J. Med. Plants Econ. Dev. 2019, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Salau, V.F.; Erukainure, O.L.; Olofinsan, K.A.; Schoeman, R.L.S.; Matsabisa, M.G. Lippia javanica (Burm. F.) Herbal Tea: Modulation of Hepatoprotective Effects in Chang Liver Cells via Mitigation of Redox Imbalance and Modulation of Perturbed Metabolic Activities. Front. Pharmacol. 2023, 14, 1221769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chakale, M.V.; Asong, J.A.; Struwig, M.; Mwanza, M.; Aremu, A.O. Ethnoveterinary Practices and Ethnobotanical Knowledge on Plants Used Against Cattle Diseases Among Two Communities in South Africa. Plants 2022, 11, 1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, K.; Zhang, W.; Gao, H.; Pan, X.; Wu, X.; Xu, J.; Zheng, Y.; Yu, M.; Dong, F. New Insights into Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessment of Nanopesticides and Conventional Pesticides for Agricultural Workers. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 2024, 5, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moyo, B.; Masika, P.J. Tick control methods used by resource-limited farmers and the effect of ticks on cattle in rural areas of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2009, 41, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nchu, F.; Magano, S.R.; Eloff, J.N. In vitro anti-tick properties of the essential oil of Tagetes minuta L. (Asteraceae) on Hyalomma rufipes (Acari: Ixodidae). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2012, 79, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mkwanazi, M.V.; Ndlela, S.Z.; Chimonyo, M. Indigenous knowledge to mitigate the challenges of ticks in goats: A systematic review. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2021, 13, 100190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mkwanazi, M.V.; Chimonyo, M.; Ndlela, S.Z. Sustainable Utilization of Indigenous Plants to Mitigate Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases Amongst Selected Rural Households of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. In Goat Science-Environment, Health and Economy; Kukovics, S., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tlotlo, R.; Olivier, D. Review on Literature of the Plant Elephantorrhiza Elephantine on its Healing Properties and Recent Acquired Knowledge of its Medicinal Activities (2000–2020). Pharmacogn. J. 2022, 14, 715–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dautel, H. Test systems for tick repellents. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2004, 293 (Suppl. S37), 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sousa, A.B.B.; Bianchi, D.; Santos, E.M.; Dias, S.R.; Peleja, P.L.; Santos, R.R.; Mercado Caruso, N.; Minervino, A.H.H. First Description of Acaricide Resistance in Populations of Rhipicephalus microplus Tick from the Lower Amazon, Brazil. Animals 2022, 12, 2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jongejan, F.; Berger, L.; Homminga, L.; Hulsebos, I.; Petersen, A.; Ferreira, P.T.; Reck, J.; Klafke, G. Resistance intensity test (RIT): A novel bioassay for quantifying the level of acaricide resistance in Rhipicephalus microplus ticks. Parasites Vectors 2024, 17, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Choudhury, M.K. Toxicity of Neem Seed Oil Against the Larvae of Boophilus decoloratus, a One-Host Tick in Cattle. Indian J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 71, 562–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Selles, S.M.A.; Kouidri, M.; González, M.G.; González, J.; Sánchez, M.; González-Coloma, A.; Sanchis, J.; Elhachimi, L.; Olmeda, A.S.; Tercero, J.M.; et al. Acaricidal and Repellent Effects of Essential Oils Against Ticks: A Review. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fouche, G.; Sakong, B.; Adenubi, O.; Dzoyem, J.; Naidoo, V.; Leboho, T.; Wellington, K.; Eloff, J. Investigation of the acaricidal activity of the acetone and ethanol extracts of 12 South African plants against the adult ticks of Rhipicephalus turanicus. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2017, 84, e1–e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pratibha, J.; Pranita, M.; Alka, S.; Devika, D. Evaluation of in vitro acaricidal efficacy of Ricinus communis against tick infestation in cattle. Int. J. Adv. Biochem. Res. 2025, 9, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maroyi, A. Lippia javanica (Burm.f.) Spreng.: Traditional and Commercial Uses and Phytochemical and Pharmacological Significance in the African and Indian Subcontinent. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 2017, 6746071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Schwalbach, L.; Greyling, J.; David, M. The efficacy of a 10% aqueous Neem (Azadirachta indica) seed extract for tick control in Small East African and Toggenburg female goat kids in Tanzania. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 33, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wanzala, W.; Hassanali, A.; Mukabana, W.R.; Takken, W. Repellent Activities of Essential Oils of Some Plants Used Traditionally to Control the Brown Ear Tick, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. J. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 2014, 434506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pazinato, R.; Volpato, A.; Baldissera, M.D.; Santos, R.C.; Baretta, D.; Vaucher, R.A.; Giongo, J.L.; Boligon, A.A.; Stefani, L.M.; Da Silva, A.S. In vitro effect of seven essential oils on the reproduction of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. J. Adv. Res. 2016, 7, 1029–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Agwunobi, D.; Pei, T.; Wang, K.; Yu, Z.; Liu, J. Effects of the essential oil from Cymbopogon citratus on mortality and morphology of the tick Haemaphysalis longicornis (Acari: Ixodidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2020, 81, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Eyabana, M.; Nuto, Y.; Rabiétou, B.; Kasseney, B.D.; Gomina, M. Acaricidal effect of essential oil of Clausena anisata (Rutaceae) on larvae of three tick species: Amblyomma variegatum, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. J. Entomol. Nematol. 2018, 10, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  57. Spickett, A.; van der Merwe, D.; Matthee, O. The effect of orally administered Aloe marlothii leaves on Boophilus decoloratus tick burdens on cattle. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2007, 41, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Fourie, J.; Fourie, L.; Horak, I. Efficacy of orally administered powdered aloe juice (Aloe ferox) against ticks on cattle and ticks and fleas on dogs. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2005, 76, 193–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gay, M.; Lempereur, L.; Francis, F.; Megido, R.C. Control of Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer 1778) and Other Mites with Volatile Organic Compounds, a Review. Parasitology 2020, 147, 731–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adhikari, K.; Bhandari, S.; Niraula, D.; Shrestha, J. Use of Neem (Azadirachta Indica A. Juss) as a Biopesticide in Agriculture: A Review. J. Agric. Appl. Biol. 2020, 1, 100–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Al-Fifi, Z. Effect of Different Neem Products on the Mortality and Fitness of Adult Schistocerca gregaria (Forskal). J. King Abdulaziz Univ.-Sci. 2009, 21, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sharma, V.; Walia, S.; Dhingra, S.; Kumar, J.; Parmar, B.S. Azadirachtin-A and Tetrahydroazadirachtin-A Concentrates: Preparation, LC-MS Characterization and Insect Antifeedant/Igr Activity Against Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). Pest Manag. Sci. 2006, 62, 965–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aftab, M.; Razzaq, M.; Moqaddas, A.; Ishtiaq, H. Guardians of Citrus Groves: An in-Depth Analysis of Neem Leaf Extract’s Effects on Asian Citrus Psyllid Attractiveness, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama, and Its Potential for Integrated Pest Management. J. Health Rehabil. Res. 2024, 4, 1802–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Khalil, M.S. Abamectin and Azadirachtin as Eco-Friendly Promising Biorational Tools in Integrated Nematodes Management Programs. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 1000174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hanash, A.A. Estimation Insecticidal Action of Abamectin and Neem Oil Against Tuta absoluta Insect (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Wasit J. Pure Sci. 2023, 2, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shafie, H.E.; Almahy, A. Effect of Storage Conditions and Duration on the Potency of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) Seeds as a Home-Made Insecticide. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2012, 3, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Webb, E.; David, M. The efficacy of neem seed extract (Azadirachta indica) to control tick infestation in Tswana, Simmentaler and Brahman cattle. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. Afr. Soc. Anim. Sci. 2002, 32, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Deng, Y.X.; Cao, M.; Shi, D.X.; Yin, Z.Q.; Jia, R.Y.; Xu, J.; Wang, C.; Lv, C.; Liang, X.X.; He, C.L.; et al. Toxicological evaluation of neem (Azadirachta indica) oil: Acute and subacute toxicity. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2013, 35, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gonzaga, B.C.F.; Barrozo, M.M.; Coutinho, A.L.; Pereira e Sousa, L.J.M.; Vale, F.L.; Marreto, L.; Marchesini, P.; de Castro Rodrigues, D.; de Souza, E.D.F.; Sabatini, G.A.; et al. Essential oils and isolated compounds for tick control: Advances beyond the laboratory. Parasites Vectors 2023, 16, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Braga, T.M.; Rocha, L.; Chung, T.Y.; Oliveira, R.F.; Pinho, C.; Oliveira, A.I.; Morgado, J.; Cruz, A. Azadirachta indica A. Juss. In Vivo Toxicity—An Updated Review. Molecules 2021, 26, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Pavela, R.; Maggi, F.; Lupidi, G.; Mbuntcha, H.; Woguem, V.; Womeni, H.M.; Barboni, L.; Tapondjou, L.A.; Benelli, G. Clausena anisata and Dysphania ambrosioides essential oils: From ethno-medicine to modern uses as effective insecticides. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 10493–10503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Godeluck, B.; Duplantier, J.M.; Bâ, K.; Trape, J.F. A Longitudinal Survey of Borrelia crocidurae Prevalence in Rodents and Insectivores in Senegal. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1994, 50, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Horak, I.G.; Welman, S.; Hallam, S.L.; Lutermann, H.; Mzilikazi, N. Ticks of Four-Toed Elephant Shrews and Southern African Hedgehogs. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2011, 78, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Mgode, G.; Mhamphi, G.G.; Katakweba, A.; Thomas, M.C. Leptospira Infections in Freshwater Fish in Morogoro Tanzania: A Hidden Public Health Threat. Tanzan. J. Health Res. 2014, 16, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Adelabu, O.A.; Iweriebor, B.C.; Okoh, A.I.; Chikwelu, L. Genomic Profiling for Piroplasms in Feeding Ixodid Ticks in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Pathogens 2020, 9, 1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Arora, A.; Bansal, S.; Ward, P.S. Do Farmers Value Rice Varieties Tolerant to Droughts and Floods? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Odisha, India. Water Resour. Econ. 2019, 25, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fuente, J.d.l.; Isabel, G.F.d.M.; Gortázar, C. Challenges at the Host-Arthropod-Coronavirus Interface and COVID-19: A One Health Approach. Front. Biosci.-Landmark 2021, 26, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. van den Heever, M.J.; Lombard, W.A.; Bahta, Y.T.; Maré, F.A. Cost-Effectiveness of Acaricide Application Methods Against Heartwater Disease in South Africa. Agriculture 2023, 13, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rodriguez-Vivas, R.I.; Jonsson, N.N.; Bhushan, C. Strategies for the control of Rhipicephalus microplus ticks in a world of conventional acaricide and macrocyclic lactone resistance. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gebremedhin, S. Assessment of the Protective Effect of Male Circumcision from HIV Infection and Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Evidence from 18 Demographic and Health Surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa. East Afr. J. Public Health 2011, 7, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Mawela, K.G. The Toxicity and Repellent Properties of Plant Extracts Used in Ethnoveterinary Medicine to Control Ticks. Master’s Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  82. Konnai, S.; Imamura, S.; Nakajima, C.; Witola, W.H.; Yamada, S.; Simuunza, M.; Nambota, A.; Yasuda, J.; Ohashi, K.; Onuma, M. Acquisition and Transmission of Theileria Parva by Vector Tick, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. Acta Trop. 2006, 99, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Muhanguzi, D.; Picozzi, K.; Hatendorf, J.; Thrusfield, M.; Welburn, S.C.; Kabasa, J.D.; Waiswa, C. Prevalence and Spatial Distribution of Theileria parva in Cattle Under Crop-Livestock Farming Systems in Tororo District, Eastern Uganda. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Nyahangare, E.T.; Mvumi, B.M.; Magona, C.; Eloff, J.N. An Aqueous Extract of Maerua edulis (Gilg & Ben) DeWolf Tuber Is as Effective as a Commercial Synthetic Acaricide in Controlling Ticks on Cattle In Vivo. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 110, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Timkin, P.; Gafforov, Y.; Wang, M.; Qiao, K.; Ajiev, A.; Pamirsky, I.; Golokhvast, K. Elucidating fungicide complex formation mechanisms with Phytophthora infestans target proteins: In silico insights. BioRisk 2025, 23, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fuente, J.d.l.; Almazán, C.; Canales, M.; José Manuel Pérez de la, L.; Kocan, K.M.; Willadsen, P. A Ten-Year Review of Commercial Vaccine Performance for Control of Tick Infestations on Cattle. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2007, 8, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lucas André Dedavid e, S.; Ali, A.; Termignoni, C.; Vaz, I.d.S. Vaccination Against Rhipicephalusmicroplus: An Alternative to Chemical Control? Ciênc. Rural 2024, 54, e20230161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Aslan, K.S.Ü. Aromatherapy Application in Nursing Care: Systematic Analysis of Studies Conducted over the Past Decade in Turkey. J. Tradit. Med. Complement. Ther. 2018, 1, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Erdal, S.; Özdoğan, M.H.; Yıldırım, D.; Küni, A.; SelÇUk, S.; Güneri, A.; Arslan, E. Effects of Orange Oil Aromatherapy on Pain and Anxiety During Invasive Interventions in Patients with Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants. J. Infus. Nurs. 2024, 47, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Voștinaru, O.; Hegheş, S.C.; Filip, L. Safety Profile of Essential Oils; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nyahangare, E.T.; Mvumi, B.M.; Mutibvu, T. Ethnoveterinary plants and practices used for ecto-parasite control in semi-arid smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Van der Merwe, D.; Swan, G.; Botha, C. Use of ethnoveterinary medicinal plants in cattle by Setswana-speaking people in the Madikwe area of the North West Province of South Africa. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2001, 72, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Anjarwalla, P.; Belmain, S.; Sola, P.; Jamnadass, R.; Stevenson, P. Handbook on Pesticidal Plants; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): Nairobi, Kenya, 2016; Volume 64. [Google Scholar]
  94. Daraban, G.M.; Hlihor, R.M.; Suteu, D. Pesticides vs. Biopesticides: From Pest Management to Toxicity and Impacts on the Environment and Human Health. Toxics 2023, 11, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Karaoğlan, B.; Alkassab, A.T.; Borges, S.; Fisher, T.; Link-Vrabie, C.; McVey, E.; Ortego, L.; Nuti, M. Microbial pesticides: Challenges and future perspectives for non-target organism testing. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2024, 36, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Selogatwe, K.M.; Asong, J.A.; Struwig, M.; Ndou, R.V.; Aremu, A.O. A Review of Ethnoveterinary Knowledge, Biological Activities and Secondary Metabolites of Medicinal Woody Plants Used for Managing Animal Health in South Africa. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Obaid, M.K.; Islam, N.; Alouffi, A.; Khan, A.Z.; da Silva Vaz, I.; Tanaka, T.; Ali, A. Acaricides Resistance in Ticks: Selection, Diagnosis, Mechanisms, and Mitigation. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 941831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gomes, M.D.F.; Matos, R.d.S.; Barreto, L.P.; Mascarin, G.M.; Rizzo, P.V.; Freitas, F.M.C.; Márcia Cristina de Azevedo, P.; Caio Márcio de Oliveira, M.; Fernandes, É.K.K. From the Laboratory to the Field: Efficacy of Entomopathogenic Nematodes to Control the Cattle Tick. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 79, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Quadros, D.G.d.; Johnson, T.L.; Whitney, T.R.; Oliver, J.D.; Chávez, A.S.O. Plant-Derived Natural Compounds for Tick Pest Control in Livestock and Wildlife: Pragmatism or Utopia? Insects 2020, 11, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ibrahium, S.M.; Aboelhadid, S.M.; Wahba, A.A.; Farghali, A.A.; Miller, R.J.; Abdel-Baki, A.A.S.; Al-Quraishy, S. Preparation of Geranium Oil Formulations Effective for Control of Phenotypic Resistant Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus annulatus. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 11693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Alimi, D.; Hajri, A.; Jallouli, S.; Sebaï, H. Efficacy of Synergistic Activity of Seed Oils from Carthamus tinctorius (Safflower) and Nasturtium officinale (Watercress) on Lethality of the Cattle Tick Hyalomma scupense (Acari: Ixodidae). Open Vet. J. 2022, 12, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Coşkun, Ş.; Girişgin, O.; Kürkçüoğlu, M.; Malyer, H.; Girişgin, A.O.; Kırımer, N.; Başer, K.H.C. Acaricidal Efficacy of Origanum onites L. Essential Oil Against Rhipicephalus turanicus (Ixodidae). Parasitol. Res. 2008, 103, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Godara, R.; Rafiqi, S.I.; Sharma, R.; Katoch, R.; Yadav, A.; Pilania, P.; Verma, P.K. Acaricidal Activity of Alstonia scholaris and Sida cordifolia Leaf Extracts Against Hyalomma anatolicum Ticks. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 90, 1461–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Coulibaly, A.; Hema, D.M.; Kiendrébéogo, M.; Nébié, R.C.H. Comparative Study of Two Monoterpenes Effect on Rhipicephalus microplus Tick. Eur. Sci. J. 2023, 19, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Castro, K.N.d.C.; Canuto, K.M.; Brito, E.S.d.; Costa, L.M.; Andrade, I.M.d.; Magalhães, J.A.; Barros, D.M.A. In Vitro Efficacy of Essential Oils with Different Concentrations of 1,8-Cineole Against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2018, 27, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Koç, S.; Gültekin, Z.N.; Kahraman, Ş.; Cengiz, A.; Polat, B.; Calışkan, C.; Tufan-Çetin, Ö.; Çetin, H. Larvicidal and Repellent Effects of Essential Oils on the Brown Dog Tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus Sensu Lato) with Description of New Larval Repellent Activity Test Method. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2024, 92, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Nwanade, C.F.; Wang, M.; Wang, T.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.; Yu, Z.; Liu, J. Acaricidal Activity of Cinnamomum cassia (Chinese Cinnamon) Against the Tick Haemaphysalis longicornis Is Linked to Its Content of (E)-Cinnamaldehyde. Parasites Vectors 2021, 14, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Lebouvier, N.; Hüe, T.; Hnawia, E.; Lesaffre, L.; Menut, C.; Nour, M. Acaricidal Activity of Essential Oils from Five Endemic Conifers of New Caledonia on the Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 1379–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Taha, M.; Ali, A.A.B. Evaluation of Phytochemicals and Essential Oils of Cupressus Semprevirens in Controlling Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus annulatus (Acari: Ixodidae). BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Araújo, L.X.; Novato, T.P.L.; Zeringóta, V.; Matos, R.d.S.; Senra, T.O.S.; Maturano, R.; Prata, M.C.A.; Daemon, E.; Monteiro, C.M.d.O. Acaricidal Activity of Thymol Against Larvae of Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) Under Semi-Natural Conditions. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 3271–3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Figueiredo, A.; Nascimento, L.M.; Lopes, L.G.; Giglioti, R.; Albuquerque, R.D.D.G.d.; Santos, M.G.; Falcão, D.Q.; Nogueira, J.; Rocha, L.; Chagas, A.C.d.S. First Report of the Effect of Ocotea Elegans Essential Oil on Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Vet. Parasitol. 2018, 252, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Castro, K.N.C.; Lima, D.F.; Vasconcelos, L.C.; Leite, J.R.; Santos, R.C.d.; Paz-Neto, A.A.; Costa, L.M. Acaricide Activity In Vitro of Acmella oleracea Against Rhipicephalus microplus. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 3697–3701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Novato, T.P.L.; Araújo, L.X.; Monteiro, C.M.d.O.; Maturano, R.; Senra, T.d.O.S.; Matos, R.d.S.; Gomes, G.A.; Carvalho, M.G.d.; Daemon, E. Evaluation of the Combined Effect of Thymol, Carvacrol and (E)-Cinnamaldehyde on Amblyomma sculptum (Acari: Ixodidae) and Dermacentor nitens (Acari: Ixodidae) Larvae. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 212, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Abdelali, S.K.; Souttou, K.; Kacimi-Elhassani, M.; Aissaoui, L. Assessment of the Acaricidal Efficacy of Rosmarinus officinalis Essential Oil Against Dogs’ Ticks, Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae), and Its Chemical Composition. Rev. Ciênc. Agrovet. 2024, 23, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kobenan, K.C.; Tia, V.E.; Ochou, G.E.C.; Kouakou, M.; Bini, K.K.N.; Dagnogo, M.; Dick, A.E.; Ochou, O.G. Comparaison Du Potentiel Insecticide Des Huiles Essentielles De Ocimum gratissimum L. Et De Ocimum canum Sims Sur Pectinophora gossypiella Saunders (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), Insecte Ravageur Du Cotonnier en Côte D’Ivoire. Eur. Sci. J. 2018, 14, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lima, A.S.; Milhomem, M.N.; Monteiro, O.S.; Arruda, A.C.P.; Castro, J.A.M.; Fernandes, Y.M.L.; Maia, J.G.S.; Costa, L.M. Seasonal Analysis and Acaricidal Activity of the Thymol-Type Essential Oil of Ocimum Gratissimum and Its Major Constituents Against Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol. Res. 2017, 117, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Prakash, V. GC-MS (Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectroscopy) Analysis of Methanol Leaf Extract of Rhododendron arboreum Sm. of District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. J. Drug Deliv. Ther. 2023, 13, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Mohanty, S.K.; Nayak, Y.; Sahoo, L. Comprehensive Phytochemical Analysis of Momordica charantia Ethanol Extract: Insights from Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy and In-Silico ADMET Studies. Asian J. Agric. 2024, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Venkateswarlu, G.; Singh, S.; Bodla, R. Phytochemical Evaluation, GC-MS Analysis of Ethanol Extract of Endemic Plant of Boswellia ovalifoliolata Leaves. J. Nat. Remedies 2025, 25, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Shagal, M.H.; Baba, A.; Abdulkadir, Y.; Aisha, K.U. Isolation and Characterization of Methanolic Stem Bark Extracts of Polyalthia longifolia and Root Extract of Annona senegalensis Plants. J. Health Wellness Saf. Res. 2025, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Okwute, S.K.; Adeniyi, B.A. Phytochemical and Volatile Components Evaluation of Antimicrobial Root Extracts of Dichrostachys cinerea (Sickle Bush) (Fabaceae) (L) Wight & Arn. Dutse J. Pure Appl. Sci. 2024, 10, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Axiotis, E.; Petrakis, E.A.; Halabalaki, M.; Mitakou, S. Phytochemical Profile and Biological Activity of Endemic Sideritis sipylea Boiss. In North Aegean Greek Islands. Molecules 2020, 25, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hu, C.; Liang, Y.Z.; Guo, F.-Q.; Li, X.; Wang, W. Determination of Essential Oil Composition from Osmanthus fragrans Tea by GC-MS Combined with a Chemometric Resolution Method. Molecules 2010, 15, 3683–3693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Reme, S.; Keisar, L.D.; Chitra, R.; Ramalakshmi, A.; Kumaresan, D.; Manikanda, B.N. Phytochemical Profiling of Bioactive Compounds in Telosma Cordata (Tonkin Jasmine) Flower Extract Using GC-MS Technique. Plant Sci. Today 2025, 12, 11372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Baba, R.T.; Oluboyo, B.O.; Egbebi, A.H.; Aladodo, M.; Dangana, Z.A.; Muhammad, Z.K.; Sowole, H.B.; Sani, H.U.; Yakubu, F. Investigation of the Phytochemical Constituents of Euphorbia hirta and Senna alata Using Qualitative, Quantitative and Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) Analysis. Caliphate J. Sci. Technol. 2025, 7, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Bekhradian, A.; Karami, B.; Rajabi, H.R. Green Synthesis of Silver/Silver Oxide Nanostructures Using the Malva sylvestris Extract Prior to Simultaneous Distillation Extraction: Synthesis, Phytochemical and Biological Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 60341–60358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Eltawaty, S.; Suliman, M.B.; El-Hddad, S.S.A.; Emgwer, H.; Shaieb, F. Phytochemical Screening, GC–MS Analysis, and Antibacterial Activity of Dittrichia graveolens (L.) Greuter. Trop. J. Nat. Prod. Res. 2025, 9, 1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Oualdi, I.; Merzouki, M.; Ouahhoud, S.; Chakrone, K.; Benabbes, R.; Yousfi, E.B.; Challioui, A.; Hammouti, B.; Touzani, R. Essential Oils of Artemisia herba-alba, Mentha pulegium, and Cedrus atlantica: Chemical Compositions, In Vitro, In Vivo, In Silico Antifungals Activities, and Genotoxicity. Asean J. Sci. Eng. 2025, 5, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Bhandari, D.P.; Chaudhary, P.; Upadhyaya, S.R.; Ranjitkar, R.; Satyal, R.; Adhikari, A.; Satyal, P.; Parajuli, N. Chemical Variability, Antioxidant and Larvicidal Efficacy of EOs from Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck Peel, Leaf, and Flower. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Mohammadi, S.; Movefeghi, A.; Delazar, A.; Hamedeyazdan, S.; Bahadori, M.B.; Nazemiyeh, H. Isolation and Characterization of Bioactive Compounds from Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium L.) Seeds. Pharm. Sci. 2025, 31, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Nair, R.R.; Gangaprasad, A. Gc-MS Analysis of Methanolic Stem Extract of Gynochthodes Ridsdalei, Razafim and B. Bremer, an Endemic, Endangered Medicinal Plant of Southern Western Ghats. Int. J. Curr. Pharm. Res. 2017, 9, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  132. Wang, F.; Liu, S.; Luo, M.; Qin, Y.; Pan, L.; Liu, Y.; Yan, L. Analysis of Essential Oil of Nardostachys chinensis Batal by GC-MS Combined with Chemometric Techniques. Acta Chromatogr. 2015, 27, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Susanti, Y.; A’yun, A.Q. Phytochemical, Antioxidant, and Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oil Hyptis Capitata Using Solvent-Free Microwave Extraction. J. Appl. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2024, 8, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Jaenson, T.G.T.; Pålsson, K.; Borg-Karlson, A.K. Evaluation of Extracts and Oils of Tick-repellent Plants from Sweden. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2005, 19, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Kyasa, S.K. Investigating Terpenoid Constituents in Commercial Essential Oils to Learn and Practice GC–MS and Literature Research Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 1966–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Fiadorwu, J.; Subedi, K.; Todd, D.A.; Basti, M.M. Multipronged Approach to Profiling Metabolites in Beta vulgaris L. Dried Pulp Extracts Using Chromatography, NMR, and Other Spectroscopy Methods. Foods 2023, 12, 3510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Ashour, M.D.A.M.S.H.; Hafez, S.; Habeeb, S.M.; Allam, N.A.T. Proteomics and Metabolic Patterns of Hyalomma Dromedarii Ticks Treated with Citrus sinensis Var Balady Peels’ Oil Extract. Egypt. J. Vet. Sci. 2023, 54, 1073–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ugwu, C.N.; Ezinwanne, O.B.; Victor, O.N.; Attama, A.A. Evaluation of Antibacterial Properties and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (Gc-Ms) Profile of Essential Oil from Lemon Peel. Afr. J. Pharm. Res. Dev. 2025, 17, 96–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Satapathy, S.S.; Bhuyan, R.; Sahoo, A.; Sahoo, C.; Bhuyan, S.K. Phytochemical Profiling of All Parts of Spilanthes paniculata (Toothache Plant) for Therapeutic Implications. Res. J. Biotechnol. 2024, 19, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Masoum, S.; Seifi, H.; Ebrahimabadi, E.H. Characterization of Volatile Components in Calligonum comosum by Coupling Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry and Mean Field Approach Independent Component Analysis. Anal. Methods 2013, 5, 4639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Valibeik, A.; Tavakoli, N.; Amiri, H.; Heydari, R.; Hasanvand, L.; Rostami, R.; Dastjerd, N.T.; Ahmadvand, H. Composition of the Essential Oils, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of the Methanolic Extract of Prangos uloptera. Immunopathol. Persa 2022, e29278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Tran, T.H.; Quyen, N.T.C.; Trúc, T.T.; Quân, P.M. Evaluate the Chemical Composition of Kaffir Lime (Citrus hystrix) Essential Oil Using the Classical Method. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 991, 012014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Sapkota, S.; Kadariya, I.P.; Pandey, M.; Risal, P.; Basnet, B.B. Antioxidant Activity of Essential Oil of Artemisia vulgaris Collected from Sub-Tropical Region of Bagmati Province, Nepal. J. Agric. For. Univ. 2022, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Al-Hayali, O.Z.; Marjani, M.F.A.L.; Maleki, A. Evaluation of Rosmarinus Officinalis Leaves Essential Oils Activity Against Vancomycin Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA) Isolated from Baghdad Hospital Patients. Iraqi J. Sci. 2023, 64, 2153–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hüe, T.; Cauquil, L.; Fokou, J.B.H.; Dongmo, P.M.J.; Bakarnga-Via, I.; Menut, C. Acaricidal Activity of Five Essential Oils of Ocimum Species on Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus Larvae. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 114, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Kishore, V.; Loach, N.; Srivastava, C.N.; Mohan, L. Toxicity Evaluation and Chemical Composition of Capsicum Frutescens for Natural Control of Asian Blue Tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). J. Basic Appl. Zool. 2021, 82, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Maggi, F.; Papa, F.; Giuliani, C.; Bini, L.; Venditti, A.; Bianco, A.; Nicoletti, M.; Iannarelli, R.; Caprioli, G.; Sagratini, G.; et al. Essential Oil Chemotypification and Secretory Structures of the Neglected Vegetable Smyrnium olusatrum L. (Apiaceae) Growing in Central Italy. Flavour Fragr. J. 2014, 30, 139–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 14 03720 g001
Figure 1. Map of South Africa showing provinces summarising ethnoveterinary plant use against ticks. Data extracted from [20,21,28,41,42,43]. Map created in R version 4.5.1 (2025-06-13 ucrt).
Figure 1. Map of South Africa showing provinces summarising ethnoveterinary plant use against ticks. Data extracted from [20,21,28,41,42,43]. Map created in R version 4.5.1 (2025-06-13 ucrt).
Plants 14 03720 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Makwarela, T.G.; Seoraj-Pillai, N.; Malatji, D.P.; Nangammbi, T.C. Plants Used for Tick and Tick-Borne Disease Control in South Africa: Ethnoveterinary Knowledge, Bioactivity Evidence, and Translation Pathways. Plants 2025, 14, 3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14243720

AMA Style

Makwarela TG, Seoraj-Pillai N, Malatji DP, Nangammbi TC. Plants Used for Tick and Tick-Borne Disease Control in South Africa: Ethnoveterinary Knowledge, Bioactivity Evidence, and Translation Pathways. Plants. 2025; 14(24):3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14243720

Chicago/Turabian Style

Makwarela, Tsireledzo Goodwill, Nimmi Seoraj-Pillai, Dikeledi Petunia Malatji, and Tshifhiwa Constance Nangammbi. 2025. "Plants Used for Tick and Tick-Borne Disease Control in South Africa: Ethnoveterinary Knowledge, Bioactivity Evidence, and Translation Pathways" Plants 14, no. 24: 3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14243720

APA Style

Makwarela, T. G., Seoraj-Pillai, N., Malatji, D. P., & Nangammbi, T. C. (2025). Plants Used for Tick and Tick-Borne Disease Control in South Africa: Ethnoveterinary Knowledge, Bioactivity Evidence, and Translation Pathways. Plants, 14(24), 3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14243720

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop