Open Access

The generalist tick Ixodes ricinus and the specialist tick Ixodes trianguliceps on shrews and rodents in a northern forest ecosystem– a role of body size even among small hosts

  • Atle Mysterud1Email author,
  • Ragna Byrkjeland1,
  • Lars Qviller1, 2 and
  • Hildegunn Viljugrein1, 2
Parasites & Vectors20158:639

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1258-7

Received: 13 October 2015

Accepted: 11 December 2015

Published: 16 December 2015

Abstract

Background

Understanding aggregation of ticks on hosts and attachment of life stages to different host species, are central components for understanding tick-borne disease epidemiology. The generalist tick, Ixodes ricinus, is a well-known vector of Lyme borrelioses, while the specialist tick, Ixodes trianguliceps, feeding only on small mammals, may play a role in maintaining infection levels in hosts. In a northern forest in Norway, we aimed to quantify the role of different small mammal species in feeding ticks, to determine the extent to which body mass, even among small mammals, plays a role for tick load, and to determine the seasonal pattern of the two tick species.

Methods

Small mammals were captured along transects in two nearby areas along the west coast of Norway. All life stages of ticks were counted. Tick load, including both prevalence and intensity, was analysed with negative binomial models.

Results

A total of 359 rodents and shrews were captured with a total of 1106 I. ricinus (60.0 %) and 737 I. trianguliceps (40.4 %), consisting of 98.2 % larvae and 1.8 % nymphs of I. ricinus and 91.2 % larvae, 8.7 % nymphs and 0.1 % adult females of I. trianguliceps. Due to high abundance, Sorex araneus fed most of the larvae of both tick species (I. ricinus 61.9 %, I. trianguliceps 64.9 %) with Apodemus sylvaticus (I. ricinus 20.4 %, I. trianguliceps 10.0 %) and Myodes glareolus (I. ricinus 10.9 %, I. trianguliceps 9.5 %) as the next most important hosts. Individual A. sylvaticus and M. glareolus had higher infestation intensity than S. araneus, while Sorex minutus had markedly lower infestation intensity. The load of I. ricinus larvae and nymphs was related to body mass mainly up to ~10 g, while the load of I. trianguliceps was less dependent of body mass. The load of I. trianguliceps was higher in spring than in fall, while the seasonal pattern was reversed for I. ricinus with higher loads in fall.

Conclusions

Body mass was important for explaining load of I. ricinus mainly up to a body mass of ~10 g across a range of smaller mammalian hosts. Consistent with earlier work elsewhere in Europe, we found the highest tick infestation intensity on the wood mouse A. sylvaticus. However, this rodent species fed only 20.4 % of all I. ricinus larvae, while the much more abundant S. araneus fed 61.9 %. Our study emphasizes an important quantitative role of the common shrew S. araneus as a main host to I. ricinus larvae and to both I. trianguliceps larvae and nymphs. The partly seasonal distinct attachment pattern of I. ricinus and I. trianguliceps is evidence for niche separation.

Keywords

Ixodes ricinus Ixodes trianguliceps Ticks Tick-borne diseases Rodents Voles Shrews Tick load Host body size Host selection Norway

Background

The generalist sheep tick Ixodes ricinus in Europe is the principal vector of several pathogens causing disease in humans and livestock. This includes the pathogenic genospecies from the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex causing Lyme borrelioses [1] and the virus causing tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) [2] in humans, Anaplasma phagocytophilum causing tick-borne fever in livestock [3] and the protozoan Babesia divergens causing babesiosis in cattle. Most parasites [4], including Ixodes ticks [57], are typically aggregated on certain species and individuals, and an important element in understanding the epidemiology of the tick-borne diseases is identifying which species and individuals are feeding most of the ticks. The I. ricinus life cycle has three active life stages requiring a blood meal to moult into the next stage or to reproduce. The larvae and nymphs feed on a wide range of different sized hosts [8], while the adult female tick requires a blood meal from a large host to complete the life cycle. Small mammals are considered an especially important group due to their reservoir competence for pathogens (mainly Borrelia afzelii) causing Lyme borrelioses [9].

Ticks, vertebrates and associated pathogens form complex ecological networks [10]. Specialized tick species can also play a role in the epidemiology by maintaining high infection levels in the reservoir hosts, even if they do not act as vectors of disease to humans or livestock. One such example is the nest-dwelling rodent specialist, Ixodes trianguliceps that do not act as direct vectors for pathogens causing human or livestock diseases (as they reside in burrows) [11]. It has been shown that I. trianguliceps may play a role in maintaining high infection levels in the reservoir hosts with regards to Babesia microti [12] and Anaplasma phagocytophilum [13, 14]. Another tick species (Ixodes neotomae) specialized on rodents in California showed a similar transmission role with regard to Borrelia [15]. I. trianguliceps is associated with distinct A. phagocytophilum genotypes in central Europe [16] and Siberia [17]. All life stages of I. trianguliceps are expected to be on small mammal hosts, but in addition, body mass differences among these small mammals were also shown to have an effect on host selection of different stages of I. trianguliceps [18].

There are many studies of tick loads on small mammals from endemic areas of the USA [5, 19] and in central [2022] and eastern [2325] Europe, considered endemic areas for Lyme borrelioses. I. ricinus and Lyme borrelioses are currently spreading towards higher latitudes of Scandinavia [2628]. Main hosts in Norway are known mainly from qualitative evidence [29]. There is one quantitative study, however it is limited to Apodemus spp. and ticks [30]. The objective of this study was twofold; (1) to quantify the load of I. ricinus and I. trianguliceps ticks on species of shrews and rodents in a northern area of Lyme borrelioses, and hence to understand the quantitative role of different species in feeding ticks, and (2) to determine the extent to which body mass could explain variation in tick load among species and individuals.

Methods

Study area

The study area is located in the western part of southern Norway, in Førde and Askvoll municipalities in Sogn & Fjordane county, close to the small town Førde (61°27’2˝ N, 5°51’15˝ E). The area lies mainly within the boreonemoral vegetation zone [31]. The bedrock is dominated by gneiss, granite, and other plutonic rock types, with limited coastal areas consisting of distinctive remnants of less modified sediments, such as conglomerate and sandstone. The region consists of mixed forests with deciduous woodland in the south facing slopes, with birch (Betula spp.), alder (Alnus incana), grass and herbs as the dominating vegetation. Other parts are dominated by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) together with planted Norway spruce (Picea abies). The study area is known for its mild winters and cold summers, with an average yearly precipitation of 2270 mm and an average temperature of 6.0 °C between 1961 and 1990 (http://met.no; Norwegian meteorological station no. 57170).

Capture of small mammals

Rodents and shrews were captured along two transects in Angedalen (slightly inland; mean distance from fjord 9.1 km) and west of Førde city (termed Førde hereafter; coast; mean distance from fjord 2.8 km), Førde and Askvoll municipalities, Sogn & Fjordane county, Norway, during spring (2nd-5th of June) and fall (1st-4th of September) 2014. The trapping stations were spaced out with a minimum of 500 m in between to avoid depletion of the populations. Four traps were spaced out in the corners of a 15 m × 15 m square at each station according to the small quadrate method [32]. The traps were placed in natural structures or close to holes in the ground maximum 2 m from the square corners to enhance local capture probability. All traps were live traps of type “Ugglan” baited with carrots (for water) and oat (for food) on the first day of fieldwork. Food and water reserves would allow the rodents to survive for at least 24 h. The traps were baited the first day, and operated for three consecutive days. All traps were controlled every day. Small mammals captured were sacrificed (cervical dislocation) and transferred to an individual zip-lock plastic bag, marked with station number, trap number and date. All bags were stored in a freezer for later observation.

All small mammals were weighed and identified morphologically to species level. A representative subsample of animals was identified with assistance from a rodent specialist (Torbjørn H. Ergon). All ticks on the hosts were removed from the captured rodents and shrews, and identified morphologically to species level, and characterized by the life stages larva, nymph, adult female or adult male [33]. The identification of a representative subsample of ticks was checked by a tick specialist (Reidar Mehl [29]).

We define the term “prevalence” as the % of captured individuals with ticks, “intensity” as the number of ticks on a given host, and the “mean intensity” as the mean number of ticks among hosts with ticks [34]. We use the term parasite or tick “load” as a more general term for the whole pattern of parasitism including both prevalence and intensity.

Questing tick collecting

Questing I. ricinus were sampled at every trapping station, once during spring and fall 2013—2014 using the cloth-lure technique [35]. A cotton towel (50*100 cm) was attached to a rod and dragged over the vegetation [36]. Each of the transects started from the middle of one side in the 15 m*15 m square, was 10 m long and 2 m wide, and was directed away from the square centre. A total area of 20 m2 was flagged and ticks were removed from the towel, counted and identified to life stages after every 2 m of flagging.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.1.2 [37]. We used negative binomial models run in library glmmADMB [38]. We ran 4 separate models with load of I. ricinus and I. trianguliceps larvae and nymphs as response variables. Covariates were species, log-transformed body mass, location (Angedalen/Førde), and season (spring/fall), while trapping station was included as a random term. Neomys fodiens was excluded from analysis due to low sample size (Table 1). We used Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for model selection using a combination of backward and forward selection procedures. Adding zero inflation did not improve model fit [39]. For questing tick data, we used abundance of nymphs as response, i.e. the number of ticks collected for each 20 m2 transect, and year (2013/1014), season (spring/fall) and location (Angedalen/Førde) as fixed effects with trapping station as a random term.
Table 1

An overview of samples sizes of small mammals captured during spring and fall 2014 in two study sites (Ang = Angedalen; For = Førde west) in Sogn & Fjordane county, Norway. The table shows abundances and percentages of Ixodes ricinus and Ixodes trianguliceps life stages on given small mammal species, and the prevalence (Prev) and mean intensity (Int) calculated across tick species and life stages

 

Spring

Fall

 

I. ricinus larvae

I. ricinus nymphs

I. trianguliceps larvae

I. trianguliceps nymphs

I. trianguliceps adults

Prev

Int

 

Ang

For

Ang

For

Sum

Sum

%

Sum

%

Sum

%

Sum

%

Sum

%

  

Apodemus flavicollis

 

3

 

8

11

12

1.1

  

19

2.8

3

4.7

1

100

81.8

3.9

Apodemus sylvaticus

2

3

12

10

27

222

20.4

3

15

67

10.0

3

4.7

  

80.0

13.4

Microtus agrestis

1

1

11

7

20

47

4.3

12

60

43

6.4

2

3.1

  

82.6

5.8

Myodes glareolus

5

1

17

7

30

118

10.9

2

10

64

9.5

8

12.5

  

88.9

6.9

Neomys fodiens

  

2

1

3

6

0.6

  

8

1.2

1

1.6

  

66.7

7.5

Sorex araneus

2

4

123

103

232

672

61.9

3

15

436

64.9

47

73.4

  

71.0

7.0

Sorex minutus

2

 

6

23

31

9

0.8

  

35

5.2

    

34.2

4.9

Unknown

  

2

3

5

            

Sum

12

12

173

162

359

1086

 

20

 

672

 

64

 

1

   

Results

We trapped 359 individuals of 7 species of small mammals (Table 1). They had in total 1106 I. ricinus (60.0 %) and 737 I. trianguliceps (40.4 %), consisting of 1086 larvae (98.2 %) and 20 nymphs (1.8 %) of I. ricinus and 672 larvae (91.2 %), 64 nymphs (8.7 %) and 1 adult female (0.1 %) of I. trianguliceps. The four species of rodents had high prevalence of ticks (>80 %), while Sorex araneus (71.0 %, host n = 232), Neomys fodiens (66.7 %, host n = 3) and particularly Sorex minutus (34.2 %, host n = 31) had lower prevalence. S. araneus fed most of the larvae of both tick species (I. ricinus 61.9 %, I. trianguliceps 64.9 %) with Apodemus sylvaticus (I. ricinus 20.4 % and I. trianguliceps 10.0 %) and Myodes glareolus (I. ricinus10.9 % and I. trianguliceps 9.5 %) as the next most important hosts (Table 2). In a simple model for load of I. ricinus larvae with species as categorical (controlling also for season), A. sylvaticus and M. glareolus had markedly higher load than S. araneus, while S. minutus had markedly lower load (Table 2).
Table 2

Parameter estimates of tick load in small mammals from negative binomial models. Baseline for species is Sorex araneus. Models for I. ricinus larvae were run excluding and (the best model) including body mass

 

Estimate

Std. error

z

p

I. ricinus larvae

    

Excluding body mass

    

Intercept

0.4775

0.2314

2.06

0.039

Apodemus flavicollis

0.4029

0.6962

0.58

0.563

Apodemus sylvaticus

1.0826

0.3675

2.95

0.003

Microtus agrestis

−0.0725

0.3853

−0.19

0.851

Myodes glareolus

0.7528

0.3387

2.22

0.026

Sorex minutus

−2.8948

0.4927

−5.88

<0.001

Season (spring vs. fall)

−0.705

0.3618

−1.95

0.051

Including body mass

    

Intercept

−2.6313

0.9461

−2.78

0.005

log (body mass)

1.5014

0.4446

3.38

0.001

Apodemus flavicollis

−1.4505

0.8787

−1.65

0.099

Apodemus sylvaticus

−0.0437

0.4891

−0.09

0.929

Microtus agrestis

−2.0303

0.6912

−2.94

0.003

Myodes glareolus

−0.7295

0.5382

−1.36

0.175

Sorex minutus

−1.4236

0.6455

−2.21

0.027

Season (spring vs. fall)

−0.9547

0.3593

−2.66

0.008

I. ricinus nymphs

    

Intercept

−9.311

1.758

−5.30

<0.001

log (body mass)

2.36

0.616

3.83

<0.001

I. trianguliceps larvae

    

Intercept

0.239

0.16

1.50

0.130

Season (spring vs. fall)

1.404

0.343

4.09

<0.001

I. trianguliceps nymphs

    

Intercept

−7.227

1.959

−3.69

0.000

log (body mass)

1.705

0.876

1.95

0.052

Apodemus flavicollis

−3.841

1.385

−2.77

0.006

Apodemus sylvaticus

−1.140

1.090

−1.05

0.296

Microtus agrestis

−1.778

1.477

−1.20

0.229

Myodes glareolus

−0.647

1.207

−0.54

0.592

Sorex minutus

−20.20

26230.0

0.00

0.999

Location (Forde vs. Angedalen)

1.494

0.636

2.35

0.019

We found co-feeding I. ricinus larvae and nymphs on 8 individuals, all but one captured during fall. Only 3 of these individuals, A. sylvaticus (104 larvae, 2 nymphs), M. agrestis (20 larvae, 1 nymph) and S. araneus (21 larvae, 1 nymph), had more than 10 larvae together with at least one nymph (the conditions required for TBE persistence), while the remaining 5 individuals had 1–4 larvae. For I. trianguliceps, 21 individuals had co-feeding larvae and nymphs (4 in spring, 17 in fall), with only 2 individuals having more than 10 larvae together with at least 1 nymph (M. glareolus: 14 larvae, 2 nymphs; S. araneus: 15 larvae, 3 nymphs).

Model selection results are presented in Appendix 1: Table 3. The best model for load of I. ricinus larvae included (log) body mass, species and season, but did not include location. Load of I. ricinus larvae increased with (log) body mass, but note that the effect of body mass was mainly up to ~10 g, after that the relationship was virtually flat (Fig. 1a). There was some residual variation due to species (Fig. 1a), as M. agrestis and S. minutus had lower tick loads than expected for their body mass. Tick load was lower in spring than fall. The best model for load of I. ricinus nymph included only a positive effect of (log) body mass (Fig. 1b). Again, the effect was mainly due to an absence of I. ricinus nymphs on small mammals with a body mass below ~10 g. The best model for load of I. trianguliceps larvae included only season, with higher loads in spring compared to fall. If adding body mass, estimated effects were positive, but much weaker than for I. ricinus and not significant. The best model for load of I. trianguliceps nymphs included species, (log) body mass and location. I. trianguliceps nymph load tended to increase with body mass (p = 0.052), was lower in Apodemus flavicollis than expected from their size, and had higher loads in Førde compared to Angedalen. The effect of body mass was depending on inclusion of S. minutus (n = 31) without any nymphs.
Fig. 1

The number of Ixodes ricinus (a) larvae and (b) nymphs as a function of body mass in 6 species of small mammals captured along the west coast of Norway. Estimated effects are for season fall. Shaded areas are standard error

We confirmed the reversed seasonal pattern fitting a model including larvae of both I. ricinus and I. trianguliceps in the same model. There was a highly significant interaction between season and tick species (z = 3.73, p < 0.001, Fig. 2). There was a higher load of I. ricinus in fall compared to spring, while the reverse was found for I. trianguliceps.
Fig. 2

The number of larvae of Ixodes ricinus and Ixodes trianguliceps on small mammals in spring and fall along the west coast of Norway

The flagging data revealed far more I. ricinus nymphs in Førde (118 nymphs) than in Angedalen (4 nymphs, z = 4.14, p < 0.001), while there was no effect of season (z = 0.11, p = 0.91) or year (z = −1.53, p = 0.13).

Discussion

Understanding the aggregation of different life stages of Ixodid ticks on different hosts has implications for tick population regulation and epidemiology. The level of co-feeding ticks is particularly important for TBE transmission, but also to some extent for other pathogens [7, 40, 41]. Further, both specialist and generalist Ixodid ticks can play a role in the epidemiology of tick-borne diseases [10]. Here, we document a different pattern of host selection by two tick species, one specialist and one generalist, on small mammals. We identify the most important small mammalian hosts for I. ricinus and I. trianguliceps ticks in a northern area with Lyme borrelioses, and we show that body mass is important for explaining tick load within species crossing a ~10 g body mass threshold, but less so across a range of mammalian hosts above this threshold mass. We also found differing seasonality in larval attachment of the two tick species.

The 4 species of rodents and 3 species of shrews found in this study are all known hosts of the generalist tick, I. ricinus, and the specialist tick, I. trianguliceps [18]. Several of them are known pathogen reservoirs in Europe [9], while so far only A. flavicollis and A. sylvaticus have been documented to carry Borrelia afzelii in Norway, likely due to few studies [30, 42]. For I. ricinus, A. sylvaticus was among the main tick hosts in Sweden [43], Poland [24, 25], Romania [23], Italy [7, 20], France [21] and Germany [22], and the species is highlighted as a link between woodland and field habitats [21, 24]. Also in our study, we found almost twice as high tick infestation intensity on A. sylvaticus (13.4 tick/host) compared to the other small mammal hosts, consistent with earlier work [44]. However, only 20.4 % of all I. ricinus larvae ticks were found on A. sylvaticus, while the common shrew S. araneus hosted 61.9 %. Shrews often dominate in abundance among small mammals, and S. araneus had the highest tick load estimate among host species when we controlled for body mass (Table 2). Their small size did, however, result in lower tick intensity per individual (7.5 tick/host) compared to A. sylvaticus, as earlier studies have shown for both I. ricinus [44] and I. trianguliceps [45]. Shrews have been highlighted as markedly underestimated as hosts to I. ricinus ticks in endemic areas of the UK [46] and for I. scapularis in USA [47], but have long been recognized as important hosts to I. trianguliceps [18]. Our study thus confirms an important role of shrews as a main host to I. ricinus larvae (Table 1). How such patterns may vary across years, due to differences in vegetation and humidity (affecting questing height), or phase of the population cycle of small mammals, remains to be established.

The simultaneous attachment of life stages on the same host is necessary for co-feeding transmission to occur [41]. Only 8 individuals (2.2 %) had co-feeding I. ricinus larva and nymph. Among these, one A. sylvaticus, one M. agrestis and one S. araneus, had more than 10 larvae and at least 1 nymph as required for TBE transmission. There are currently no reported case of TBE in this region of Norway, while TBEv is now found in the southernmost part of Norway [48]. Co-occurrence of life stages of I. trianguliceps was more common as expected for a rodent specialist. However, we found only a single adult I. trianguliceps (Table 1). The latter may at first sight seem surprising given that adults spend some 10 days feeding. Most likely this is due to low sample size, in particular for larger sized rodents.

Several mechanisms may give differences in tick load within and across species, and several of these mechanisms can in turn be linked to body size differences. The greater the size of the animal, the broader the front presented to the vegetation and so the greater the area it will sweep [8]. An animal covering the most ground will pick up the most questing ticks [18, 49], and in addition, home range size is well known to scale to body size when compared across large body size ranges [50, 51]. This may also depend on trophic niche, and shrews being insectivores may have a different relationship between home range size and body size [52]. Home range sizes of the rodents captured in our study are larger in A. flavicollis (0.75 ha [53]) and A. sylvaticus (1.3 ha [53]) than M. glareolus (~0.5 ha [54]), and even more so compared to M. agrestis (0.07 ha [53]), S. araneus (0.1 ha [55]), and S. minutus (0.05 ha [56], 0.2 ha [55]). S. minutus tend to have larger home ranges than S. araneus [18, 55], but nevertheless much fewer ticks. The pattern of tick load is hence not fully consistent with home range size across species. In chipmunks (Tamias striatus), tick load was linked to increased space use [57]. However, the relationship between home range size and body size is often less apparent at the intraspecific level (shown for large mammals [58, 59]), and space use may not explain the effect of body mass. Age and sex differences in size may be part of the intraspecific body size effect, and sex and age differences in immune defenses may play a role for tick load [60]. However, in A. sylvaticus and M. glareolus, the effect of sex on I. ricinus load was linked to body size rather than to sex [61, 62]. In addition to the direct effect of large body size on exposure, there might also be more active selection by ticks for different hosts. Larval deer ticks I. scapularis in the lab showed preference for white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) over chipmunks [63]. Studies of attachment site selection of I. ricinus on larger hosts also suggest an active role of tick movements when on the host [6466], and hence direct selection for larger individuals may be important.

Different species of ticks may be in competition on hosts [10]. In our study site, the two tick species were almost equally abundant (40 % I. trianguliceps, 60 % I. ricinus), but we found a different seasonality in their attachment pattern. We found higher load of I. ricinus in fall compared to spring, while the reverse was found for I. trianguliceps (Fig. 2). Such a seasonal disparate pattern of attachment between the two tick species, possibly to avoid competition by one or both of the species, may also lead to even more infection levels of pathogens over the season. Further studies are needed from areas with a less even composition of tick species (allopatry) in order to see if the seasonal patterns differ, and if such differences in temporal attachment pattern of different tick species might affect seasonal levels of infection in hosts.

Ethics statement

Permissions to capture of rodents and shrews were given by the Norwegian Environment Agency (reference 2013/11201) and hence conform to the Norwegian laws and regulations.

Conclusions

The common shrew S. araneus plays an important quantitative role as a main host to I. ricinus larvae and to both I. trianguliceps larvae and nymphs. Larger hosts had higher load of I. ricinus, but increased tick load with increased body mass appeared mainly up to a body mass of ~10 g. The attachment pattern of I. ricinus and I. trianguliceps was partly seasonally asynchronous. These results have implications for understanding tick-borne disease epidemiology in northern forests.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was funded as part of the ZEWS and TickDeer project over the Research Council of Norway. We are grateful to Anders Herland and Vetle Stigum for field and lab assistance, to Rolf Anker Ims for discussing the study design, to Reidar Mehl and Torbjørn H. Ergon for help in species identification of ticks and small mammals, respectively, to Lene Martinsen for editing the language, and to two anonymous referees for very helpful comments to a previous draft.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biosciences, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), University of Oslo
(2)
Norwegian Veterinary Institute

References

  1. Piesman J, Gern L. Lyme borreliosis in Europe and North America. In: Bowman AS, Nuttall PA, editors. Ticks: biology, disease and control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. Randolph SE. Tick-borne encephalitis incidence in central and eastern Europe: consequences of political transition. Microbes and Infection. 2008;10:209–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Woldehiwet Z. Anaplasma phagocytophilum in ruminants in Europe. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2006;1078:446–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Shaw DJ, Dobson AP. Patterns of macroparasite abundance and aggregation in wildlife populations: a quantitative review. Parasitology. 1995;111:S111–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner JL, Ostfeld RS. Multiple causes of variable tick burdens on small-mammal hosts. Ecology. 2008;89:2259–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Le Coeur, C, Robert, A, Pisanu, B, Chapuis, JL. Seasonal variation in infestations by ixodids on Siberian chipmunks: effects of host age, sex, and birth season. Parasitol Res. 2015;114:2069–78.Google Scholar
  7. Perkins SE, Cattadori IM, Tagliapietra V, Rizzoli AP, Hudson PJ. Empirical evidence for key hosts in persistence of a tick-borne disease. Int J Para. 2003;33:909–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Milne A. The ecology of the sheep tick, Ixodes ricinus L. Host relationships of the tick: Part 1. Review of previous work in Britain. Parasitology. 1949;39:167–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gern L, Estrada-Peña A, Frandsen F, Gray JS, Jaenson TGT, Jongejan F, et al. European reservoir hosts of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie. 1998;287:196–204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Estrada-Peña A, de la Fuente J, Ostfeld RS, Cabezas-Cruz A. Interactions between ticks and transmitted pathogens evolved to minimise competition through nested and coherent networks. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:10361.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Piesman J, Gern L. Lyme borreliosis in Europe and North America. Parasitology. 2004;129:S191–220.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Turner AK, Beldomenico PM, Bown K, Burthe SJ, Jackson JA, Lambin X, et al. Host-parasite biology in the real world: the field voles of Kielder. Parasitology. 2014;141:997–1017.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jahfari S, Coipan EC, Fonville M, van Leeuwen AD, Hengeveld P, Heylen D, et al. Circulation of four Anaplasma phagocytophilum ecotypes in Europe. Parasite Vector. 2014;7:365.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Bown KJ, Lambin X, Telford GR, Ogden NH, Telfer S, Woldehiwet Z, et al. Relative importance of Ixodes ricinus and Ixodes trianguliceps as vectors for Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Babesia microti in field vole (Microtus agrestis) populations. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:7118–25.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown RN, Lane RS. Lyme disease in California: a novel enzootic transmission cycle of Borrelia burgdorferi. Science. 1992;256:1439–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Blanarová L, Stanko M, Carpi G, Miklisová D, Víchová B, Mosanský L, et al. Distinct Anaplasma phagocytophilum genotypes associated with Ixodes trianguliceps ticks and rodents in Central Europe. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:928–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rar VA, Epikhina TI, Yakimenko VV, Malkova MG, Tancev AK, Bondarenko EI, et al. Genetic variability of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in ticks and voles from Ixodes persulcatus/Ixodes trianguliceps sympatric areas from Western Siberia, Russia. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:854–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Randolph SE. Patterns of distribution of the tick Ixodes trianguliceps Birula on its hosts. J Anim Ecol. 1975;44:451–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Hersh MH, LaDeauS L, Prevaitali MA, Ostfeld RS. When is a parasite not a parasite? Effects of larval tick burdens on white-footed mouse survival. Ecology. 2014;95:1360–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosà R, Pugliese A, Ghosh M, Perkins SE, Rizzoli A. Temporal variation of Ixodes ricinus intensity on the rodent host Apodemus flavicollis in relation to local climate and host dynamics. Vector-Borne Zoonot. 2007;7:285–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Boyard C, Vourc’h G, Barnouin J. The relationships between Ixodes ricinus and small mammal species at the woodland-pasture interface. Exp Appl Acarol. 2008;44:61–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Matuschka F-R, Fischer P, Musgrave K, Richter D, Spielman A. Hosts on which nymphal Ixodes ricinus most abundantly feed. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1991;44:100–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mihalca A, Dumitrache M, Sandor A, Magdas C, Oltean M, Gyorke A, et al. Tick parasites of rodents in Romania: host preferences, community structure and geographical distribution. Parasites & Vectors. 2012;5:266.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Paziewska A, Zwolinska L, Harris PD, Bajer A, Sinski E. Utilisation of rodent species by larvae and nymphs of hard ticks (Ixodidae) in two habitats in NE Poland. Exp Appl Acarol. 2010;58:112–25.Google Scholar
  25. Sinski E, Pawelczyk A, Bajer A, Behnke JM. Abundance of wild rodents, ticks and environmental risk of Lyme borreliosis: a longitudinal study in an area of Mazury lakes district of Poland. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine. 2006;13:295–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jore S, Viljugrein H, Hofshagen M, Brun-Hansen H, Kristoffersen A, Nygard K, et al. Multi-source analysis reveals latitudinal and altitudinal shifts in range of Ixodes ricinus at its northern distribution limit. Parasite Vector. 2011;4:84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaenson TGT, Lindgren E. The range of Ixodes ricinus and the risk of contracting Lyme borreliosis will increase northwards when the vegetation period becomes longer. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2011;2:44–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Medlock JM, Hansford KM, Bormane A, Derdakova M, Estrada-Peña A, George J-C, et al. Driving forces for changes in geographical distribution of Ixodes ricinus ticks in Europe. Parasite Vector. 2013;6:1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Mehl R. The distribution and host relations of Norwegian ticks (Acari, Ixodides). Fauna Norvegica Series B. 1983;30:46–51.Google Scholar
  30. Radzijevskaja J, Paulauskas A, Rosef O, Petkevicius S, Mazeika V, Rekasius T. The propensity of voles and mice to transmit Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infections to feeding ticks. Vet Parasitol. 2013;197:318–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Abrahamsen J, Jacobsen NK, Kalliola R, Dahl E, Wilborg L, Påhlsson L. Naturgeografisk region-inndeling av Norden. Nordiske Utredn Ser B. 1977;34:1–135.Google Scholar
  32. Myllymäki A, Paasikallio A, Pankakoski E, Kanervo V. Removal experiments on small quadrats as a means of rapid assessment of the abundance of small mammals. Annales Zoologici Fennici. 1971;8:177–85.Google Scholar
  33. Hillyard PD. Ticks of north-west Europe. Synopses of the British fauna. London: Natural History Museum; 1996.Google Scholar
  34. Margolis L, Esch GW, Holmes JC, Kuris AM, Schad GA. The use of ecological terms in parasitology. Journal of Parasitology. 1982;68:131–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Vassallo M, Pichon B, Cabaret J, Figureau C, Pérez-Eid C. Methodology for sampling questing nymphs of Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae), the principal vector of Lyme disease in Europe. J Med Entomol. 2000;37:335–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Qviller L, Risnes-Olsen N, Bærum KM, Meisingset EL, Loe LE, Ytrehus B, et al. Landscape level variation in tick abundance relative to seasonal migration pattern of red deer. Plos One. 2013;8:e71299.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team R. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012.Google Scholar
  38. Skaug H, Fournier D, Nielsen A. glmmADMB: Generalized linear mixed models using AD Model Builder. 2006. http://glmmadmb.r-forge.r-project.org Accessed 14 December 2015.Google Scholar
  39. Martin TG, Wintle BA, Rhodes JR, Kuhnert PM, Field SA, Low-Choy SJ, et al. Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:1235–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Randolph SE, Green RM, Peacey MF, Rodgers DJ. Seasonal synchrony: the key to tick-borne encephalities foci identified by satellite data. Parasitology. 2000;121:15–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Randolph SE, Gern L, Nuttall PA. Co-feeding ticks: epidemiological significance for tick-borne pathogen transmission. Parasitology Today. 1996;12:472–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Paulauskas A, Ambrasiene D, Radzijevskaja J, Rosef O, Turcinaviciene J. Diversity in prevalence and genospecies of Borrelia burgdorferi senso lato in Ixodes ricinus ticks and rodents in Lithuania and Norway. Int J Med Microbiol. 2008;298(S1):180–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Tälleklint L, Jaenson TGT. Infestation of mammals by Ixodes ricinus ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in south-central Sweden. Exp Appl Acarol. 1997;21:755–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nilsson A, Lundqvist L. Host selection and movements of Ixodes ricinus (Acari) larvae on small mammals. Oikos. 1978;31:313–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Nilsson A. Host relations and population changes of Ixodes trianguliceps (Acari) in northern Scandinavia. Oikos. 1974;25:315–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Bown KJ, Lambin X, Telford G, Heyder-Bruckner D, Ogden NH, Birtles RJ. The common shrew (Sorex araneus): a neglected host of tick-borne infections? Vector-Borne Zoonot. 2011;11:947–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Brisson D, Dykhuizen DE, Ostfeld RS. Conspicuous impacts of inconspicuous hosts on the Lyme disease epidemic. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 2008;275:227–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Andreassen A, Jore S, Cuber P, Dudman S, Tengs T, Isaksen K, et al. Prevalence of tick borne encephalities virus in tick nymphs in relation to climatic factors on the southern coast of Norway. Parasite Vector. 2012;5:177.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Milne A. The ecology of the sheep tick, Ixodes ricinus L. Some further aspects of activity, seasonal and diurnal. Parasitology. 1947;38:27–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Harestad AS, Bunnell FL. Home range and body weight - a reevaluation. Ecology. 1979;60:389–402.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. McNab BK. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am Nat. 1963;97:133–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Kelt DA, Van Vuren DH. The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am Nat. 2001;157:637–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Kelt DA, Van Vuren DH. Home ranges of recent mammals. Ecology. 2015;96:1733.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Karlsson AF, Potapov ER. Consistency and change in bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) home ranges across a decade. Can J Zool. 1998;76:1329–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Kollars TM. Home ranges and population densities of shrews (Soricidae) inhabiting a spruce plantation in Bavaria, Germany. Acta Theriol. 1995;40:219–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Ellenbroek FJM. Interspecific competition in the shrews Sorex araneus and Sorex minutus (Soricidae, Insectivora): a population study of the Irish pygmy shrew. J Zool. 1980;192:119–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Boyer N, Réale D, Marmet J, Pisanu B, Chapuis J-L. Personality, space use and tick load in an introduced population of Siberian chipmunks Tamias sibiricus. J Anim Ecol. 2010;79:538–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Mysterud A. How does local weather predict red deer home range size at different temporal scales? J Anim Ecol. 2010;79:1280–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. van Beest F, Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Milner JM, Mysterud A. What shapes intraspecific variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol. 2011;80:771–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Hughes VL, Randolph SE. Testosterone depresses innate and acquired resistance to ticks in natural rodent hosts: A force for aggregated distributions of parasites. J Parasitol. 2001;87:49–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Harrison A, Scantlebury M, Montgomery WI. Body mass and sex-biased parasitism in wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus. Oikos. 2010;119:1099–104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Kiffner C, Vor T, Hagedorn P, Niedrig M, Rühe F. Factors affecting patterns of tick parasitism on forest rodents in tick-borne encephalitis risk areas, Germany. Parasitol Res. 2011;108:323–35.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Shaw MT, Keesing F, McGrail R, Ostfeld RS. Factors influencing the distribution of larval blacklegged ticks on rodent hosts. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;68:447–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Handeland K, Qviller L, Vikøren T, Viljugrein H, Lillehaug A, Davidson RK. Ixodes ricinus infestation in free-ranging cervids in Norway - a study based upon ear examinations of hunted animals. Vet Parasitol. 2013;195:142–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Mysterud A, Hatlegjerde IL, Sørensen OJ. Attachment site selection of life stages of Ixodes ricinus ticks on a main large host in Europe, the red deer (Cervus elaphus). Parasite Vector. 2014;7:510.Google Scholar
  66. Kiffner C, Lödige C, Alings M, Rühe F. Attachment site selection of ticks on roe deer, Capreolus capreolus. Exp Appl Acarol. 2011;53:79–94.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Mysterud et al. 2015

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement