Skip to main content

Table 2 Local distribution of A. phagocytophilum and Rickettsia spp. infected ticks collected in Hanover, Germany, in 2015

From: A 10-year surveillance of Rickettsiales (Rickettsia spp. and Anaplasma phagocytophilum) in the city of Hanover, Germany, reveals Rickettsia spp. as emerging pathogens in ticks

 

Mecklenheide

Große Heide

Misburger Wald

Annateiche

Seelhorster Wald

Ricklinger Teiche

Bornumer Holz

Georgengarten

Eilenriede

Maschpark

Anaplasma phagocytophilum a

 Adults

0/72 (0)

4/84 (4.8)

1/20 (5.0)

1/40 (2.5)

7/93 (7.5)

0/40 (0)

10/74 (13.5)

3/36 (8.3)

11/91 (12.1)

3/23 (13.0)

 Adult males

0/35 (0)

1/37 (2.7)

1/11 (9.1)

1/21 (4.8)

2/45 (4.4)

0/23 (0)

2/39 (5.1)

0/19 (0)

7/46 (15.2)

0/9 (0)

 Adult females

0/37 (0)

3/47 (6.4)

0/9 (0)

0/19 (0)

5/48 (10.4)

0/17 (0)

8/35 (22.9)

3/17 (17.6)

4/45 (8.9)

3/14 (21.4)

 Nymphs

0/138 (0)

0/126 (0)

18/190 (9.5)

1/170 (0.6)

1/117 (0.6)

6/170 (3.5)

2/136 (1.5)

0/174 (0)

3/119 (2.5)

3/187 (1.6)

 Total

0/210 (0)*

4/210 (1.9)

19/210 (9.1)*

2/210 (1.0)*

8/210 (3.8*)

6/210 (2.9)

12/210 (5.7)*

8/210 (3.8)

14/210 (6.7)*

6/210 (2.9)

Rickettsia spp.a

 Adults

37/72 (51.4)

41/84 (48.8)

15/20 (75.0)

25/40 (62.5)

44/93 (47.3)

22/40 (55.0)

44/74 (59.5)

16/36 (44.4)

52/91 (57.1)

14/23 (60.9)

 Adult males

17/35 (48.6)

16/37 (43.2)

8/11 (72.7)

9/21 (42.9)

18/45 (40.0)

13/23 (56.5)

22/39 (56.4)

7/19 (36.8)

27/46 (58.7)

7/9 (77.8)

 Adult females

20/37 (54.1)

25/47 (53.2)

7/9 (77.8)

16/19 (84.2)

26/48 (54.1)

9/17 (35.3)

22/35 (62.9)

9/17 (52.9)

25/45 (55.6)

7/14 (50.0)

 Nymphs

55/138 (39.9)

51/126 (40.5)

112/190 (58.9)

88/170 (51.8)

45/117 (38.5)

93/170 (54.7)

65/136 (47.8)

82/174 (47.1)

64/119 (53.8)

101/187 (54.0)

 Total

92/210 (43.8)**

92/210 (43.8)**

127/210 (64.3)**

113/210 (53.8)

89/210 (42.4)**

115/210 (54.8)

109/210 (51.9)

98/210 (46.7)

116/210 (55.2)

115/210 (54.8)

  1. aNo. of positive ticks/ Total no. of ticks (%)
  2. *Significantly higher infection rates in “Misburger Wald”, “Bornumer Holz” and “Eilenriede” vs “Mecklenheide”, as well as “Misburger Wald” vs “Annateiche” (P ≤ 0.05)
  3. **Significantly higher infection rates in “Misburger Wald” vs “Mecklenheide”, “Große Heide” and “Seelhorster Wald” (P ≤ 0.05)