A community approach of pathogens and their arthropod vectors (ticks and fleas) in dogs of African Sub-Sahara

Heylen, Dieter; Day, Michael; Schunack, Bettina; Fourie, Josephus; Labuschange, Michel; Johnson, Sherry; Githigia, Samuel Maina; Akande, Foluke Adedayo; Nzalawahe, Jahashi Saidi; Tayebwa, Dickson Stuart; Aschenborn, Ortwin; Marcondes, Mary; Madder, Maxime

doi:10.1186/s13071-021-05014-8

Parasites & Vectors

Table 3 Tick and flea prevalence and intensity in infested dogs of six African countries

From: A community approach of pathogens and their arthropod vectors (ticks and fleas) in dogs of African Sub-Sahara

Ticks and Fleas	Overall prevalence (%)	Tanzania (%)			Kenya (%)			Uganda (%)			Nigeria (%)			Ghana (%)			Namibia (%)
Ticks and Fleas	Overall prevalence (%)	Rural	Urban	P	Rural	Urban	P	Rural	Urban	P	Rural	Urban	P	Rural	Urban	P	Rural	Urban	P
Ticks
Rhipicephalus sanguineus	67.5	71.1	91.5	ns	27.6	61.5	**	2.3	47.5	**	94.7	96.1	ns	78.4	85.7	*	90.3	83.3	ns
R. appendiculatus	0.4	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		2.3	2.5		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
R. simus	2.0	0.0	2.1		9.2	0.0		0.0	0.0		1.8	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	5.6
R. microplus	0.2	2.2	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
R. senegalensis	0.2	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	2.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
Rhipicephalus spp.	6.7	26.7	6.4	**	0.0	0.0		2.3	17.5	*	3.5	0.0		2.7	0.0		9.7	19.4	ns
Haemaphysalis elliptica	6.5	0.0	0.0		18.4	3.9	*	11.4	10.0	ns	8.8	7.8		5.4	0.0		0.0	0.0
H. leachi	0.6	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		5.3	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
H. spinulosa	1.5	2.2	2.1		0.0	0.0		11.4	2.5	ns	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
Haemaphysalis spp.	17.3	0.0	0.0		56.6	26.9	*	54.6	22.5	**	3.5	0.0		18.9	2.0	*	0.0	0.0
Amblyomma variegatum	0.4	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		1.8	0.0		2.7	0.0		0.0	0.0
Amblyomma spp.	0.9	2.2	0.0		0.0	0.0		2.3	0.0		0.0	0.0		8.1	0.0		0.0	0.0
Ixodes sp.	0.6	2.2	2.1		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		2.7	0.0		0.0	0.0
Tick	95.5	100.0	100.0	ns	94.7	88.5	ns	81.8	95.0	ns	100.0	100.0	ns	97.3	87.8	ns	100.0	100.0	ns
Intensity		6.8	21.2	ns	22.5	13.0	ns	12.2	19.2	ns	28.1	49.0	*	8.1	46.3	*	19.4	4.7	ns
Shannon index		0.9	0.5	*	1.2	0.8	***	1.2	1.4	***	0.8	0.4	ns	1.2	0.1	**	0.3	0.7	ns
Fleas
Ctenocephalides felis	53.7	71.1	51.0	ns	75.4	48.2	ns	85.1	41.7	***	52.5	5.9	***	53.3	45.8	ns	12.5	28.6	ns
Echidnophaga gallinacea	0.2	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		3.3	0.0		0.0	0.0
Echidnophaga sp.	3.7	0.0	2.0		8.7	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		6.7	2.1		0.0	20.0	***
Flea	55.6	71.1	51.0	*	76.8	48.2	**	85.1	41.7	***	52.5	5.9	***	56.7	47.9	*	12.5	45.7	**
Intensity		6.45	31.8	*	13.6	40.0	*	2.3	5.0		0.0	0.0		9.5	14.3	ns	0.0	0.0
Shannon index		0.00	0.2	ns	0.3	0.0	ns	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0		0.5	0.2	ns	0.0	0.7	ns
Co-infestation	47.3	71.7	50.9	**	71.1	37.0	**	68.0	36.0	**	52.6	5.9	*	54.8	35.7	**	12.5	45.5	***
Shannon index^a		1.25	1.0	ns	1.5	1.1	**	1.3	1.6	***	1.2	0.4	***	1.6	0.8	**	0.5	1.3	*
Investigated dogs (N)	584	46	53		76	27		50	50		57	51		42	56		32	44

For each dog, a single extraction was made of a pooled set of ticks and/or fleas that was subsequently screened for the presence of DNA belonging to a particular tick and flea species. Next, the percentage of extracts (i.e. dogs) containing DNA of a specific taxon was derived, within the population of infested dogs. For statistical outcomes on pairwise macrogeographic differences, see Fig. 2
***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, ns (not-significant) P > 0.05
Habitat differences (rural vs urban) are investigated for countries with a presence of at least 10% in one of its habitats
^aAs a measure of species diversity, a Shannon diversity index and accompanying significance level of Fisher’s exact test are provided

Back to article page

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com