|
Ticks and Fleas
|
Overall prevalence (%)
|
Tanzania (%)
|
Kenya (%)
|
Uganda (%)
|
Nigeria (%)
|
Ghana (%)
|
Namibia (%)
|
|---|
|
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 indexa
| |
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
