Tick communities of cattle in smallholder rural livestock production systems in sub-Saharan Africa

Heylen, Dieter J. A.; Kumsa, Bersissa; Kimbita, Elikira; Frank, Mwiine Nobert; Muhanguzi, Dennis; Jongejan, Frans; Adehan, Safiou Bienvenu; Toure, Alassane; Aboagye-Antwi, Fred; Ogo, Ndudim Isaac; Juleff, Nick; Fourie, Josephus; Evans, Alec; Byaruhanga, Joseph; Madder, Maxime

doi:10.1186/s13071-023-05801-5

Parasites & Vectors

Table 2 Tick prevalence, infestation loads and species diversity in West African countries

From: Tick communities of cattle in smallholder rural livestock production systems in sub-Saharan Africa

	West	Burkina Faso	K	Ghana	K	Benin	K	Nigeria
Amblyomma
A. variegatum	37.60 (12.79 ± 33.47)	17.54^a (0.62 ± 1.77^a)	0.01(1)	56.06^b (15.04 ± 26.1^b)	0.49(38)	50.88^b (31.32 ± 53.79^c)	0.43(28)	24.66^a (1.95 ± 4.92^d)
A. gemma	0.00 (0 ± 0)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
Hyalomma
H. rufipes	7.53 (0.5 ± 2.31)	23.32 (1.26 ± 3.03)	0.58(21)	6.76 (0.73 ± 3.35)	0.06(15)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
H. truncatum	4.15 (0.22 ± 1.37)	5.88 (0.18 ± 0.98)	0.18(8)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		11.46 (0.77 ± 2.57)
H. impressum	0.12 (0 ± 0.06)	0.47 (0.01 ± 0.11)	0.07(1)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
H. albiparmatum	0.02 (0 ± 0.29)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.10 (0.02 ± 0.6)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
Rhipicephalus
R. microplus	34.40 (18.6 ± 61.49)	25.88^a (1.55 ± 3.67^a)	0.36(4)	43.24^b (7.03 ± 15.44^b)	0.4(37)	49.74^c (58.27 ± 106.56^c)	0.51(28)	16.51^d (2.61 ± 10.71^a)
R (Boophilus) spp.	4.82 (2.8 ± 19.16)	0.19 (0 ± 0.04)		0.10 (0 ± 0.03)		17.40 (10.26 ± 35.62)	0.14(16)	0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. decoloratus	2.69 (0.43 ± 5.21)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.10 (0.02 ± 0.71)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		11.46 (1.85 ± 10.67)
R. annulatus	0.24 (0.11 ± 3.48)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.88 (0.39 ± 6.66)	0.02(2)	0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. geigyi	0.02 (0 ± 0.14)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.09 (0.01 ± 0.26)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. sanguineus	0.02 (0 ± 0.05)	0.09 (0 ± 0.09)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. appendiculatus	0.00 (0 ± 0)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. lunulatus	0.00 (0 ± 0)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. evertsi evertsi	0.00 (0 ± 0)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. praetextatus	0.00 (0 ± 0)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. pravus	0.00 (0 ± 0)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
R. pulchellus	0.00 (0 ± 0)	0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)		0.00 (0 ± 0)
No. screened	4168	1055		1006		1138		969
No. infested (%)	2698 (64.73)	634 (60.09)		691 (68.68)		896 (78.73)		477 (49.22)
Co-infestation	39.04	19.25		50.59		50.88		26.85
Shannon’ index		1.33		0.93		1.05		1.04

Prevalence (%) and average tick load (number of ticks/individual ± standard error)
K: Negative binomial shape parameter (the higher, the less skewed distributions)—calculated for farm × time combinations with > 10 animals sampled and a tick prevalence > 5%. Criteria were not met in Nigeria. For taxa with overall regional prevalence ≥ 10%: the same letters indicate that the contrast between countries is not statistically different from zero

Back to article page

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com