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 4 Communal husbandry: parameter estimates (± empirical standard error) from ecological models

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

		R.microplus BF, Gh, Be, Ug, Ta	R. decoloratus Ni, Et, Ta	R. evertsi evertsi Et, Ug, Ta	R.appendiculatus Ug, Ta	H. truncatum Ni, Et	H. rufipes GH, Ta,BF	A. variegatum All countries	A. gemma Et
Covariate
Weight (age proxy)	Prev	0.80 ± 0.71 10^–4 ns	3.63 ± 1.43 10^–4 ns	2.47 ± 1.07 10^–4*	22.3 ± 15 10^–4 ns	48.2 ± 18.5 10^–4**	25.3 ± 14.3 10^–4 ns	33.4 ± 0.6 10^–4***	12.1 ± 0.4**
	Load	3.17 ± 0.78 10^–4*	3.73 ± 2.22 10^–4 ns	3.73 ± 0.93 10^–4***	16.4 ± 5.3 10^–4**	74.6 ± 23.0 10^–4**	28.6 ± 14.4 10^–4*	38.5 ± 0.6 10^–4***	15.3 ± 0.3***
Sex
Female vs. male	Prev	− 0.11 ± 0.06 ns	− 0.15 ± 0.06*	0.18 ± 0.11 ns	− 0.23 ± 0.13 ns	0.07 ± 0.15 ns	0.10 ± 0.13 ns	− 0.04 ± 0.06 ns	0.24 ± 0.28 ns
	Load	− 0.14 ± 0.06*	− 0.24 ± 0.11*	0.08 ± 0.11 ns	− 0.18 ± 0.07*	0.24 ± 0.16 ns	0.06 ± 0.13 ns	− 0.15 ± 0.07*	0.46 ± 0.52 ns
Body condition	Prev	0 ± 0.04 ns	0.05 ± 0.04 ns	− 0.04 ± 0.05 ns	− 0.05 ± 0.07 ns	0.01 ± 0.08 ns	− 0.07 ± 0.07 ns	0.01 ± 0.03 ns	− 0.34 ± 0.09***
	Load	− 0.05 ± 0.04 ns	0.09 ± 0.07 ns	− 0.07 ± 0.05 ns	− 0.04 ± 0.04 ns	− 0.02 ± 0.11 ns	− 0.13 ± 0.05**	− 0.05 ± 0.04 ns	− 0.72 ± 0.23**
Parasiticide		BF	Ni			Ni	BF	BF, Be, Ni
< 1 month vs. never	Prev	0.35 ± 0.33 ns	NC			NC	− 0.92 ± 0.55 ns	− 0.05 ± 0.34 ns
	Load	− 0.47 ± 0.24*	NC			NC	− 0.55 ± 0.44 ns	0.17 ± 0.14 ns
1–2 months vs. never	Prev	NA	NC			NC	NA	− 0.47 ± 0.13***
	Load	NA	NC			NC	NA	− 27.10 ± 4.52***
> 2 months vs. never	Prev	0.04 ± 0.41 ns	NC			NC	− 1.20 ± 0.64*	− 0.54 ± 0.54 ns
	Load	− 0.52 ± 0.37 ns	NC			NC	− 1.53 ± 0.73*	− 0.11 ± 0.19 ns
Treated vs. never vs. never	Prev	− 0.25 ± 0.34 ns	− 0.58 ± 0.39 ns			− 1.47 ± 1.70 ns	− 0.42 ± 0.31 ns	− 0.21 ± 0.22 ns
	Load	− 0.74 ± 0.25**	− 0.98 ± 0.21 ***			− 1.41 ± 0.21 ns	− 0.41 ± 0.28 ns	− 0.15 ± 0.07*

Numbers in bold are linked to 'statistically significant' effects
Note: Generalised estimation equations that model the tick species’ prevalence (levels: 0, 1; ‘Pre’) and infestation loads (‘Lo’) in cattle of smallholder rural areas. For a given taxon, only countries with a prevalence of at least 10% were included. Individual body weight and body condition were mean-centered at farm level (nested within country districts). Effects of parasiticides were tested only in Burkina Faso (27.6% of animals treated), Benin (65.1%) and Nigeria (11.0%). Prevalence: model estimates reflect the probability that tick has level ‘1’. Load: model estimates reflect the associations between number of ticks and a unit increase in explanatory variable. Insufficient farm-visit combinations in which more than one treatment condition has been applied. No significant associations were found in R. pulchellus
Bf Burkina, Gh Ghana, Be Benin, Ni Nigeria, Et Ethiopia, Ug Uganda, Ta Tanzania. NA not applicable, since no data available, NA not applicable, since no data available, NC no model convergence
***P < 0.001
**P < 0.01
*P < 0.05
ns P > 0.05

Back to article page

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com