Skip to main content

Table 5 Transhumance 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

Gh, Ni

H. truncatum

Ni

H. rufipes

BF

A. variegatum

BF, Gh, Ni

Covariate

 Weight (age proxy)

Prev

− 10.4 ± 4.8 10–3*

33.8 ± 28.6 10–4

38.5 ± 25.6 10–4 ns

31.6 ± 14.6 10–4*

 

Load

− 14.0 ± 5.2 10–3**

25.7 ± 26.6 10–4

38.6 ± 17.1 10–4 *

28.9 ± 14.6 10–4*

Sex

 Female vs. male

Prev

− 0.35 ± 0.22 ns

0.46 ± 0.31 ns

− 0.17 ± 0.23 ns

− 0.26 ± 0.13 ns

 

Load

− 0.63 ± 0.17***

0.28 ± 0.32 ns

0.03 ± 0.21 ns

− 0.22 ± 0.08**

 Body condition

Prev

0.18 ± 0.13 ns

0.28 ± 0.15 ns

0.07 ± 0.14 ns

− 0.04 ± 0.09 ns

 

Load

0.24 ± 0.08**

0.21 ± 0.17 ns

− 0.28 ± 0.11 *

0.03 ± 0.07 ns

Parasiticide

 

Gh, Ni

 

BF

Gh, BF

  < 1 month vs. never

Prev

0.34 ± 0.19 ns

 

− 1.61 ± 0.71 *

− 0.26 ± 0.27 ns

 

Load

0.13 ± 0.13 ns

 

− 2.82 ± 0.62 ***

− 0.04 ± 0.17 ns

 1–2 months vs. never

Prev

0.07 ± 0.65 ns

 

NA

1.16 ± 0.60 ns

 

Load

0.05 ± 0.53 ns

 

NA

0.09 ± 0.25 ns

  > 2 months vs. never

Prev

NA

 

0.11 ± 0.82 ns

− 0.38 ± 0.81 ns

 

Load

NA

 

− 0.87 ± 0.66 ns

− 1.57 ± 0.71*

 Treated vs. never

vs. never

Prev

0.32 ± 0.20 ns

 

− 0.81 ± 0.59 ns

− 0.26 ± 0.25 ns

 

Load

0.11 ± 0.14 ns

 

− 1.54 ± 0.40 ***

− 0.11 ± 0.15 ns

  1. Numbers in bold are linked to 'statistically significant' effects
  2. Generalised estimation equations that model the tick species’ prevalence (levels: 0, 1) and infestation loads in cattle of smallholder rural areas with transhumance husbandry (Burkina Faso: 15.7%, Ghana: 54.5% and Nigeria: 24.2% of the total number of animals investigated). 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 Ghana and Burkina Faso (80.5% and 26.1% of the animals treated, respectively) only. Pre(valence): model estimates reflect the probability that tick has level ‘1’ (logit link). Lo(ad): model estimates reflect the associations between number of ticks and a unit increase in explanatory variable (log link)
  3. Bf Burkina, Gh Ghana, Be Benin, Ni Nigeria, Et Ethiopia, Ug Uganda, Ta Tanzania. NA not applicable, since no data available
  4. ***P < 0.001
  5. **P < 0.01
  6. *P < 0.05
  7. ns P > 0.05