Seasonal distribution and faunistic of ticks in the Alashtar county (Lorestan Province), Iran
Behrouz Davari, Firoz Nazari Alam, Hassan Nasirian, Mansour Nazari, Mohammad Abdigoudarzi, Aref Salehzadeh
The Pan African Medical Journal. 2017;27:284. doi:10.11604/pamj.2017.27.284.10341

Create an account  |  Sign in
Case studies in Public health Supplement 2 Supplement
"Better health through knowledge sharing and information dissemination "

Research

Seasonal distribution and faunistic of ticks in the Alashtar county (Lorestan Province), Iran

Cite this: The Pan African Medical Journal. 2017;27:284. doi:10.11604/pamj.2017.27.284.10341

Received: 17/07/2016 - Accepted: 07/08/2017 - Published: 22/08/2017

Key words: CCHF, faunistic, hard tick, soft tick, seasonal distribution

© Behrouz Davari et al. The Pan African Medical Journal - ISSN 1937-8688. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Available online at: http://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/content/article/27/284/full

Corresponding author: Hassan Nasirian, Department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (hanasirian@yahoo.com)


Seasonal distribution and faunistic of ticks in the Alashtar county (Lorestan Province), Iran

Behroz Davari1, Firoz Nazari Alam1, Hassan Nasirian2,&, Mansour Nazari1, Mohammad Abdigoudarzi3, Aref Salehzadeh1

 

1Department of Medical Entomology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, 2Department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, 3Reference Lab For tick Study, Department of Parasitology, Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO) Tehran, Iran

 

 

&Corresponding author
Hassan Nasirian, Department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

 

 

Abstract

Introduction: ticks are non-permanent obligate parasites that have considerable medical-veterinary and zoonosis importance. In this regard a study designed to investigate the distribution and fauna of ticks in the Alashtar county in Iran from April and March 2014.

 

Methods: ticks were collected from livestock farms and facilities from selected rural and geographically location in the Alashtar county. Based morphological characteristics and reference identification keys, ticks were identified.

 

Results: a total of 549 ticks including 411 hard and 138 soft ticks were found. Ten tick species including Haemaphysalis concinna (0.36%), Haemaphysalis sulcata (0.36%),Hyalomma anatolicum (0.18%), Hyalomma dromedarii (0.18%), Hyalomma marginatum (1.45 %), Hyalomma schulzei (0.36%), Rhipicephalus annulatus (0.18%), Rhipicephalus bursa (28.1%), Rhipicephalus sanguineus (43.63%) and Argas persicus (25.2%) were identified. Tick seasonal distribution were 47.26%, 22.63%, 14.96% and 15.15% in the spring, summer, autumn and winter, respectively. The tick distribution was more from plain areas (64.96%) than the mountainous areas (35.04%). The rates of the tick contamination were 97.3% and 2.7% in the traditional and industrial livestock's, respectively. The livestock contamination ranks to the hard ticks were cattle (39.51%), sheep (34.15%) and goats (26.34 %), respectively. Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference among the seasonal distribution of the ticks in the spring, summer and autumn or winter; between the tick distribution in the plain and mountainous areas; and between the traditional and industrial livestock's tick contamination (P < 0.05).

 

Conclusion: present study proves to change the traditional livestock's to the industrial livestock's. These findings highlight the importance of ticks and shows need to their control and tick pest management.

 

 

Introduction    Down

Ticks are non-permanent obligate and the most frequent ectoparasites (ticks, mites, lice and fleas) of the terrestrial vertebrates that have considerable medical-veterinary and zoonosis importance [1, 2]. They are a serious threat to animal health and public health in many parts of the world because they are able to direct damages and transmission of parasitic, viral and bacterial pathogens [3, 4]. Control of ticks and tick-borne diseases are the most important sanitation to protect livestock health and their products, particularly prevention of tick-borne diseases transmitted to humans [5, 6]. Premature and adult stages of ticks are attacked to different groups of animals and feed on their blood and interstitial fluids. They irritate their host by relatively long-term feeding and continuous saliva injection to their body. Tick feeding period lasts form several minutes in soft ticks to weeks in hard ticks that in addition to release them from one place to another, cause local discomfort of the hosts and facilitate the transmission of pathogens to the other hosts [7]. Ticks are remained infected for lifetime by feeding on their host infected blood and transfer the infection in a way of trans-ovarial or trans-stadial transmissions. Ticks also have one or more various hosts in their life cycle that they transmit the infections from wild to domestic hosts by their feeding [8, 9]. Because of any tick species may have ability to transfer a certain type of a disease. Identifying tick species, their abundance and distribution, have a great effect to understand the epidemiology of the diseases and their control in each region or globally. As much research is also being done on a vaccine against the diseases such as development of anti-tick vaccines [10], tick species identifying is also important of this aspect in the areas.

 

The Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) has led to an increase in the number of studies about tick distribution and tick-borne diseases [11]. Some various tick studies were done in different parts of Iran such as NorthWestern (West Azerbaijan and Ardebil Provinces), North (Guilan, Mazandaran, Golestan and Qazvin provinces), West (Kordistan and Kohgilouyeh provinces), South (Hormozgan province), Southwest (Sistan) and central [10, 12-21]. The Alashtar County with the various peripheral villages is considered one of the most important areas in terms of animal husbandry and it is the most densely populated livestock areas (nearly 250 thousand light and heavy head of cattle) in the Lorestan province from western Iran. Ticks are one of the most important pests in the livestock industry and they have the ability to transfer various diseases. Due to climate and tick life condition change during different seasons and years, it seems necessary to study the tick distribution and fauna during intermittent periods. Alashtar County has a climate and weather diversity that is livestock and animal husbandry are commonly widespread and nomadic tribes travelled there especially among the neighbor cities such as Malayer and Nahavand. In recent years, tick-borne disease cases such as Relapsing and CCHF have been reported (local reports) in the Alashtar County. Therefore, it needs to conduct a research to obtain the further epidemiological aspects about diseases caused by the ticks in the Alashtar region. So far, there is not a comprehensive study about distribution and fauna of ticks in this county. In this regard a study designed to investigate the distribution and fauna of ticks in different parts of the Alashtar county in the Lorestan province in western Iran from April and March 2014.

 

 

Methods Up    Down

Site of study: Alashtar county is located at an altitude of 1,600 meters above the sea level in the northern of Lorestan province (Table 1, Figure 1). Nomadic herders are common among the Alashtar county peoples. Lorestan province is located in the west of Iran (Figure 1). It is a very beautiful place with a high perspiration rate and a good climatic condition, making this location green and cool and it is the route from the south to the north of Iran. This province has some popular tourist attractions with historical and cultural significance. Between the higher ranges lie many fertile plains and low hilly, well-watered districts. Lorestan covers an area of 28,392 km˛. The Lorestan population was estimated at 1,754,243 people in 2011. Khoramabad is the capital of Lorestan province. The major cities in this province are: Khorramabad, Borujerd, Aligoodarz, Dorood, Koohdasht, Azna, Alashtar, Noor Abad and Pol-e-Dokhtar (Figure 1). The terrain consists chiefly of mountains, with numerous ranges, part of the Zagros chain, running northwest to southeast. The climate is generally sub-humid continental with winter precipitation, a lot of which falls as snow. The average annual precipitation is 530 mm. Temperatures vary widely with the seasons and between day and night. In summer, temperatures typically range from a minimum of 12°C to a hot maximum of 32°C. In winter, they range from a minimum of -2°C to a chilly maximum of 8°C.

 

How to select the study areas: We divided the Alashtar county to four areas: North, South, East and West including 23, 41, 17 and 38 villages, respectively. Then we randomly selected ten percent of villages from each area. Afterward, we selected ten percent of livestock's in the each village. Subsequently, we selected ten percent of animals in the each livestock. The villages were Darreh-Thang and Decamond from North; Sarabe-Chenar, Ghame-Thakleh, Bid-Gatar and Gheshmeh-Bid from South; Razi-Abad and Abbas-Abad from East; and Galayee, Adel-Abad, Dar-Bid and Gheshmeh-Tala from West (Table 1, Figure 1).

 

Tick collection and identification: The distribution and fauna of ticks were monthly studied by a cross-sectional study in different parts of the Alashtar county from April and March 2014. A total of 12 villages which had 410 households, afterward 41 livestock and subsequent 205 head of cattle for the presence of ticks were selected and studied. Ticks were collected from livestock farms and facilities from different rural and geographically location in the Alashtar county (Table 1 and Figure 1, Figure 2). Ticks were carefully separated from livestock by a curve forceps and safe anesthetic compounds such as ether and chloroform. The hard ticks were collected with taking the anterior part of the ticks at the junction to the host then they were rotated around the forceps axis or flipped and they were carefully withdrawn directly from the skin. We considered around the animal nests and crevices of livestock walls for the soft ticks [22]. The samples were placed into special pipes (Eppendorf tubes). They were immediately transferred to Medical Entomology Laboratory at School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences after recording detailed specifications including site collection, livestock facilities and type of animal, date of collection and environment temperature and packing. Then we followed next steps with personal protection and safe work (Figure 2). Based morphological characteristics and reference identification keys, ticks were identified to the genus, species and gender (Figure 2). For final tick identification approval, the identified samples were sent to reference acarology laboratory at the Razi Institute in Karaj.

 

 

Results Up    Down

During twelfth monthly sampling and among the 12 selected villages in the Alashtar county, we visited 41 livestock and 205 head of cattle for the presence of ticks in the 144 round villages viewing. In fact we examined the 2460 animals at the 492 round livestock farms and facilities viewing (Table 1). A total of 549 ticks including 411 hard and 138 soft ticks were collected and identified. The highest and the lowest frequency of ticks were observed at the Abbas-Abad (15.66%) and Sarabe-Chenar (4.0%), respectively (Table 2). Figure 3 shows the frequency of the collected ticks in the Alashtar county from April and March 2014. The highest (17.5%) and the lowest (3.8%) frequency of ticks were observed in May and March, respectively (Figure 3). Seasonal distribution of the ticks were 47.26%, 22.63%, 14.96% and 15.15% in the spring, summer, autumn and winter, respectively (Table 3). Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference among the seasonal distribution of the ticks in the spring, summer and autumn or winter (P < 0.05) while it didn't showed a significant difference between the autumn and winter. The hard tick frequency deceased from spring to winter in the year while increased for the soft ticks (Table 3). The most frequencies of ticks were observed in the May (17.5%) and then in the June (16.0%) (Figure 3). The most tick activities were related to Rhipicephalus sanguineus among the seasons except Rhipicephalus bursa that the most activities were in the autumn. While the other species had lower activity among the spring, summer, autumn and winter (Table 3). Unlike the hard ticks, the most activities of the soft ticks were observed in the winter and then in the autumn while they had lower activities in the spring and summer (Table 3 and Figure 3).

 

From the collected hard ticks, the male and female rates were 48.4% and 51.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the tick sex rates (P > 0.05). The tick distribution was more from plain areas (64.96%) than the mountainous areas (35.04%) (Table 4). Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference between the tick distribution in the plain and mountainous areas (P < 0.05). The most frequent species were Rhipicephalus sanguineus and Rhipicephalus bursa in the mountainous and plain areas while the other species had low abundance in the mentioned areas (Table 4). The rates of the tick contamination were 97.3% and 2.7% in the traditional and industrial livestock's, respectively (Table 4). Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference between the traditional and industrial livestock's tick contamination (P < 0.05). Rhipicephalus was observed as the most frequently genus in the traditional and industrial livestock's that their species were Rhipicephalus sanguineus and Rhipicephalus bursa while the other species had low abundance. All the soft ticks were collected from the traditional livestock's (Table 4). The most common identified hard tick species (Ixodidae) were Rhipicephalus sanguineus (43.63.1%) and Rhipicephalus bursa (28.1%) while the others were Hyalomma marginatum, Hyalomma dromedarii, Hyalomma schulzei, Haemaphysalis sulcata, Rhipicephalus annulatus and Haemaphysalis concinna with a very low frequency. All of the soft ticks (Argasidae) identified as Argas persicus species (25.2%) (Figure 4). The livestock contamination ranks to the hard ticks were cattle (39.51%), sheep (34.15%) and goats (26.34%), respectively. The Rhipicephalus bursa and Rhipicephalus sanguineus species were created the most contamination on the cattle and goats and sheep, respectively while the other species were less created livestock's contamination (Table 5).

 

 

Discussion Up    Down

In this study, the three genera and nine species of the hard ticks (Ixodidae) and one genus and species of the soft ticks (Argasidae) were identified. The genera and species of the hard ticks were Haemaphysalis, Hyalomma and Rhipicephalus and Haemaphysalis concinna (0.36%), H. sulcata (0.36%), Hyalomma anatolicum (0.18%), Hy. dromedarii (0.18%), Hy. marginatum (1.45%), Hy. schulzei (0.36%), Rhipicephalus annulatus (0.18%), R. bursa (28.1%) and R. sanguineus (43.63%), respectively. The one genus and species of the soft ticks were Argas and Argas persicus (25.2%), respectively (Figure 4). A study conducted in the Bukan county (West Azerbaijan province) showed that the animal tick contamination rates were 88.57, 31.03 and 18.3 for goats, sheep and cattle, respectively. While in the present study the animal tick contamination rates were 26.34, 34.15 and 39.51 for goats, sheep and cattle, respectively (Table 5). As our study, Haemaphysalis and Rhipicephalus were the most frequent genera and Rhipicephalus sanguineus had the most contamination rates (85.7%) [19]. In a survey the species compositions of hard ticks of livestock in Boeen Zahra and Takistan counties of Qazvin province were studied. The species compositions from the livestock of Boeen Zahra were H. concinna (0.63%), H. sulcata (12.66%), Hy. anatolicum (3.80%), Hy. asiaticum (3.16%), Hy. detritum (5.70%), Hy. dromedarii (28.48%), Hy. marginatum (13.29%), Hy. schulzei (1.89%), Rhipicephalus bursa (3.16%) and R. sanguineus (3.16%) and for Takistan's livestock were Hy. dromedarii (9.86%), Hy. marginatum (13.29%), Hy. schulzei (1.89%) and R. sanguineus (3.16%), respectively [18]. Among our tick detected species, Haemaphysalis concinna distribute widely in the Palearctic and Oriental Zoogeographic regions such as China, Russia and Poland, as well as some parts of temperate Eurasia. H. concinna are found mainly in shrubs and grasslands habitats. Field study in north China has been showed that it attacks to domestic animals and humans, with heavy infestations occurring in summer [23, 24]. H. concinna has significant importance because it is a three-host tick vector of several pathogens of humans and livestock. It has been reported to carry pathogens including Lyme borreliosis spirochetes, Far-Eastern subtype of tick-borne encephalitis virus, Coxiella burnetii, Rickettsia sibirica and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) [24]. In the last decade, the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) has become a growing public health concern and the most important viral tick-borne disease in Iran and Turkey. Between 2004 and 2013, a total of 390 deaths were reported in Turkey. During 1999-2011, 871 human cases of CCHF were also diagnosed in Iran [11, 25]. As previous studies (0.06 and 0.63%) [16, 18], present study shows that H. concinna is less commonly encountered (0.36%) and found in spring. In Iran, as present study which found in the mountainous areas of the Lorestan province (Table 3, Table 4, Figure 4) it is commonly consisted in the east of the Caspian sea zone to southern mountainous areas such as Guilan, Mazandaran and Golestan and Azarbaiejan, Ardebil, Kohgilouyeh and Kordistan, respectively. As it is collected on the sheep and goat confirm pioneer researchers that they state to be relatively common in sheep pasture regions. This tick was found infected with rickettsiae of spotted-fever group, but it is considered not an important vector. Examining the H. concinna ticks collected in Kazakhstan revealed Anaplasma bovis and Rickettsia hulinii. Laboratory studies showed that H. concinna experimentally able to transmit Borrelia in China. This tick was also found to be infected with the causative agents of tularemia [16].

 

Adults and immature stages of Haemaphysalis sulcata, another detected species of genus Haemaphysalis, are active during the cold season and summer, respectively. The major hosts of its adults are large mammals including cattle and sheep while reptiles and birds are its hosts of immature stages. The temperate mesomediterranean and submediterranean bioclimates such as Iran, Turkey and neighboring countries are often natural habitats of H. sulcata. It is widely distributed in India, southern USSR, and from southwestern Asia to the western Mediterranean area. This tick reported from humid and sub-humid zones on cattle and sheep in Tunisia. H. sulcata is an economically important tick species that it may transmit several pathogenic organisms belong to the genera Babesia and Theileria or Anaplasma ovis species, which causes ovine anaplasmosis [16, 26-28]. In Iran H. sulcata, is widely distributed and commonly found from northeast to southeast in semi-dessert zones. The larvae and nymphs feed on a variety of rodents and many small and large animals, respectively. Adults are usually infested larger animals, such as wild and domestic sheep, goats, cattle, horses and camel [16]. As H. concinna and previous study (0.6%) [16], H. sulcata recorded with low frequency (0.36%) in the mountainous areas in the spring while Shemshad et al (2012) reported 12.66% in Qazvin province. Ixodids from the Hyalomma genus, the second our detected genus are important pests of livestock with major medical and veterinary significance [29]. One of the most geographically widespread arboviruses is the zoonotic CCHFV and causes a severe hemorrhagic syndrome in humans. Ticks of the genus Hyalomma are the main vectors and reservoirs of the virus that it circulates in nature in a vertebrate-tick cycle [30, 31]. The first detected species of Hyalomma genus was Hyalomma anatolicum that have various habitats extending from central parts of the Sudan to North Africa, Southern Europe, the Middle East, Russia, China and India. The tick behavioural or morphogenetic diapause occurs in cold climates while it can multiply throughout the year in hot climates. Hy. anatolicum has two to three-host types depends on its feeding behavior. On large domestic animals, it has a typical three-host feeding cycle while on small hosts (unusual hosts) has two to three-host types. It can maintain a range of economically important transmissible infections to domestic animals and humans. Theileria annulata (tropical theileriosis in cattle), Theileria lestoquardi (malignant sheep theileriosis), Theileria equi (equine babesiosis), CCHFV (to humans) and Babesia caballi (cause of equine babesiosis) are the infections that it transmits transstadially and transovarially, respectively [32]. Hy. anatolicum reported as the most predominant tick animal infesting for cattle (25.32%), sheep (28.36%) and goats (28.45%) in the natural habitat of Sanandaj suburb [20] while we observed it as infesting sheep (0.18%) in the mountainous areas in the spring. Hyalomma dromedarii, the second detected species of Hyalomma genus, is common in the Mediterranean region steppe and desert climates and is widely distributed throughout North Africa, the Northern regions of West, Central and East Africa; Arabia, Asia Minor, the Middle East and Central and South Asia. Hy. dromedarii can behave as a one-, two- or three-host species but two-host is the most common in its life cycle. It represents nearly 90% of ticks infesting camels [33, 34].

 

In Iran, Hy. dromedarii is scattered almost all over, especially in the areas where camels occur as large herds. Hy. dromedarii ticks were found predominant tick species (61.9%) engorging on many camels grazing around the Persian Gulf with relative humidity nearly up to 90% [14]. In present study were accounted 0.18% of the adult male ticks on cattle in the mountainous areas in the spring. Hyalomma marginatum, the third detected species of Hyalomma genus, is widely distributed in Southern Europe, Asia, Near and Middle East. Hy. marginatum is the most important vector for CCHFV in southern Europe as well as parts of the Middle East and Central Asia [31]. Hy. marginatum is widely distributed in entire Iran. Like our study (1.45%), Nazifi et al (2012) was recorded H. marginatum (1.9%), while was found 12.5 % and 13.29% by Razmi et al. (2007) and Shemshad et al. (2012), respectively. Current study is reperesented that Hy. marginatum feeds mostly on cattle around the mountainous areas in the spring. Hyalomma schulzei, the forth detected species of Hyalomma genus, is especially common in the Saravan area of northeast Iran, near the Pakistan border and they are distributed in a narrow belt from Afghanistan to the western desert of Egypt [13]. It is a robust and rare Iranian Hyalomma species and is considered to be the species most closely associated with camels [35]. We accounted 0.36% on cattle and goat around the mountainous areas in the spring. In previous studies Hy. schulzei were observed in the semi-desert area of the central Iran and Boeen Zahra and Takistan counties of Qazvin province with 4.03% and 1.89% frequency, respectively [13, 18]. Another species that we found was Rhipicephalus annulatus formerly named as Boophilus annulatus. It is one of the most common ticks in cattle in Iran. R. annulatus is an important one-host tick in the Mediterranean regions including Iran. It can transmit the Babesia bigemina, Babesia bovis and Anaplasma marginale to cattle and have a high frequency in Northern Iran [10]. Rhipicephalus annulatus have been identified as vectors of babesiosis and anaplasmosis in Mazandaran Province and reported from ruminants. After very low level of synthetic pyrethroid insecticide resistance reported from India, its larvae has been resisted to pyrethroid in Iran [36] that is the situation is worsening and its risk increases. This tick has also been recorded in some regions of Europe such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece; Americas such as Mexico; and in northern Africa [37]. R. annulatus ticks were reported from Mazandaran province with 35.77%, 49.0% and 51.3% frequency [12, 17]. We accounted 0.18% on cattle around the mountainous areas in the spring. Rhipicephalus bursa, the second detected species of Rhipicephalus genus, occurs in Southern Europe, Near and Middle East. It has an important role to transfer agent of diseases such as Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bigeminum, Babesia motasi and Babesia ovis to animals [38]. Ehrlichia canis detected from R. bursa ticks in Italy [39]. R. bursa were mostly contaminated the sheep (90.7%) and goats (88.8%), followed by R. sanguineus (6.9%) and R. annulatus (2.4%) in Urmia suburb [2]. Totally R. bursa ticks were accounted 28.1% in current research with more frequency on cattle (70.8%) than sheep (15.6%) and goat (13.6%) and also more in the plain areas (69.5%) in the spring (61.7%) than the mountainous areas (30.5%) and other seasons. It was recorded 16.8% and 3.16% in Mazandaran and Qazvin provinces, respectively [17, 18].

 

The last detected species of Rhipicephalus genus was Rhipicephalus sanguineus, the brown dog tick. It is a three-host tick that infests dogs and occasionally can feed on a wide range of domestic and wild hosts, including cats, rodents, birds and humans. It widely distributed in the world and recognized vector of many pathogens, such as Babesia canis, Ehrlichia canis, Coxiella burnetii, Rickettsia conorii and R. rickettsii affecting dogs and occasionally humans affecting dogs and occasionally humans [40, 41]. In Iran it recorded as 34.8% and 3.16% in Sistan and Qazvin province, respectively [18]. As a total R. sanguineus ticks were observed 43.63%, the most frequent tick species, in present study with more frequency on sheep (47.0%) and goat (35.1%) than cattle (17.6%) and also more in the plain areas (66.9%) in the spring (56.9%) than the mountainous areas (33.1%) and summer (30.5%) autumn (7.1%) and winter (5.4%). Soft ticks can be a serious pest in poultry and pig operations in tropical and subtropical countries. Blood loss and subsequent anemia can be significant and substantially affect weight gains and egg laying performance. Massive infestations can cause numerous fatalities. Argas persicus is distributed worldwide in warm climates. In western parts of its palearctic areal this tick is known in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya and Maghreb on the Southern Mediterranean side and Anatolia, the Balkans (reaching Slovakia in the North and Trieste, Italy, in the West), Corsica and Spain in the North. It considered native in Turanian-Central Asia as a parasite of arboreal nesting birds and has successfully adapted to coexistence with domestic fowl. Probably via human transport, it has spread throughout the continents, where it survives practically exclusively in association with domestic fowl (chickens, turkeys, Helmeted Guinea fowls, and others) and infrequently pigeons. Heavy infections with Argas spp. can cause blood loss leading to anemia and eventually death. Also, A. persicus Larvae have been responsible for synchronous occurrence of infectious bursal disease and spirochaetosis. A. persicus infestation caused paralysis in infected birds. In some countries this tick is the most important poultry ectoparasite. Argas and Ornithodorus ticks are vectors of numerous poultry diseases such as Borrelia anserina (avian spirochetosis agent) and Aegyptianella pullorum (aegypitianellosis agent). Argas ticks also transmit Pasteurella multocida (fowl cholera agent) [15, 25, 42]. In china, identified as vector of Borrelia anserine (Avian spirochetosis), Kyasanur Forest disease virus (Kyasanur forest disease) and Wolbachia persica (Paralysis) [43]. In Iran A. persicus reported from Western Azerbaijan, Lorestan and Khorasan Razavy provinces [21, 44] and Sistan region [15, 21]. A. persicus ticks were collected 16.94% in Sistan region [15] while we recored 25.2% in our study. A. persicus ticks were observed with more frequency in the plain areas (63.0%) in the spring (47.26%) than the mountainous areas (37.0%) and summer (22.63%) autumn (14.96%) and winter (15.15%). Finally present study shows that the rates of the tick contamination were mostly recorded in the traditional livestock's (97.3%) than industrial livestock's (2.7%) (Table 4) that is proved to change the traditional livestock's to the industrial livestock's. Although a variety of disease agents can be currently spread by ticks, while it is possible to determine tick transmitting ability of the disease agents that they are not capable to transmit them by artificially contamination of ticks [45, 46].

 

 

Conclusion Up    Down

In this study, we identified ten tick species including nine hard (Ixodidae) and one soft tick species (Argasidae). The hard tick species were Haemaphysalis concinna (0.36%), H. sulcata (0.36%), Hyalomma anatolicum (0.18%), Hy. dromedarii (0.18%), Hy. marginatum (1.45%), Hy. schulzei (0.36%), Rhipicephalus annulatus (0.18%), R. bursa (28.1%) and R. sanguineus (43.63%). These tick species that we found mostly have more than one host species. Some are able to transmit very important diseases such as ovine anaplasmosis, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. One of the most geographically widespread arboviruses is the zoonotic CCHFV and causes a severe hemorrhagic syndrome in humans. Ticks of the genus Hyalomma are the main vectors and reservoirs of the virus that it circulates in nature in a vertebrate-tick cycle. Some of these ticks can transmit Theileria annulata (tropical theileriosis in cattle), Theileria lestoquardi (malignant sheep theileriosis), Theileria equi (equine babesiosis), CCHFV (to humans) and Babesia caballi (cause of equine babesiosis) are the infections that it transmits transstadially and transovarially, respectively. Some of these ticks also can transmit the Babesia bigemina, Babesia bovis and Anaplasma marginale to animals and Babesia canis, Ehrlichia canis, Coxiella burnetii, Rickettsia conorii and R. rickettsii to dogs and occasionally humans. The soft tick species were Argas persicus (25.2%). Heavy infections with Argas spp. can cause blood loss leading to anemia and eventually death. A. persicus can transmit avian spirochetosis and aegypitianellosis agents. In china, A. persicus also identified as vectors of avian spirochetosis and Kyasanur forest disease agents. Finally present study shows that the rates of the tick contamination were mostly recorded in the traditional livestock's (97.3%) than industrial livestock's (2.7%), that is proves to change the traditional livestock's to the industrial livestock's. These findings highlight the importance of ticks and shows need to their control and tick pest management.

What is known about this topic

  • Ticks are non-permanent obligate and the most frequent ectoparasites (ticks, mites, lice and fleas) of the terrestrial vertebrates that have considerable medical-veterinary and zoonosis importance;
  • They are a serious threat to animal health and public health in many parts of the world because they are able to direct damages and transmission of parasitic, viral and bacterial pathogens.

What this study adds

  • Ten tick species including Haemaphysalis concinna (0.36%), Haemaphysalis sulcata (0.36%), Hyalomma anatolicum (0.18%), Hyalomma dromedarii (0.18%), Hyalomma marginatum (1.45%), Hyalomma schulzei (0.36%), Rhipicephalus annulatus (0.18%), Rhipicephalus bursa (28.1%), Rhipicephalus sanguineus (43.63%) and Argas persicus (25.2%) were identified;
  • Tick seasonal distribution were 47.26%, 22.63%, 14.96% and 15.15% in the spring, summer, autumn and winter, respectively. The tick distribution was more from plain areas (64.96%) than the mountainous areas (35.04%). The rates of the tick contamination were 97.3% and 2.7% in the traditional and industrial livestock's, respectively. The livestock contamination ranks to the hard ticks were cattle (39.51%), sheep (34.15%) and goats (26.34%), respectively.

 

 

Competing interests Up    Down

The authors declare no competing interest.

 

 

Authors' contributions Up    Down

Behroz Davari, Mansour Nazari and Aref Salehzadeh were collaborated to design the work and also help to analysis and interpretation of the work. Firoz Nazari Alam is the acquisition of the work and also collected the data. Hassan Nasirian prepared the manuscript. Mohammad Abdigoudarzi aids to analysis and the interpretation of data. All authors were read, approved and agreed to the accountable for all aspects of the work and they were ensured that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

 

 

Acknowledgments Up    Down

This study is the second author's M.Sc. thesis in Medical Entomology and Vector Control from Department of Medical Entomology, School of Medicine, financially supported by Research Deputy of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No: 9304101834).

 

 

Tables and Figures Up    Down

Table 1: the district and selected villages from different rural and geographically location of the Alashtar County and livestock farms and facilities information

Table 2: frequency of the ticks in the Alashtar county from April to March 2014

Table 3: distribution of the tick species from spring to winter 2014 in the Alashtar county

Table 4: frequency of the sex tick species and tick species distribution in the different rural and geographically location of the Alashtar county from April to March 2014

Table 5: livestock type contamination in the Alashtar county from April to March 2014

Figure 1: study site maps: (A) location of the Lorestan province in Iran; (B) location of the Alashtar county in the Lorestan province and (C) location of the study areas

Figure 2: tick collection at livestock farms and facilities in the Alashtar county

Figure 3: distribution of the ticks from April to March 2014 in the Alashtar county

Figure 4: frequency of tick species in the Alashtar county from April to March 2014

 

 

References Up    Down

  1. Durden LA. Taxonomy, host associations, life cycles and vectorial importance of ticks parasitizing small mammals: in Micromammals and Macroparasites edn. Springer. 2006. 91-102. Google Scholar

  2. Yakhchali M, Hosseine A. Prevalence and ectoparasites fauna of sheep and goats flocks in Urmia suburb, Iran. Veterinarski arhiv. 2006; 76(5): 431-442. Google Scholar

  3. De la Fuente J, Estrada-Pena A, Venzal JM, Kocan KM, Sonenshine DE. Overview: ticks as vectors of pathogens that cause disease in humans and animals. Front Biosci. 2008 May 1; 13: 6938-46. PubMed | Google Scholar

  4. Allan SA. Ticks (Class Arachnida Order Acarina). Parasitic Diseases of Wild Mammals, Second Edition. 2001; 72-106. Google Scholar

  5. Walker AR. Arthropods of humans and domestic animals. A guide to preliminary identification. Springer Science & Business Media. 1994. Google Scholar

  6. Mullen GR, Durden LA. Medical and veterinary entomology. Academic Press. 2009. Google Scholar

  7. Mazloum Z. Differents Ticks occurring in Iran. (Geographical distribution, seasonal activities, hosts). 1971. Google Scholar

  8. Ashford RW. Encyclopedia of arthropod-transmitted infections of man and domesticated animals. CABI. 2001. Google Scholar

  9. Tonbak S, Aktas M, Altay K, Azkur AK, Kalkan A, Bolat Y, Dumanli N, Ozdarendeli A. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus: genetic analysis and tick survey in Turkey. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2006; 44(11): 4120-4124. PubMed | Google Scholar

  10. Taheri M, Nabian S, Ranjbar M, Mazaheri NR, Gerami SA, Sazmand A. Study of vitellogenin in Boophilus annulatus tick larvae and its immunological aspects. Trop Biomed. 2014; 31(3): 398-405. PubMed | Google Scholar

  11. Mostafavi E, Haghdoost A, Khakifirouz S, Chinikar S. Spatial analysis of Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever in Iran. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene. 2013; 89(6): 1135-1141. PubMed | Google Scholar

  12. Moghaddam AG, Seyed MR, Rasouli M, Hosseinzade S, Darvishi MM, Rakhshanpour A, Rahimi MT. Survey on cattle ticks in Nur, north of Iran. Asian Pacific journal of tropical biomedicine. 2014; 4(3): 209-212. PubMed | Google Scholar

  13. Nabian S, Rahbari S, Changizi A, Shayan P. The distribution of Hyalomma spp: Ticks from domestic ruminants in Iran. Medical and veterinary entomology. 2009; 23(3): 281-283. PubMed | Google Scholar

  14. Nazifi S, Tamadon A, Behzadi M-A, Haddadi S, Raayat-Jahromi A-R. One-humped camels (Camelus dromedaries) hard ticks infestation in Qeshm Island, Iran. In Veterinary Research Forum. 2011; 2(2): 135-138. Google Scholar

  15. Radfar MH, Khedri J, Adinehbeigi K, Nabavi R, Rahmani K. Prevalence of parasites and associated risk factors in domestic pigeons (Columba livia domestica) and free-range backyard chickens of Sistan region, east of Iran. Journal of parasitic diseases. 2012; 36(2): 220-225.. PubMed | Google Scholar

  16. Rahbari S, Nabian S, Shayan P, Haddadzadeh HR. Status of Haemaphysalis tick infestation in domestic ruminants in Iran. The Korean journal of parasitology. 2007; 45(2): 129-132. PubMed | Google Scholar

  17. Razmi GR, Glinsharifodini M, Sarvi S. Prevalence of ixodid ticks on cattle in Mazandaran province, Iran. The Korean journal of parasitology. 2007; 45(4): 307-310. PubMed | Google Scholar

  18. Shemshad M, Shemshad K, Sedaghat MM, Shokri M, Barmaki A, Baniardalani M, Rafinejad J. First survey of hard ticks (Acari Ixodidae) on cattle, sheep and goats in Boeen Zahra and Takistan counties, Iran. Asian Pacific journal of tropical biomedicine. 2012; 2(6): 489-492. PubMed | Google Scholar

  19. Yakhchali M, Azizi C. A study on ixodid tick infestation of cattle, sheep and goats in Bukan suburb, Iran. Iran J Vet Med. 2007; 3: 100-104. Google Scholar

  20. Yakhchali M, Bahramnejad K, Almasi O. Ticks (Acari Ixodida Ixodidae and Argasidae) abundance and associated risk factors for animals in the natural habitat of Sanandaj suburb, Iran. International Journal of Acarology. 2012; 38(4): 353-361. Google Scholar

  21. Telmadarraiy Z, Nasirian H, Vatandoost H, Abuolhassani M, Tavakoli M, Zarei Z, Banafshi O, Rafinejad J, Salarielac S, Faghihi F. Comparative susceptibility of cypermethrin in Ornithodoros lahorensis Neuman and Argas persicus Oken (Acari Argasidae) field populations. Pak J Biol Sci. 2007; 10(23): 4315-4318. PubMed | Google Scholar

  22. Vial L. Biological and ecological characteristics of soft ticks (Ixodida Argasidae) and their impact for predicting tick and associated disease distribution. Parasite. 2009; 16(3): 191-202. PubMed | Google Scholar

  23. Dmitrovic D, Bilbija B, Lukac M, Snjegota D. First record of Haemaphysalis concinna Koch, 1844 (Acari Ixodidae) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ecologica Montenegrina. 2014; 1(2): 89-91. Google Scholar

  24. Meng H, Xu S, Yu Z, Li N, Wang R, Gao X, Yang X, Liu J. Abundance and seasonal activity of Haemaphysalis concinna (Acari Ixodidae) at the border between China and Russia in Northern Inner Mongolia, China. Parasites & vectors. 2016; 9(1): 1-7. PubMed | Google Scholar

  25. Koc S, Aydm L, Cetin H. Tick species (Acari Ixodida) in Antalya City, Turkey species diversity and seasonal activity. Parasitology research. 2015; 114(7): 2581-2586. PubMed | Google Scholar

  26. Bursali A, Keskin A, Tekin S. A review of the ticks (Acari Ixodida) of Turkey species diversity, hosts and geographical distribution. Experimental and applied acarology. 2012; 57(1): 91-104. PubMed | Google Scholar

  27. Keskin A, Bursali A, Kumlutas Y, Ilgaz C, Tekin S. Parasitism of immature stages of Haemaphysalis sulcata (Acari Ixodidae) on some reptiles in Turkey. The Journal of parasitology. 2013; 99(5): 752-755. PubMed | Google Scholar

  28. Satta G, Chisu V, Cabras P, Fois F, Masala G. Pathogens and symbionts in ticks: a survey on tick species distribution and presence of tick-transmitted micro-organisms in Sardinia, Italy. Journal of medical microbiology. 2011; 60(1): 63-68. PubMed | Google Scholar

  29. Said MB, Galai Y, Mhadhbi M, Jedidi M, de la Fuente J, Darghouth MA. Molecular characterization of Bm86 gene orthologs from Hyalomma excavatum, Hyalomma dromedarii and Hyalomma marginatum marginatum and comparison with a vaccine candidate from Hyalomma scupense. Veterinary Parasitology. 2012; 190(1-2): 230-240). PubMed | Google Scholar

  30. Hornok S, Horváth G. First report of adult Hyalomma marginatum rufipes (vector of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus) on cattle under a continental climate in Hungary. Parasit Vectors. 2012; 5: 170. PubMed | Google Scholar

  31. Gargili A, Thangamani S, Bente D. Influence of laboratory animal hosts on the life cycle of Hyalomma marginatum and implications for an in vivo transmission model for Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus. The biology and ecology of ticks shape the potential for the transmission of zoonotic pathogens. 2015. Google Scholar

  32. Latif A, Bakheit M, Mohamed AE, Zweygarth E. High infection rates of the tick Hyalomma anatolicum anatolicum with Trypanosoma theileri. The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research. 2004; 71(4): 251. PubMed | Google Scholar

  33. El Hakim AE, Shahein YE, Abdel-Shafy S, Abouelella AM, Hamed RR. Evaluation of glycoproteins purified from adult and larval camel ticks (Hyalomma dromedarii) as a candidate vaccine. Journal of veterinary science. 2011; 12(3): 243-249. PubMed | Google Scholar

  34. ElGhali A, Hassan S. Life cycle of the camel tick Hyalomma dromedarii (Acari Ixodidae) under field conditions in Northern Sudan. Veterinary parasitology. 2010; 174(3-4): 305-312. PubMed | Google Scholar

  35. Apanaskevich DA, Schuster AL, Horak IG. The genus Hyalomma VII Redescription of all parasitic stages of H(Euhyalomma) dromedarii and H(E) schulzei (Acari Ixodidae). Journal of medical entomology. 2008; 45(5): 817-831. PubMed | Google Scholar

  36. Ziapour SP, Kheiri S, Asgarian F, Fazeli-Dinan M, Yazdi F, Mohammadpour RA, Aarabi M, Enayati A. First report of pyrethroid resistance in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus larvae (Say, 1821) from Iran. Acta tropica. 2016; 156: 22-29. PubMed | Google Scholar

  37. Nabian S, Taheri M, Ranjbar MM, Sazmand A, Youssefy P, Nazaralipour GR. Assessment and partial purification of serine protease inhibitors from Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus larvae. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária. 2014; 23(2): 187-193. PubMed | Google Scholar

  38. Noori NV, Rahbari S, Bokaei S. The seasonal activity of Rhipicephalus bursa in cattle in Amol (Northern Iran). World Applied Sciences Journal. 2012; 18(4): 590-593. Google Scholar

  39. Masala G, Chisu V, Foxi C, Socolovschi C, Raoult D, Parola P. First detection of Ehrlichia canis in Rhipicephalus bursa ticks in Sardinia, Italy. Ticks and tick-borne diseases. 2012; 3(5-6): 396-397. PubMed | Google Scholar

  40. Dantas-Torres F. The brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Latreille, 1806)(Acari Ixodidae) from taxonomy to control. Veterinary parasitology. 2008; 152(3): 173-185. PubMed | Google Scholar

  41. Dantas-Torres F. Biology and ecology of the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Parasit Vectors. 2010; 3(2): 26-37. Google Scholar

  42. Pantaleoni R, Baratti M, Barraco L, Contini C, Cossu C, Filippelli M, Loru L, Romano M. Argas (Persicargas) persicus (Oken, 1818) (Ixodida Argasidae) in Sicily with considerations about its Italian and West-Mediterranean distribution. Parasite. 2010; 17(4): 349-355. PubMed | Google Scholar

  43. Yu Z, Wang H, Wang T, Sun W, Yang X, Liu J. Tick-borne pathogens and the vector potential of ticks in China. Parasites & vectors. 2015; 8(1): 1-8. Google Scholar

  44. Shayeghi M, Piazak N, Gollampuor A, Nasirian H, Abolhassani M. Tick-borne relapsing fever in Sabzevar (Khorasan Razavy province), North-Eastern Iran. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science. 2016; 15(4): 551-555. Google Scholar

  45. Nasirian H, Ladonni H. Artificial bloodfeeding of Anopheles stephensi on a membrane apparatus with human whole blood. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2006; 22(1): 54-56. PubMed | Google Scholar

  46. Nasirian H, Ladonni H, Poudat A. Mass rearing of Anopheles stephensi on human blood by artificial feeding under laboratory conditions. Journal of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences. 2008; 12(3): 137-142. Google Scholar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The Pan African Medical Journal articles are archived on Pubmed Central. Access PAMJ archives on PMC here

Volume 28 (September - December 2017)

Article tools

Rate this article

Altmetric

PAMJ is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics
Next abstract

PAMJ is published in collaboration with the African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET)
Currently tracked by: DOAJ, AIM, Google Scholar, AJOL, EBSCO, Scopus, Embase, IC, HINARI, Global Health, PubMed Central, PubMed/Medline, Ulrichsweb, More to come . Member of COPE.

ISSN: 1937-8688. © 2017 - Pan African Medical Journal. All rights reserved