Passive Animal Surveillance to Identify Ticks in Wisconsin, 2011–2017

Abstract

The introduction of new tick species poses a risk to human and animal health. Systematic active surveillance programs are expensive and uncommon. We evaluated a passive animal surveillance program as a monitoring tool to document the geographic distribution and host associations of ticks in Wisconsin. Passive surveillance partners included veterinary medical clinics, domestic animal shelters, and wildlife rehabilitation centers from 35 of the 72 Wisconsin counties. A total of 10,136 tick specimens were collected from 2325 animals from July 2011 to November 2017 and included Dermacentor variabilis Say (29.7% of all ticks), Ixodes texanus Banks (25.5%), Ixodes scapularis Say (19.5%), Haemaphysalis leporispalustris Packard (13.8%), Ixodes cookei Packard (4.4%), and Dermacentor albipictus Packard (1.7%). Less common species (<1% of collection) included Ixodes dentatus Marx, Ixodes sculptus Neumann, Ixodes marxi Banks, Amblyomma americanum Linnaeus, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus Latreille. Of the 2325 animals that were examined, most were domestic dogs (53%), eastern cottontail rabbits (16%), domestic cats (15%), and North American raccoons (11%). An additional 21 mammal and 11 bird species were examined at least once during the six years of the study. New county records are summarized for each species. Public health, academic, and veterinary and animal care partners formed a community of practice enabling effective statewide tick surveillance.

The wild life of ticks: using passive surveillance to determine the distribution and wildlife host range of ticks and the exoticHaemaphysalis longicornis, 2010-2021

“…For our county classifications, we considered deer to include any cervid species and small- to medium-sized mammals to include anything smaller than a coyote. In general, the distributions of ticks and their host-associations detected in this study were similar to what has been previously reported in the literature [10,18,19,57,64,70–74]. Unfortunately, for certain tick species (e.g., A. americanum, A. maculatum, D. albipictus , and D. variabilis ) there are currently limited data designating counties as reported vs. established counties, therefore we were unable generate any new established county data for these species.…”

“…Many of these passive surveillance strategies involve image submissions of ticks for expert, artificial intelligence, or crowd sourced identification [8–11], the use of electronic patient records from companion animals [12], and most commonly whole tick submissions from citizen scientists, veterinarians, and physicians [13–18]. Only a few published studies using passive surveillance have included ticks collected from wildlife hosts, and of those studies, most were to statewide surveys leaving gaps in our understanding of the regional distribution of ticks relevant to both human and animal health [19–23].…”

All for One Health and One Health for All: Considerations for Successful Citizen Science Projects Conducting Vector Surveillance from Animal Hosts

“…Ectoparasite collection was typically conducted when the citizen scientists interacted with the animal as part of their clientele (e.g., during a veterinary checkup or bringing stray animals into a shelter). To assist with vector collections, citizen scientists were either sent collection kits and materials [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] or exclusively given instructions via email, print material, or project website [ 18 , 19 , 20 ] on procedures to collect, preserve, and send specimens to researchers. When considering whether to send collection kits to citizen scientists, researchers should consider the cost to mail and receive the kits, whether special chemicals for specimen or pathogen preservation are required, and how differences in preservation or submission could affect the specimen or pathogen status.…”

“…Some studies involving passive surveillance techniques provided sampling kits for citizen scientists with professional wildlife access [ 15 , 16 , 54 , 55 , 56 ]. Kits generally contained ethanol-filled vials for preserving collected specimens, data sheets for recording information about the collection event, mailers to return the collected arthropod vectors, and information on how to properly collect.…”

Advancing the Science of Tick and Tick-Borne Disease Surveillance in the United States

“…While the aforementioned surveys all used active surveillance to drag, flag, or attract ticks with CO 2 , passive surveillance can provide additional insight not available using the above-mentioned surveillance methods. Lee et al [23] formed a network of collaborators that included veterinary offices, animal shelters and wildlife rehabilitation centers throughout Wisconsin to passively survey for ticks attached to companion animals and wildlife. The resulting survey increased the known distribution of certain tick species in Wisconsin and established a baseline for future surveillance.…”