4.3 Article

Ecological correlates of a tick-borne disease, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, in moose in southern Norway

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH
卷 59, 期 3, 页码 399-406

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10344-012-0685-4

关键词

Alces alces; Climate change; Deer; Ehrlichiosis; Wildlife disease

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council [173868/AREAL]
  2. Innovation Norway
  3. Telemark County
  4. Hedmark County
  5. municipality in Telemark
  6. municipality in Vestfold
  7. municipality in Hedmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the distribution and abundance of ticks increase, so do the risks of tick-borne diseases. Anaplasma phagocytophilum, transmitted by Ixodes spp. ticks, is a widespread tick-borne infection causing tick-borne fever (TBF) in domestic ruminants and human granulocytic anaplasmosis. However, the role of wildlife in its epidemiology is poorly understood. Evidence of infection has been detected in wild cervids, but the pathogenicity and ecological consequences are unknown. We conducted a serological study of moose (Alces alces) in two populations in southern Norway, one where TBF was endemic (Telemark) and the other where sheep ticks (Ixodes ricinus) were essentially absent (Hedmark). Seroprevalence to A. phagocytophilum antibodies was 79 and 0 %, respectively. In Telemark, seroprevalence was significantly higher among females that calved successfully (85 %) than among others (50 %). Body mass and winter mass change were unrelated to serostatus. Relative abundance of questing ticks in Telemark was highest in deciduous forest and lowest in mature coniferous forest and higher at easterly aspects and altitudes below 350 m. Habitat factors associated with high tick abundance were risk factors for seropositivity among moose. Our findings were consistent with anaplasmosis causing a persistent subclinical infection in moose without population-level effects. Further work is needed to establish the importance of moose as a reservoir for the disease in sympatric domestic livestock.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据