Next Article in Journal
Synergistic Efficacy of Plaque Control with Intralesional Triamcinolone Acetonide Injection on Erosive Non-Gingival Oral Lichen Planus: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Development of the Children and Adolescents Physical Activity and Sedentary Questionnaire (CAPAS-Q): Psychometric Validity and Clinical Interpretation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 21
10.3390/ijerph192113781
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tick Infestation in Migratory Birds of the Vistula River Valley, Poland

by
Zbigniew Zając
1,*,†,
Joanna Kulisz
1,†,
Renata Kunc-Kozioł
1,
Aneta Woźniak
1,
Maciej Filipiuk
2,
Robert Rudolf
3,
Katarzyna Bartosik
1 and
Alejandro Cabezas-Cruz
4
1
Department of Biology and Parasitology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłłowska 11, 20-080 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Zoology and Nature Protection, Institute of Biological Sciences, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland
3
Kaliszany Ornithological Station, 24-340 Stare Kaliszany, Poland
4
Anses, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, UMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, F-94700 Maisons-Alfort, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(21), 13781; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113781
Submission received: 28 September 2022 / Revised: 18 October 2022 / Accepted: 21 October 2022 / Published: 23 October 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Migratory birds play an important role in the eco-epidemiology of tick-borne diseases due to their ability to carry ticks for long distances. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence and factors influencing the intensity of tick infestation in migratory birds. The study was conducted in a locality situated in the Vistula River valley, eastern Poland, during autumn, when the high migratory activity of birds is registered in the region. The birds were captured using ornithological nets and identified at the species level. In the next step, they were carefully inspected for attached ticks. Tick infestation was observed in 4.43% of the captured birds. The highest mean intensity of tick infestation was observed in birds foraging on the ground or in low shrubs and by long- and medium-distance migrants, i.e., Turdus merula (2.73), T. philomelos (2.04), and Erithacus rubecula (1.58). Ixodes ricinus was found to infest the birds most frequently. However, other tick species, i.e., I. trianguliceps, I. crenulatus (synonym I. canisuga), and I. apronophorus, rarely found in eastern Poland, were also found parasitizing birds. The occurrence of I. persulcatus, I. frontalis, and I. acuminatus (synonym I. redikorzevi) was confirmed in the region for the first time. The results of the study suggest that captured bird species are susceptible to tick infestation and could play an important role in the circulation of some tick-borne pathogens. They also play a significant role in the spread of ticks. The ecology and ethology of birds, including their foraging styles and migratory habits, are factors determining the risk of exposure of birds to tick attacks.

1. Introduction

Birds are hosts of a wide variety of parasites representing different taxonomic groups, such as protozoa, helminths, and arthropods [1,2,3]. Given their potential to transport ticks and their role as reservoirs of many pathogenic microorganisms posing a threat to human health, birds play an important role in the eco-epidemiology of infectious diseases transmitted by tick vectors [4,5,6,7,8,9]. In this aspect, the role of migratory birds is particularly important, as they can cross geographical barriers and spread ticks over long distances, even thousands of kilometers [10]. In contrast, ixodid ticks, such as Ixodes scapularis Say, 1821, are able to cover a short distance of 2–5 m in natural conditions, depending on the developmental stage [11]. The role of migratory birds in the spread of new alien tick species in Europe, e.g., the Hyalomma genus in Germany, has also been confirmed [12]. Similar observations have been reported in Great Britain [13]. In turn, tick species that are endemic to northern Africa were collected, e.g., in Italy, from birds during their seasonal migrations [14].
In Europe, a high infection rate of tick-borne pathogens has been reported in ticks infesting birds [15], with Borrelia spirochetes, the causal agent of Lyme disease (LD), being the most frequent [16,17,18]. Other frequently detected pathogens include Rickettsia (mainly R. helvetica), Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Coxiella burnetii, Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Babesia spp., tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV), and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) [15,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Co-infections, in particular with various Borrelia genospecies [4,15,20], are a frequent phenomenon as well [15,19].
In the study area (eastern Poland), I. ricinus Linnaeus, 1758 and Dermacentor reticulatus Fabricius, 1794 are the most common tick species, and their density is one of the highest in the scale of the whole country [27,28]. Moreover, eastern Poland should be considered an endemic area of tick-borne diseases. A high incidence of tick-borne diseases, especially LD [28], has been reported. Attention is drawn to the high prevalence of tick-borne pathogens detected in ticks; e.g., depending on the habitat, up to 91.7% of adult D. reticulatus ticks were positive for Rickettsia spp. [29]. Additionally, a high infection rate of Borrelia burgdorferi, Bartonella spp., Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Candidatus N. mikurensis, and Babesia spp. in ticks collected from vegetation is also observed in the region [29,30]. The presence of B. burgdorferi spirochetes was also confirmed in ticks removed from the inhabitants of the region [31]. Although there are no precise data on the role of animals, especially small rodents, in the circulation of tick-borne pathogens in the studied region, previously published results confirmed the occurrence of Apodemus agrarius Pallas, 1771; Microtus arvalis Pallas, 1778 and Myodes glareolus Schreber, 1780 [32], which are important links in enzootic cycles of circulation of tick-borne pathogens in the environment [33,34].
The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence and factors influencing the intensity of tick infestation in birds migrating through eastern Poland. To the best of our knowledge, there are no such reports from this region, and only a few studies on the national scale, which is the rationale behind undertaking this research [18,35,36,37,38,39]. Additionally, the location of the study area in the Vistula River valley, which constitutes one of the most important bird migration routes in Poland, is also noteworthy [40].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethical Statement

The study design, including bird capture and collecting ticks from them, was approved by the General Directorate of Nature Conservation in Warsaw (DZP-WG.6401.102.2020.TŁ) and the Regional Directorate of Nature Conservation in Lublin (WPN.6401.108.2021.KC).

2.2. Study Area

The field study was conducted in cooperation with the Kaliszany Ornithological Station (51°04′45″ N 21°48′04″ E), eastern Poland, which is part of the National Bird Ringing Station Network and the European Bird Migration Network (EBMN). The research station is located on a river island within the Vistula River Gorge of Lesser Poland. The river is a natural bird migration corridor, while the island is a stopover site for migrating birds. The station is situated on the bird migration route between northern and northeastern Europe and the southern and southwestern parts of the continent [41].

2.3. Bird Capture Procedure and Tick Collection

The study was carried out during the autumn migration in 2021 over 53 consecutive days, with a 9-day break at the beginning of September due to local flooding.
The birds were captured in ornithological nets (Ecotone, Gdynia, Poland) with a total length of 500 m, which were stretched along a transect (a total of 1.5 km) running through riverside thickets dominated by riparian vegetation transforming into a meadow community (Figure 1). In principle, the nets were inspected every hour, but these periods were shortened to half an hour in unfavorable weather conditions (rainfall, low or very high air temperatures). The captured birds were carefully released from the net and identified to the species [41,42,43]. Additionally, their sex, age, and amount of fat tissue were determined based on their morphological traits where possible. All birds were weighed using an Ohaus compact portable Ohaus balance (Series CL—CL501) and ringed. These steps were performed in accordance with the protocol proposed by Operation Baltic and EBMN, as described by Zaniewicz and Rosińska [44].
Subsequently, the whole birds’ body was carefully inspected for the presence of ticks. Parasites were removed from the body of the birds with tweezers and placed in an Eppendorf tube containing 70% ethanol solution. Samples were transported to the laboratory, where a Zeiss STEMI DV4 stereoscopic microscope (Carl Zeiss Light Microscopy, Göttingen, Germany) and tick identification keys [45,46,47] were used to identify the species, sex, and developmental stage. In the case of tick species that undergo discussion of their species distinctiveness, synonyms were applied [46,47,48]. When the identification of the tick species was impossible due to damage to the body, the specimens were identified at the genus level. Due to the identification of tick species only on the basis of morphological characteristics, the features typical for the identified species and developmental stages are summarized in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.

2.4. Analysis of the Quantitative Structure of Tick Populations and Their Host Preferences

The quantitative structure of the tick population was analyzed by calculating the ecological index of dominance (DTs%) and the index of prevalence (PTs%) using the following formulas [49,50]:
D T s = T s T t × 100 %
where DTs—ecological index of tick dominance, Ts—number of ticks of a given species collected from all birds, Tt—total number of ticks collected from all birds.
P T s = B T s B t × 100 %
where PTs—prevalence of particular tick species, BTs—number of birds infested by a particular tick species, B t —total number of examined birds.
The host preferences of the analyzed tick populations were determined based on an indicator called the preference index according to the formula proposed by Dudich [51]. Due to the possibility of overestimating the result for calculations with a small sample, only bird species with at least 100 captured individuals were included in the analysis:
I p = T s B s × B t T s × B s
where I p —preference index, TsBs—number of ticks of a given species collected from a given bird species, Bt—total number of examined birds, Ts—number of ticks of a given species, Bs—number of birds of given species, Ip < 1—negative interaction; Ip = 1—neutral interaction; Ip > 1—positive interaction.
Additionally, the number of host species infested by a particular tick species (NHSPI) (Baláž and Zigová) [52] and the mean intensity of infestation (MII) of the birds by a particular tick species were calculated as in Bush et al. [53]:
M I I = T s B T s
where MII—mean intensity of infestation of particular tick species; Ts—number of ticks of a given species; BTs—number of birds infested by a particular tick species.

2.4.1. Ornithophilicity of Ticks

Based on literature reports [54], the degree of ornithophilicity of the tick species was determined using the following scale: + accidentally ornithophilic, ++ relatively ornithophilic, +++ strictly ornithophilic.

2.4.2. Quantitative Characteristics of the Population of Captured Birds

The population of the captured birds was characterized using the ecological index of dominance (DBs%) [49,50].
D B s = B s B t × 100 %
where DBs—ecological index of bird dominance, Bs—number of birds of a given species, Bt—total number of birds
The prevalence of tick infestation in a particular bird species (PBs%) and the mean intensity of tick infestation in a given bird species (MIIB) were calculated as follows [49,50,53].
PBs = B s T B s × 100 %
where PBs—prevalence of infested birds in captured individuals, BsT—number of birds of a given species infested with ticks, Bs—number of captured birds of a given species
MIIB = T B s B s T
where MIIB—mean intensity of tick infestation in a given bird species, TBs—number of all tick species collected from a particular bird species, BsT—number of birds of a given species infested with all ticks

2.5. Behavior of Captured Birds

The captured birds were classified into ecological types based on the foraging style criterion proposed by Ciebiera et al. [36]: Type 0—birds foraging mainly on the ground and Type 1—birds foraging mainly in shrubs. Additionally, they were classified according to the distances covered during the seasonal migrations. Group 1 comprised sedentary/local migrants, i.e., birds staying in the same region throughout the season or migrating over short distances, usually not reaching the Mediterranean basin for overwintering. Group 2 included medium-distance migrants, usually overwintering in the Mediterranean Basin. Group 3 comprised long-distance migrants, i.e., those covering long distances between continents and usually overwintering in central or southern Africa. The birds were also characterized in terms of migration behavior: d—diurnal—daytime migration, n—nocturnal—night migration, and n/d—beginning of the flight at night and continuation during the day [36].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The type of distribution of the analyzed data was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Due to the lack of normality of the distribution, non-parametric tests were used for the statistical calculations.
The statistical significance of differences in the prevalence of tick infestation between the bird species was tested using the chi-square test. The significance of the differences in the mean intensity of tick infestation depending on birds’ behavior was analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. The relationships between birds’ body weight, amount of fat tissue, and tick infestation intensity were tested using Spearman’s rho correlation.
In all statistical tests, the results at p < 0.05 were considered significant. The statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad 8.1 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Prevalence of Tick Infestation in Migratory Birds

In total, 3903 birds of 55 different species were captured during the field study. Among the captured bird species, Erithacus rubecula Linnaeus, 1758 (1142); Sylvia atricapilla Linnaeus, 1758 (638); Turdus merula Linnaeus, 1758 (495); and T. philomelos Brehm, 1831 (341) were the most frequent. Tick infestation was confirmed in only 11 of 55 captured bird species (Table 1 and Table S3). The most common locations for tick attachment were the eyelid and chin (Figure 2). The total prevalence of tick infestation was 4.43% (173 infested of 3903 captured birds), with a statistically significant difference in prevalence of tick infestation between individual bird species (χ2 = 46.12, p < 0.001).

3.2. Tick Species and Tick Parasitic Stages Infesting Migratory Birds

Seven species of Ixodes were identified among the 335 ticks collected from the birds. These included I. ricinus, I. persulcatus Schulze, 1930; I. frontalis Panzer, 1798; I. trianguliceps Birula, 1895; I. crenulatus Koch, 1849 syn. I. canisuga; I. apronophorus Schulze, 1924; I. acuminatus Neumann, 1901, syn. I. redikorzevi. No ticks from the other genera were found (Table 2).
Only juvenile stages of ticks with a predominance of nymphs (65.37%) over larvae (34.63%) were found in the entire study group (Figure 3). The ticks collected from the captured birds were characterized by considerable ecological dominance (DTs) of I. ricinus (86.56%) (Table 2 and Table 3). Moreover, the highest mean infestation intensity (MII) was determined for this tick species (Table 3). I. ricinus ticks were collected from 9 bird species, accounting for 80.12% of all birds captured in the nets (Table 2 and Table 3). In contrast, I. crenulatus, I. apronophorus, and I. acuminatus were found in only one bird species each (Table 2).
The bird species differed in the number of infesting tick species. The greatest number of different species of ticks was collected from E. rubecula (5 out of the 7 identified species of ticks) (Table 2). Only one of the tick species collected from the birds (i.e., I. frontalis) was strictly ornithophilic (Table 3).

3.3. Intensity of Tick Infestation Depending on Bird Behavior

The highest mean infestation intensity (2.05 ticks/bird) was observed in the ground or low plant feeding bird species (type 0), whereas the value of this parameter in the group of birds feeding mainly in shrubs was 1.18 tick/bird (type 1); these differences were statistically significant (p = 0.0047) (Figure 4). Significant differences in the intensity of tick infestation were also observed between sedentary/local migrant birds (type 1) and long-distance migrants (type 3) (p = 0.0058) and between medium-distance migrants (type 2) and long-distance migrants (type 3) (p = 0.0425). In turn, the differences in the intensity of tick infestation between species exhibiting diurnal (1.0 tick/bird), nocturnal (1.94 tick/bird), and nocturnal/diurnal (1.96 tick/bird) migration behavior were not statistically significant (Figure 4).

3.4. Tick Host Preferences

The collected tick species differed in terms of the host preference index (Ip). The strongest tick–host relationship was observed between T. philomelos, T. merula, E. rubecula, and ticks. In turn, the most frequent tick species collected from birds, i.e., I. ricinus, exhibited a preference for the infestation of T. merula (3.42). The lowest values were recorded for the P. major and I. ricinus pairs (0.06) (Table 4).
A weak negative but statistically significant correlation was observed between the bird’s body weight and the prevalence of tick infestation only in E. rubecula (rs = −0.2563, p = 0.0265). There was no significant correlation between the amount of fat tissue and tick infestation in any bird species.

4. Discussion

Migratory birds play a significant role in introducing new tick species to areas previously considered tick-free [12,13,14,45], thereby posing a risk of local outbreaks of tick-borne diseases [55,56]. The results of the present study show that I. ricinus is the most frequently collected tick species from birds during their autumn migration (86.56% of all collected ticks) in eastern Poland. It is also the most widespread tick species in Europe [45], and its dominance on migratory birds has been reported in other studies conducted on the continent [7,15,18,23,25,35,36]. In the present study, we identified tick species that, to the best of our knowledge, had not been reported from eastern Poland (I. persulcatus, I. frontalis, I. acuminatus) or had been reported only sporadically (I. trianguliceps, I. crenulatus, I. apronophorus) [46,57,58]. Among the ticks identified in the current study, I. frontalis and I. ricinus are the most frequent tick species collected from birds [38,46]. I. persulcatus specimens parasitizing birds were confirmed, among others, by studies in Sweden, on birds captured at their stopover sites in Yakutia (Asia) and even from migrating birds in Japan [59,60,61]. In the case of I. acuminatus, the main spectrum of hosts is small mammals of the genera Microtus, Sorex, and Apodemus [46,62], while birds are considered exceptional hosts for this species [48]. In turn, Filippova [63] considered birds to be important hosts, mainly for the I. acuminatus larvae. These observations are also confirmed by the results of studies from Romania [64]. In turn, I. trianguliceps is a hydrophilic tick species that occurs in wet mixed forest habitats. This tick species is mostly found near the burrows of potential hosts, mainly small mammals [47,65]. Such behavior promotes ticks to attack birds that usually forage on the ground or in low parts of plants (foraging type 0 and/or 1) (Table 2). Feeding of this tick species on birds has also been confirmed [46,47]. Similar host preferences are observed in I. crenulatus and I. apronophorus occurring in river valleys, which are habitats of birds [47].
Particularly noteworthy is the relatively large number of collected larvae (2) and nymphs (10) of I. persulcatus (Table 2), whose compact range covers northeastern Europe [66,67]. In the present study, this species was collected from short-distance (T. merula) and medium-distance (E. rubecula, T. philomelos) migrants (Table 2), who migrated from the north and northeast of the continent to the Mediterranean region in autumn. Considering the feeding time of juvenile stages of ixodid ticks [68] and the distance covered daily by, e.g., E. rubecula [41], it can be suggested that these birds may play a significant role in the introduction of ticks in the eastern Poland region. However, our earlier study on the occurrence of ticks in this region did not confirm the presence of I. persulcatus [27,28]. Due to the northern range of its occurrence and the progressive climate change, this tick species may not find favorable habitat conditions in eastern Poland. Another noteworthy finding is the absence of D. reticulatus, i.e., the dominant tick species in eastern Poland [27,69], on the birds examined in this study. This is most probably related to the host specificity of these ticks. D. reticulatus larvae and nymphs typically infest small rodents [70] and are only sporadically found on birds [56,71].
In contrast to the results reported by other authors [4,72], we identified the presence of only Ixodes ticks on the birds (Table 2, Figure 3). This is probably associated with the location of the region along the birds’ autumn migration route from the north and north-east (dominated by I. ricinus and, to a lesser extent, by I. persulcatus) [73] to the south of the continent [41]. In Central Europe, in addition to the dominant Ixodes ticks, birds are most frequently infested by H. marginatum Koch, 1844; Haemaphysalis punctata Canestrini and Fanzago, 1878; Hae. concinna Koch, 1844; and less often by D. reticulatus [22,36,74].
The present study demonstrated the presence of ticks in 11 of the 55 identified bird species (20.00%), and the individuals representing the tick-infested species accounted for 82.09% (3204) of all captured birds (Table 1 and Table S3). Many tick-free bird species were captured in small numbers, excluding any reasoning about the lack of infestation. However, in this group there were also some species represented by a considerable number of individuals, and most of them were the ones foraging mainly in the tree canopy or higher bushes where ticks do not occur, e.g., Cyanistes caeruleus Linnaeus, 1758; Regulus regulus Linnaeus, 1758; Muscicapa striata Pallas, 1764; Periparus ater Linnaeus, 1758; or Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus, 1758 (Table S3). The presence of ticks in 61.11% of captured bird species was reported in studies conducted in west-central Poland, whereas tick infestation was observed in 55.55% of birds captured on the Baltic Sea coast [36,37]. These findings confirm the important role of birds as tick hosts and the involvement of birds in the spread of ticks. Although birds are not considered primary ticks’ hosts and the main reservoir of tick-borne pathogens in the environment [70,75], the broad spectrum of infested species increases the risk of transmission of pathogens; hence, birds should be considered an important link in the circulation of tick-borne pathogens.
In the present study, 4.43% of all captured birds were infested by ticks (Table 1). The lower prevalence of tick infestation than that in other regions of Poland [36,37] is probably associated with the fact that the study was conducted only in autumn (limitation related to coordination with ornithological station dates), while tick infestation rates are usually higher in spring [46,59,76].
The results of the present study indicate the dominance of nymphs (65.37%) over larvae (34.63%) infesting birds (Figure 3) in contrast to findings reported by other authors indicating the predominance of larvae in autumn [36,77,78]. In our opinion, these differences may be related to fluctuations in the seasonal activity of ticks.
The highest ecological index of dominance, the highest mean intensity of tick infestation, and a high host preference index were determined mainly in the case of short- and medium-distance migrants and species foraging on the ground or in low shrubs, i.e., T. merula, T. philomelos, E. rubecula, and S. atricapilla (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 4; Figure 4). Similar dependencies between the tick infestation levels and the distance covered by birds during seasonal migrations were also observed in, e.g., Scandinavia [77,79]. The birds’ foraging style should be regarded as an important factor influencing tick infestation intensity, especially bearing in mind that most of the tick species collected in this study are classified as relatively ornithophilic, including I. ricinus [54] (Table 3). Birds foraging on the ground are much more likely to be attacked by juvenile tick stages than those foraging in shrubs (Table 2). The present study showed ticks attached only to the heads of the birds. The most common location was the region around the eye and beak (Figure 2), which had direct contact with the ground during foraging. Moreover, the head is a safe place for the tick to attach, as it cannot be groomed via the beak or claws [80].
Our results also showed a significant (but weak) negative correlation between bird’s body weight and tick infestation intensity in the case of E. rubecula. This relationship may have been related to the fact that parasite infection increases hosts’ stress and may lead to a decrease in body mass in strongly infested individuals [1]. In addition, the immune status of the host may also influence the intensity of tick infestation in birds [81]. In addition, there are probably no genetic resistance mechanisms contributing to tick infestation in birds [81,82].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, I. ricinus is the most common tick species infesting the examined bird species during their autumnal migration in eastern Poland. Similarly, captured Passeriformes species, such as T. merula, T. philomelos, E. rubecula, and S. atricapilla, should be regarded as the preferred tick hosts. They play an important role in the spread of rare tick species in this region. Avian ecology and ethology, foraging styles, and length of migration distance have an impact on the exposure of birds to tick attacks and indirectly contribute to the maintenance and circulation of tick-borne pathogens in the environment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph192113781/s1, Table S1. Morphological characteristics of larvae belonging to tick species identified in the current study; Table S2. Morphological characteristics of nymph belonging to tick species identified in the current study; Table S3. Bird species captured during the current study.

Author Contributions

Z.Z. and J.K. conceptualization and methodology, Z.Z., J.K., A.W., M.F. and R.R. investigation and field work, Z.Z., J.K., R.K.-K., A.W. and M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.Z., J.K., R.K.-K., A.W., M.F., R.R., K.B. and A.C.-C. writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of General Directorate of Nature Conservation in Warsaw (DZP-WG.6401.102.2020.TŁ) and Regional Directorate of Nature Conservation in Lublin (WPN.6401.108.2021.KC).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated in this study have been published in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kloskowski, J.; Filipiuk, M.; Polak, M.; Fryderyk, S. Low prevalence but high intensity of infestation by Amblyceran Lice in red-necked grebes (Podiceps grisegena) in Eastern Poland. Waterbirds 2016, 39, 408–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Møller, A.P.; Nielsen, J.T. Malaria and risk of predation: A comparative study of birds. Ecology 2007, 88, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pemberton, R.T. Helminth parasites of some British birds. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1960, 3, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hasle, G. Transport of ixodid ticks and tick-borne pathogens by migratory birds. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2013, 3, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Estrada-Peña, A.; D’Amico, G.; Fernández-Ruiz, N. Modelling the potential spread of Hyalomma marginatum ticks in Europe by migratory birds. Int. J. Parasitol. 2021, 51, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mancuso, E.; Toma, L.; Polci, A.; d’Alessio, S.G.; Di Luca, M.; Orsini, M.; Di Domenico, M.; Marcacci, M.; Mancini, G.; Spina, F.; et al. Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Genome in tick from migratory bird, Italy. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2019, 25, 1418–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Pedersen, B.N.; Jenkins, A.; Kjelland, V. Tick-borne pathogens in Ixodes ricinus ticks collected from migratory birds in Southern Norway. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Michelitsch, A.; Wernike, K.; Klaus, C.; Dobler, G.; Beer, M. Exploring the reservoir hosts of tick-borne encephalitis virus. Viruses 2019, 11, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Baráková, I.; Derdáková, M.; Selyemová, D.; Chvostáč, M.; Špitalská, E.; Rosso, F.; Collini, M.; Rosà, R.; Tagliapietra, V.; Girardi, M.; et al. Tick-borne pathogens and their reservoir hosts in Northern Italy. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2018, 9, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Scott, J.D. Studies abound on how far north Ixodes scapularis ticks are transported by birds. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2016, 7, 327–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carroll, J.F.; Schmidtmann, E.T. Dispersal of blacklegged tick (Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs and adults at the woods–pasture interface. J. Med. Entomol. 1996, 33, 554–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chitimia-Dobler, L.; Schaper, S.; Rieß, R.; Bitterwolf, K.; Frangoulidis, D.; Bestehorn, M.; Springer, A.; Oehme, R.; Drehmann, M.; Lindau, A.; et al. Imported Hyalomma ticks in Germany in 2018. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Jameson, L.J.; Morgan, P.J.; Medlock, J.M.; Watola, G.; Vaux, A.G.C. Importation of Hyalomma marginatum, vector of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus, into the United Kingdom by migratory birds. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2012, 3, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Toma, L.; Mancuso, E.; d’Alessio, S.G.; Menegon, M.; Spina, F.; Pascucci, I.; Monaco, F.; Goffredo, M.; Di Luca, M. Tick species from Africa by migratory birds: A 3-year study in Italy. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2020, 83, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Klitgaard, K.; Højgaard, J.; Isbrand, A.; Madsen, J.J.; Thorup, K.; Bødker, R. Screening for multiple tick-borne pathogens in Ixodes ricinus ticks from birds in Denmark during spring and autumn migration seasons. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2019, 10, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Heylen, D.; Fonville, M.; Docters van Leeuwen, A.; Stroo, A.; Duisterwinkel, M.; van Wieren, S.; Diuk-Wasser, M.; de Bruin, A.; Sprong, H. Pathogen communities of songbird-derived ticks in Europe’s low countries. Parasites Vectors 2017, 10, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hildebrandt, A.; Franke, J.; Meier, F.; Sachse, S.; Dorn, W.; Straube, E. The potential role of migratory birds in transmission cycles of Babesia spp., Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Rickettsia spp. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2010, 1, 105–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gryczyńska, A.; Welc-Falęciak, R. Long-term study of the prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. infection in ticks (Ixodes Ricinus) feeding on blackbirds (Turdus merula) in NE Poland. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2016, 70, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Moutailler, S.; Valiente Moro, C.; Vaumourin, E.; Michelet, L.; Tran, F.H.; Devillers, E.; Cosson, J.-F.; Gasqui, P.; Van, V.T.; Mavingui, P.; et al. Co-infection of ticks: The rule rather than the exception. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Raileanu, C.; Moutailler, S.; Pavel, I.; Porea, D.; Mihalca, A.D.; Savuta, G.; Vayssier-Taussat, M. Borrelia diversity and co-infection with other tick borne pathogens in ticks. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Portillo, A.; Palomar, A.M.; Santibáñez, P.; Oteo, J.A. Epidemiological aspects of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever in Western Europe: What about the future? Microorganisms 2021, 9, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hornok, S.; Kováts, D.; Csörgő, T.; Meli, M.L.; Gönczi, E.; Hadnagy, Z.; Takács, N.; Farkas, R.; Hofmann-Lehmann, R. Birds as potential reservoirs of tick-borne pathogens: First evidence of bacteraemia with Rickettsia helvetica. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Lommano, E.; Dvořák, C.; Vallotton, L.; Jenni, L.; Gern, L. Tick-borne pathogens in ticks collected from breeding and migratory birds in Switzerland. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2014, 5, 871–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Berthová, L.; Slobodník, V.; Slobodník, R.; Olekšák, M.; Sekeyová, Z.; Svitálková, Z.; Kazimírová, M.; Špitalská, E. The natural infection of birds and ticks feeding on birds with Rickettsia spp. and Coxiella burnetii in Slovakia. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2015, 68, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kazarina, A.; Japiņa, K.; Keišs, O.; Salmane, I.; Bandere, D.; Capligina, V.; Ranka, R. Detection of tick-borne encephalitis virus in I. ricinus ticks collected from autumn migratory birds in Latvia. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2015, 6, 178–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Flaisz, B.; Sulyok, K.M.; Kováts, D.; Kontschán, J.; Csörgő, T.; Csipak, Á.; Gyuranecz, M.; Hornok, S. Babesia genotypes in Haemaphysalis concinna collected from birds in Hungary reflect phylogeographic connections with Siberia and the Far East. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2017, 8, 666–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zając, Z.; Woźniak, A.; Kulisz, J. Density of Dermacentor reticulatus ticks in Eastern Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Zając, Z.; Kulisz, J.; Bartosik, K.; Woźniak, A.; Dzierżak, M.; Khan, A. Environmental determinants of the occurrence and activity of Ixodes ricinus ticks and the prevalence of tick-borne diseases in Eastern Poland. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zając, Z.; Simonin, A.F.; Moutailler, S.; Galon, C.; Bartosik, K.; Cabezas-Cruz, A. Pathogens coinfections in Ixodes ricinus and Dermacentor reticulatus ticks in ecologically diverse habitats November 2021. V Ogólnopolska Konf. Nauk. Chor. Zakaźne I Pasożytnicze Człowieka—Probl. 2021, 11, 33. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wójcik-Fatla, A.; Cisak, E.; Zając, V.; Zwoliński, J.; Dutkiewicz, J. Prevalence of tick-borne encephalitis virus in Ixodes ricinus and Dermacentor reticulatus ticks collected from the Lublin region (Eastern Poland). Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2011, 2, 16–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gałęziowska, E.; Rzymowska, J.; Najda, N.; Kołodziej, P.; Domżał-Drzewicka, R.; Rząca, M.; Muraczyńska, B.; Charzyńska-Gula, M.; Szadowska-Szlachetka, Z.; Ślusarska, B.; et al. Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in ticks removed from skin of people and circumstances of being bitten—Research from the area of Poland, 2012–2014. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2018, 25, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zając, Z.; Kulisz, J.; Woźniak, A. Flea communities on small rodents in Eastern Poland. Insects 2020, 11, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Galfsky, D.; Król, N.; Pfeffer, M.; Obiegala, A. Long-Term trends of tick-borne pathogens in regard to small mammal and tick populations from Saxony, Germany. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Cayol, C.; Jääskeläinen, A.; Koskela, E.; Kyröläinen, S.; Mappes, T.; Siukkola, A.; Kallio, E.R. Sympatric Ixodes-tick species: Pattern of distribution and pathogen transmission within wild rodent populations. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 16660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Michalik, J.; Wodecka, B.; Skoracki, M.; Sikora, B.; Stańczak, J. Prevalence of avian-associated Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. genospecies in Ixodes ricinus ticks collected from blackbirds (Turdus merula) and song thrushes (T. philomelos). Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 298, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ciebiera, O.; Jerzak, L.; Nowak-Chmura, M.; Bocheński, M. Ticks (Acari: Ixodida) on birds (Aves) migrating through the Polish Baltic coast. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019, 77, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Biernat, B.; Stańczak, J.; Michalik, J.; Sikora, B.; Cieniuch, S. Rickettsia Helvetica and R. Monacensis infections in immature Ixodes ricinus ticks derived from sylvatic passerine birds in West-Central Poland. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 3469–3477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Nowak-Chmura, M.; Siuda, K.; Wagner, Z.; Piksa, K. Species diversity of ticks (Acari: Ixodida) on migrating birds on the Baltic sea coast of Poland. Zool. Stud. 2012, 51, 1411. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ciebiera, O.; Jerzak, L. Tick numbers on migratory birds—Preliminary data from the Polish Baltic. Coast Fol. Oecol. 2011, 6, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  40. Busse, P. European passerine migration system–What is known and what is lacking. Ring 2001, 23, 3–36. [Google Scholar]
  41. del Hoyo, J. Birds of the World—Comprehensive Life Histories for All Bird Species and Families. Available online: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  42. Snow, D. The Birds of the Western Palearctic; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; ISBN 9780198540991. [Google Scholar]
  43. Svensson, L.A. Identification Guide to European Passerines; Ugga Dr: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006; ISBN 9789163011184. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zaniewicz, G.; Rosińska, K. The wicie ringing station (N Poland)—Ringing results and seasonal bird migration dynamics in 2010–2014. Ring 2015, 37, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Estrada-Peña, A.; Mihalca, A.D.; Petney, T. Ticks of Europe and North Africa: A Guide to Species Identification; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 9783319637594. [Google Scholar]
  46. Siuda, K. Kleszcze Polski (Acari: Ixodida). Część II. Systematyka I Rozmieszczenie; Polskie Towarzystwo Parazytologiczne: Warszawa, Poland, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nowak-Chmura, M. Fauna Kleszczy (Ixodida) Europy Środkowej; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego: Kraków, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  48. Guglielmone, A.A.; Robbins, R.G.; Apanaskevich, D.A.; Petney, T.N.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Horak, I.G. The Hard Ticks of the World; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 9789400774971. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schwerdtfeger, F. Ökologie der Tiere. Band III: Synökologie; Paul Parey: Singhofen, Germany, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  50. Margolis, L.; Esch, G.W.; Holmes, J.C.; Kuris, A.M.; Schad, G.A. The use of ecological terms in parasitology (report of an ad hoc committee of the American society of parasitologists). J. Parasitol. 1982, 68, 131–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dudich, A. Synuzie blch (Siphonaptera: Insecta) Piskora vrchovskeho (Sorex Alpinus Schinz, 1837) v Zapadnych karpatoch. Biologia 1987, 42, 603–616. [Google Scholar]
  52. Baláž, I.; Zigová, M. Flea communities on small mammals in lowland environment. Ekológia 2020, 39, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bush, A.O.; Lafferty, K.D.; Lotz, J.M.; Shostak, A.W. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. Revisited. J. Parasitol. 1997, 83, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nowak-Chmura, M.; Siuda, K. Ticks of Poland. Review of contemporary issues and latest research. Ann. Parasitol. 2012, 58, 125–155. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lindeborg, M.; Barboutis, C.; Ehrenborg, C.; Fransson, T.; Jaenson, T.G.T.; Lindgren, P.-E.; Lundkvist, Å.; Nyström, F.; Salaneck, E.; Waldenström, J.; et al. Migratory birds, ticks, and Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2012, 18, 2095–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Leblebicioglu, H.; Eroglu, C.; Erciyas-Yavuz, K.; Hokelek, M.; Acici, M.; Yilmaz, H. Role of migratory birds in spreading Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever, Turkey. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 1331–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bitkowska, E. Roztocze drobnych ssaków niektórych okolic północnej i wschodniej polski (Acari: Ixodides, Mesostigmata, Trombidiformes, Sarcoptiformes). Fragm. Faunist 1975, 20, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zwolski, W. Studies upon ectoparasitic fauna of small mammals in natural foci in mud fever. Wiad. Parazyt. 1960, 6. [Google Scholar]
  59. Uspiensky, I.; Garruto, R.; Goldfarb, L. The Taiga tick Ixodes persulcatus (Acari: Ixodidae) in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) of Russia: Distributional and reproductive ranges. J. Med. Entomol. 2003, 40, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jaenson, T.G.T.; TäLleklint, L.; Lundqvist, L.; Olsen, B.; Chirico, J.; Mejlon, H. Geographical distribution, host associations, and vector roles of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae, Argasidae) in Sweden. J. Med. Entomol. 1994, 31, 240–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Ishiguro, F.; Takada, N.; Masuzawa, T.; Fukui, T. Prevalence of Lyme disease Borrelia spp. in ticks from migratory birds on the Japanese mainland. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 982–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Santos-Silva, M.M.; Beati, L.; Santos, A.S.; De Sousa, R.; Núncio, M.S.; Melo, P.; Santos-Reis, M.; Fonseca, C.; Formosinho, P.; Vilela, C.; et al. The hard-tick fauna of mainland Portugal (Acari: Ixodidae): An update on geographical distribution and known associations with hosts and pathogens. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2011, 55, 85–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Filppova, N. Ixodid ticks of the subfamily Ixodinae, fauna SSSR. Izdatielstwo Nauka 1977, 4, 272–283. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mihalca, A.; Dumitrache, M.; Magdaş, C.; Gherman, C.; Domşa, C.D.; Mircean, V.; Ghira, I.V.; Pocora, V.; Ionescu, D.T.; Barabási, S.S.; et al. Synopsis of the hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) of romania with update on host associations and geographical distribution. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2012, 58, 183–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hussein, H. Ixodes trianguliceps: Seasonal abundance and role in the epidemiology of Babesia microti infection in North-Western England. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 1980, 74, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bugmyrin, S.V.; Bespyatova, L.A.; Korotkov, Y.S. Long-term dynamics of Ixodes persulcatus (Acari: Ixodidae) abundance in the north–west of its range (Karelia, Russia). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019, 77, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Laaksonen, M.; Sajanti, E.; Sormunen, J.J.; Penttinen, R.; Hänninen, J.; Ruohomäki, K.; Sääksjärvi, I.; Vesterinen, E.J.; Vuorinen, I.; Hytönen, J.; et al. Crowdsourcing-based nationwide tick collection reveals the distribution of Ixodes ricinus and I. persulcatus and associated pathogens in Finland. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2017, 6, e31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Anderson, J.; Magnarelli, L. Biology of ticks. Infect. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 2008, 22, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Zając, Z.; Sędzikowska, A.; Maślanko, W.; Woźniak, A.; Kulisz, J. Occurrence and abundance of Dermacentor reticulatus in the habitats of the ecological corridor of the Wieprz River, Eastern Poland. Insects 2021, 12, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Földvári, G.; Široký, P.; Szekeres, S.; Majoros, G.; Sprong, H. Dermacentor reticulatus: A vector on the rise. Parasites Vectors 2016, 9, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Karbowiak, G. Changes in the occurrence range of hosts cause the expansion of the ornate dog tick Dermacentor reticulatus (Fabricius, 1794) in Poland. Biologia 2021, 77, 1513–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Comstedt, P.; Bergström, S.; Olsen, B.; Garpmo, U.; Marjavaara, L.; Mejlon, H.; Barbour, A.G.; Bunikis, J. Migratory passerine birds as reservoirs of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 1087–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Capligina, V.; Berzina, I.; Bormane, A.; Salmane, I.; Vilks, K.; Kazarina, A.; Bandere, D.; Baumanis, V.; Ranka, R. Prevalence and phylogenetic analysis of Babesia spp. in Ixodes ricinus and Ixodes persulcatus ticks in Latvia. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2015, 68, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Siuda, K.; Dudkiewicz, J. Hyalomma marginatum koch, 1844 (Acarina: Ixodidae) w Polsce–Przykład zawleczenia południowego kleszcza przez ptaki wędrowne. Wiad. Parazyt. 1979, 25. [Google Scholar]
  75. Rataud, A.; Galon, C.; Bournez, L.; Henry, P.-Y.; Marsot, M.; Moutailler, S. Diversity of tick-borne pathogens in tick larvae feeding on breeding birds in France. Pathogens 2022, 11, 946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Sándor, A.D.; Mărcuţan, D.I.; D’Amico, G.; Gherman, C.M.; Dumitrache, M.O.; Mihalca, A.D. Do the ticks of birds at an important migratory hotspot reflect the seasonal dynamics of Ixodes ricinus at the migration initiation site? A case study in the Danube Delta. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Nuorteva, P.; Hoogstraal, H. The incidence of ticks (Ixodoidea, Ixodidae) on migratory birds arriving in Finland during the spring of 1962. Ann. Med. Exp. Biol. Fenn. 1963, 41, 457–468. [Google Scholar]
  78. Špitalská, E.; Literák, I.; Sparagano, O.A.E.; Golovchenko, M.; Kocianová, E. Ticks (Ixodidae) from passerine birds in the Carpathian region. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2006, 118, 759–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kjelland, V.; Stuen, S.; Skarpaas, T.; Slettan, A. Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes ricinus ticks collected from migratory birds in Southern Norway. Acta Vet. Scand. 2010, 52, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Fracasso, G.; Matthysen, E.; Dhondt, A.A.; Heylen, D. Experimental study of micro-habitat selection by ixodid ticks feeding on avian hosts. Int. J. Parasitol. 2019, 49, 1005–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. de la Fuente, J.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Brey, R. Flying ticks: Anciently evolved associations that constitute a risk of infectious disease spread. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Owen, J.P.; Nelson, A.C.; Clayton, D.H. Ecological immunology of bird-ectoparasite systems. Trends Parasitol. 2010, 26, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 13781 g001 550
Figure 1. Ornithological net used to catch birds during the study. Photo by R. Rudolf.
Figure 1. Ornithological net used to catch birds during the study. Photo by R. Rudolf.
Ijerph 19 13781 g001
Ijerph 19 13781 g002 550
Figure 2. Ixodes ricinus ticks infesting birds. (A) Turdus philomelos, larva attached to the eyelid; (B) T. merula, nymph in the gape; (C) T. merula, nymph feeding near the eyelid; (D) T. merula, nymph feeding on the lore; (E) Erithacus rubecula, nymphs feeding on the lore; (F) Sylvia atricapilla, nymph attached to the chin; (G) E. rubecula; nymph feeding on the lore. Photo by Z. Zając.
Figure 2. Ixodes ricinus ticks infesting birds. (A) Turdus philomelos, larva attached to the eyelid; (B) T. merula, nymph in the gape; (C) T. merula, nymph feeding near the eyelid; (D) T. merula, nymph feeding on the lore; (E) Erithacus rubecula, nymphs feeding on the lore; (F) Sylvia atricapilla, nymph attached to the chin; (G) E. rubecula; nymph feeding on the lore. Photo by Z. Zając.
Ijerph 19 13781 g002
Ijerph 19 13781 g003 550
Figure 3. Quantitative and qualitative structure of collected ticks. Nymphs are only the developmental stages of ticks collected from birds. I. ricinus is the most frequent tick species infesting birds.
Figure 3. Quantitative and qualitative structure of collected ticks. Nymphs are only the developmental stages of ticks collected from birds. I. ricinus is the most frequent tick species infesting birds.
Ijerph 19 13781 g003
Ijerph 19 13781 g004 550
Figure 4. Mean intensity of tick infestation depending on the birds’ behavior (including the 95% confidence interval), *—statistically significant differences, ns—statistically insignificant differences.
Figure 4. Mean intensity of tick infestation depending on the birds’ behavior (including the 95% confidence interval), *—statistically significant differences, ns—statistically insignificant differences.
Ijerph 19 13781 g004
Table
Table 1. Tick infestation among the analyzed bird species.
Table 1. Tick infestation among the analyzed bird species.
Bird SpeciesBsDBs (%)BsTTBsPBs (%)MIIB
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Linnaeus, 175860.151116.671.00
Erithacus rubecula Linnaeus, 1758114229.26771226.741.58
Parus major Linnaeus, 17582416.17220.831.00
Phylloscopus collybita Vieillot, 18171483.79110.671.00
Poecile montanus Conrad, 1827130.33117.691.00
Sylvia atricapilla Linnaeus, 175863816.3513192.041.46
Sylvia borin Boddaert, 1783641.64111.561.00
Sylvia communis Latham, 1787100.261110.001.00
Troglodytes troglodytes Linnaeus, 17581062.72221.891.00
Turdus merula Linnaeus, 175849512.68491349.902.73
Turdus philomelos Brehm, 18313418.7425517.332.04
Bs—number of captured birds of particular species, DBs—index of ecological dominance of bird species, BsT—number of birds of particular species infested with ticks, TBs—number of ticks collected from a particular bird species, PBs—prevalence of tick infestation among particular bird species, MIIB—mean intensity of tick infestation of a particular bird species.
Table
Table 2. Ticks infesting birds and bird behavior type.
Table 2. Ticks infesting birds and bird behavior type.
Bird SpeciesNumber of Captured BirdsBird Behavior TypeTick Species
Ixodes spp.Ixodes ricinus
Linnaeus, 1758		Ixodes persulcatus Schulze, 1930 Ixodes frontalis
Panzer, 1798 		Ixodes trianguliceps Birula, 1895Ixodes crenulatus Koch, 1849
syn. I. canisuga		Ixodes apronophorus Schulze, 1924Ixodes acuminatus Neumann, 1901
syn. I. redikorzevi		Total
FTMDMBLNTLNTLNTLNTLNTLNTLNTLNTLNT
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Linnaeus, 1758613n----11------------------011
Erithacus rubecula Linnaeus, 1758114202n96153562971233-3---3-31-1---5270122
Parus major Linnaeus, 175824111d1 11-1------------------112
Phylloscopus collybita Vieillot, 181714813n/d----11------------------011
Poecile montanus Conrad, 18271311d------1-1---------------111
Sylvia atricapilla Linnaeus, 175863813n---41418-------11---------41519
Sylvia borin Boddaert, 17836413n----------------------11011
Sylvia communis Latham, 17871013n----11------------------011
Troglodytes troglodytes Linnaeus, 175810601n---112------------------112
Turdus merula Linnaeus, 175849501n1233887125-44-22------------3995134
Turdus philomelos Brehm, 183134102n/d-11172744-44----22---------173451
Total3204 119209619429021012325033303101011116219335
FT—foraging type, 0—birds foraging mainly on the ground, 1—birds foraging mainly in shrubs; MD—migration distance, 1—sedentary/local migrants, 2—medium-distance migrants, 3—long-distance migrants; MB—migration behavior, d—diurnal, n—nocturnal; n/d—nocturno-diurnal, L—larva, N—nymph, T—total number. When no tick was collected from a particular bird species, the record was marked with “-”.
Table
Table 3. Quantitative characteristics of ticks collected from captured birds.
Table 3. Quantitative characteristics of ticks collected from captured birds.
Tick SpeciesOrnithophilic ScaleDTs (%)PTs(%)NHSPIMII
Ixodes spp. 5.970.4151.25
Ixodes ricinus Linnaeus, 1758++86.563.7791.97
Ixodes persulcatus Schulze, 1930+3.580.3141.00
Ixodes frontalis Panzer, 1798+++1.490.1021.25
Ixodes trianguliceps Birula, 1895+0.900.0521.50
Ixodes crenulatus Koch, 1849 syn. I. canisuga+0.900.0313.00
Ixodes apronophorus Schulze, 1924+0.300.0311.00
Ixodes acuminatus Neumann, 1901 syn. I. redikorzevi+0.300.0311.00
DTs—ecological index of tick species dominance; PTs—prevalence of particular tick species in the captured birds; NHSPI—number of host species infested with particular tick species; MII—mean intensity of infestation by tick species; + accidentally ornithophilic, ++ relatively ornithophilic, +++ strictly ornithophilic.
Table
Table 4. Index of host preferences of ticks collected from the birds (only bird species with at least 100 captured individuals were included in the analysis).
Table 4. Index of host preferences of ticks collected from the birds (only bird species with at least 100 captured individuals were included in the analysis).
Bird SpeciesTick Species
Ixodes spp.Ixodes ricinus Linnaeus, 1758Ixodes persulcatus Schulze, 1930Ixodes frontalis Panzer, 1798Ixodes trianguliceps Birula, 1895Ixodes crenulatus
Koch, 1849 syn. I. canisuga		Ixodes apronophorus Schulze, 1924
Erithacus rubecula Linnaeus, 17582.561.140.852.05-3.423.42
Parus major Linnaeus, 17580.810.06-----
Phylloscopus collybita Vieillot, 1817-0.09-----
Sylvia atricapilla Linnaeus, 1758-0.38--2.04--
Troglodytes troglodytes Linnaeus, 1758-0.13-----
Turdus merula Linnaeus, 17581.183.422.633.15---
Turdus philomelos Brehm, 18310.571.743.82-7.63--
Ip < 1—negative interaction; Ip = 1—neutral interaction; Ip > 1—positive interaction. When no calculation was performed due to the absence of particular tick species on particular bird species, the record was marked with “-”.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zając, Z.; Kulisz, J.; Kunc-Kozioł, R.; Woźniak, A.; Filipiuk, M.; Rudolf, R.; Bartosik, K.; Cabezas-Cruz, A. Tick Infestation in Migratory Birds of the Vistula River Valley, Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13781. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113781

AMA Style

Zając Z, Kulisz J, Kunc-Kozioł R, Woźniak A, Filipiuk M, Rudolf R, Bartosik K, Cabezas-Cruz A. Tick Infestation in Migratory Birds of the Vistula River Valley, Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):13781. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113781

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zając, Zbigniew, Joanna Kulisz, Renata Kunc-Kozioł, Aneta Woźniak, Maciej Filipiuk, Robert Rudolf, Katarzyna Bartosik, and Alejandro Cabezas-Cruz. 2022. "Tick Infestation in Migratory Birds of the Vistula River Valley, Poland" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 13781. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113781

APA Style

Zając, Z., Kulisz, J., Kunc-Kozioł, R., Woźniak, A., Filipiuk, M., Rudolf, R., Bartosik, K., & Cabezas-Cruz, A. (2022). Tick Infestation in Migratory Birds of the Vistula River Valley, Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 13781. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113781

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop