Next Article in Journal
Evaluations of Spatial Accessibility and Equity of Multi-Tiered Medical System: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Genetic Variation in Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.l. Ticks across Arizona
Previous Article in Journal
How Does Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership Fuel Employees’ Low-Carbon Behavior? The Role of Environmental Self-Accountability and Power Distance Orientation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Wolbachia Impacts Anaplasma Infection in Ixodes scapularis Tick Cells
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Epidemiology, Distribution and Identification of Ticks on Livestock in Pakistan

by
Sadia Salim Khan
1,
Haroon Ahmed
1,
Muhammad Sohail Afzal
2,
Mobushir Riaz Khan
3,
Richard J. Birtles
4 and
Jonathan D. Oliver
5,*
1
Department of Biosciences, COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Park Road, Chakh Shahzad, Islamabad 45550, Pakistan
2
Department of Life Sciences, School of Science, University of Management & Technology (UMT), Lahore 54770, Pakistan
3
School of Environmental Science, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia
4
School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford M5 4NT, UK
5
Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(5), 3024; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053024
Submission received: 12 January 2022 / Revised: 27 February 2022 / Accepted: 1 March 2022 / Published: 4 March 2022

Abstract

:
Background: Ticks are ectoparasites that transmit a variety of pathogens that cause many diseases in livestock which can result in skin damage, weight loss, anemia, reduced production of meat and milk, and mortality. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify tick species and the distribution on livestock hosts (sheep, goat, dairy cattle, and buffalo) of Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province and Islamabad from October 2019 to November 2020. Materials and Methods: Surveillance was performed to calculate the prevalence of ticks on livestock. Tick prevalence data (area, host, breed, gender, age, and seasonal infestation rate) was recorded and analyzed. Results: A total of 2080 animals were examined from selected farms, and, of these, 1129 animals were tick-infested. A total of 1010 male tick samples were identified to species using published keys. Haemaphysalis punctata, Haemaphysalis sulcata, Hyalomma anatolicum, Hyalomma detritum, Hyalomma dromedarii, Hyalomma excavatum, Hyalomma marginatum, Hyalomma rufipes, Rhipicephalus decoloratus Rhipicephalus microplus, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus were collected from goats, sheep, buffalo, and cattle. The overall rates of tick infestation on livestock were 34.83% (buffalo), 57.11% (cattle), 51.97% (sheep) and 46.94% (goats). Within each species, different breeds demonstrated different proportions of infestation. For cattle breeds, infestation proportions were as follows: Dhanni (98.73%), Jersey (70.84%) and the Australian breed of cattle (81.81%). The Neeli Ravi breed (40%) of buffalo and the Beetal breed (57.35%) of goats were the most highly infested for these species. Seasonally, the highest prevalence of infestation (76.78%) was observed in summer followed by 70.76% in spring, 45.29% in autumn, and 20% in winter. The prevalence of tick infestation in animals also varied by animal age. In goats, animals aged 4–6 years showed the highest prevalence (90%), but in cattle, the prevalence of ticks was highest (68.75%) in 6 months–1-year-old animals. 1–3 years old buffalo (41.07%) and 6 months–1 year sheep (65.78%) had the highest prevalence rate. Females had significantly higher infestation rates (61.12%, 55.56% and 49.26%, respectively) in cattle, sheep, and goats. In buffalo, males showed a higher prevalence (38.46%) rate. Conclusions: This study showed tick diversity, infestation rate, and numerous factors (season, age, and gender of host) influencing tick infestation rate in different breeds of cattle, sheep, goats, and buffalo in Punjab Province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, and Islamabad, Pakistan. Higher tick burdens and rates of tick-borne disease reduce production and productivity in animals. Understanding tick species’ prevalence and distribution will help to develop informed control measures.

1. Introduction

Pakistan is a highly agricultural country with much of its population involved in animal husbandry. Forty-three percent of workers, especially in rural areas, work in the agricultural sector [1]. Parasites, such as ticks, impact animal health and production [2,3,4]. An amount of 49.6 million cattle, 41.2 million buffalo, 78.2 million goats, and 30.9 million sheep reside in Pakistan [5]. Cattle and goats are raised all over the country in grazing areas, while most sheep are found in hilly areas and buffalo are mostly raised in Punjab and Sindh [6,7,8].
Ticks are ectoparasites that can transmit a variety of pathogens that cause many diseases in cattle. These may result in skin damage, weight loss, abortion, and mortality, leading to substantial economic losses [9,10,11]. In Pakistan, cattle, and buffalo are mostly infested with Rhipicephalus and Hyalomma ticks [7,12,13,14,15,16,17] which transmit pathogens, such as Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bigemina, Babesia bovis and Theileria annulate [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Ovine and caprine theileriosis are caused by Theileria ovis and Theileria lestoquardi in sheep and goats, and these pathogens are transmitted by Haemaphysalis and Hyalomma ticks [25,26,27,28,29]. Ticks may also transmit pathogens to humans, especially those working closely with animals. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, transmitted by ticks in the genus Hyalomma, is of particular concern [30,31,32].
Despite the many negative impacts on the health of livestock and the variety of tick-borne pathogens, tick infestation of livestock has been little documented in some areas of Punjab, Swat, and in Islamabad. Previous studies have examined the prevalence of tick infestation on livestock in some areas of Pakistan and they are reported in different hosts in Pakistan, e.g., sheep and goats [4,7,33] and bovines [7,14,20,21,34]. Some studies of tick prevalence in Pakistan are focused on specific regions with small sample sizes of ticks. Ticks and tick-borne diseases are neglected issues and there are few tick control products available in markets [35].
The Punjab Province of Pakistan is highly rural, and many people rely on livestock rearing for their livelihood. During the summer feasting holiday of Eid ul Azha, many herdsmen bring animals to Punjab from other provinces, and this event corresponds to an annual increase in cases of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever [4,36]. It is likely that ticks carrying livestock pathogens are transferred between animal herds maintained in close quarters at this time. There is a need for appropriate strategies for the management of ticks and tick-borne diseases, and this requires current data on the prevalence and distribution of ticks on a variety of hosts. The objective of this work was to better understand the dynamics of tick-borne disease transmission among both livestock and humans in Punjab Province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (KPK), and Islamabad. To do so, we performed large-scale surveillance of tick infestation on livestock, including cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats. This study will help to produce coherent tick control and education programs tailored to the regions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study focused on Punjab Province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province and Islamabad from October 2019 to November 2020. The study sites are shown in Figure 1. Punjab Province is the most populated province of Pakistan, and this area contains 7 million sheep, 22 million buffalo, 24 million goats, and 18.8 million cattle [7,37]. The climate of Punjab is dry, as rainfall is less than 200 mm annually. The annual mean temperature of this area varies between its cold zone (7–12 °C), and its warm zone (above 25 °C) [38]. During the summer, high humidity, and temperatures provide favorable conditions for tick growth and infestation. The Swat valley is located within KPK in northern Pakistan. In its Malakand division, there are more than 80,000 sheep, 236,000 goats, 253,000 cattle, and 117,000 buffalo. The average temperature of Swat varies between 10 °C and 15 °C [39,40]. Islamabad is the capital of Pakistan. To its northeast, in Rawalpindi (Punjab), there are many livestock farms and rural areas where people rear livestock. Islamabad is the largest city in Pakistan and has a humid climate with temperatures ranging from −3.9 °C to 46. °C (January to June) [41].

2.2. Sample Size, Collection, and Preservation

Seventy-three livestock farms were selected for tick sampling based on the availability of permission to sample. Four villages were selected from each district shown in Figure 1. Six livestock farms were visited in each village. Farms were at least ten km away from the next farm in urban areas and more than five km away in rural areas. Livestock varying in age, breed, and sex housed in barns were selected on the supposition that if ticks are present on the farm, then at least 50% of the livestock would be infested on that farm [42]. They were checked for ticks using a standardized protocol [43]. Any ticks encountered were carefully removed with forceps to ensure they remained intact, including mouthparts [44]. Collection data regarding location, date, host species, breed, age, and sex were recorded with the help of veterinarians. Ticks were preserved in 70% ethanol.

2.3. Identification of Male Ticks

Morphological characters of ticks were observed using a Leica EZ4W stereomicroscope (Leica EZ4W) and identified using taxonomic keys [45,46,47,48].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Prevalence data (area of collection, host, breed, gender, age, and seasonal infestation rate of ticks) were analyzed by using Jomovi 1.6.23 software and statistical analysis was done in R language (version 4.0.5). The chi-square test, was calculated to assess the difference between two distributions (i.e., non-infested and tick-infested animals) and p < 0.05 was considered a significant level between groups [49].

3. Results

3.1. Tick Prevalence on Livestock

A total of 2080 animals, varying in age, breed, and sex, were selected and examined for ticks. Of these, 1141 animals (31 buffalo, 791 cattle, 66 sheep, and 253 goats) were found to be tick infested. The proportion of male tick infestation was 34.83% for buffalo, 59.69% for cattle, 46.93% for goats, and 51.96% for sheep, as shown in Table 1. The unidentified female (1324) and immature ticks (531) on the four host animals (goat, sheep, buffalo, and cattle) were omitted from analysis and discussion due to the difficulty in identification. There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.001, χ 2 = 41 ) between the rates of non-infested and tick-infested animals (Table 1).
There were high proportions of tick infestation in both indigenous and exotic breeds of cattle. Dhanni (98.73%), Jersey (70.84%), and the Australian breed of cattle (81.81%) were heavily tick-infested, while the Sahiwal breed was less infested (54.34%). In buffalo, the tick infestation rate was higher (40%) in the Neeli Ravi breed as compared to the Ravi breed. In goats, the Beetal breed was highly infested (57.35%) and Lal Puri (39.87) was least infested. There were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in tick infestation rates among some breeds of cattle ( χ 2 = 65.8 ), buffalo ( χ 2 = 3.86 ), and goats ( χ 2 = 18.5 ; Table 2).
The age of the animals affected the prevalence of tick infestation. In goats, animals aged 4–6 years showed the highest prevalence (90%) followed by 1–3 years (54.67%), 6 months–1 year (41.86%), and up to 6 months (40.83%) age groups. In cattle, the rate of tick infestation was highest (62.29%) in 4–6 years old animals, followed by 1–3 years old (60.93%), 7–14 years old (50%), 6 months–1 year (46.31%), and up to 6 months old animals (40%). In buffalo, 1–3 years (41.07%), and in sheep, 6 months–1 year (65.78%) old animals had the highest rates of tick infestation.
In cattle, sheep, and goats, females had a higher prevalence of tick infestation (61.12%, 55.56% and 48.25%, respectively) than males (59.06%, 49.31% and 45.56%, respectively). In buffalo, males showed a higher prevalence (38.46%) of tick infestation than females (32.65%) (Table 3).

3.2. Geographic and Seasonal Tick Prevalence

There were differences in tick burdens in different areas with higher infestation levels in Hafizabad (100%) and Mandi Bahudin (89.55%), and lower infestation levels in Sheikhupura (20%; Table 4).
Table 5 shows the overall seasonal tick prevalence in Punjab Province and Islamabad. The highest prevalence (76.78%) was observed in summer followed by 70.76% in spring, 45.29% in autumn, and 20% in winter. With respect to seasons, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the proportions of non-infested and tick-infested animals.

3.3. Tick Species Identification

Tick samples (males and females of different life stages) were collected from 1141 animals (sheep, goats, cattle, and buffalo) from different areas of Punjab Province, KPK, and Islamabad. An amount of 1012 male ticks were found and identified to species. Because the ticks were collected from livestock, most immatures and females were engorged, obscuring diagnostic characters. This was particularly of concern for Hyalomma ticks for which diagnostic characters often include the shape of the genital aperture [47]. Eleven species of ticks (H. punctata, H. sulcata, H. anatolicum, H. detritum, H. dromedarii, H. excavatum, H. marginatum, H. rufipes, R. decoloratus, R. microplus, and R. sanguineus) were identified. Only goats and cattle were infested with H. dromedarii, and H. sulcata was only identified on buffalo and sheep (Table 6). Table 7 shows the tick species (male) found on various animals.

4. Discussion

Tick identification was performed morphologically using dichotomous keys. One potential shortcoming of this project was the identification of only male ticks. Eleven tick species in three genera were identified. Male ticks of these species all feed on livestock and are implicated in the transmission of tick-borne diseases. In areas where resources for molecular identification of tick species are not available, researchers must rely on traditional morphological identification methods. It will be valuable to develop regionally specific identification keys that reflect all species, ages, and sexes of ticks likely to be encountered. Some areas of Punjab, Swat, and Islamabad had the highest diversity of tick species observed amongst livestock at a given site in Pakistan. The diversity of tick species observed may be due to the collection of ticks from a variety of livestock hosts. Identified species included several important disease vectors, e.g., Rhipicephalus, Hyalomma [7,12,13,50,51] and Haemaphysalis [27,28,29].
The highest proportion of livestock infested with ticks was observed in cattle. This may be due to their thin skin and the favorable habitat and climatic conditions for ticks in Pakistan [20]. Our results regarding lower tick infestation rates in buffalo as compared to cattle are similar to the previous findings that reported a lower prevalence of tick infestation in buffalo than in cattle [4,21,34].
The tick infestation rate was higher in sheep than in goats. This pattern has been observed in some studies of tick infestation of livestock in Pakistan [52,53]. Another study observed the opposite: that infestation was lower in sheep (11.1%) as compared to goats (60.0%) [7]. The lower rate of tick infestation in goats was maybe due to pasturing in steep and rocky habitats that limit contact with other species of livestock [54].
Exotic livestock breeds and their crosses have longer and denser hair, which makes them an easy victim of tick infestation due to extensive sheltered attachment space. The lower infestation rate in indigenous breeds (Sahiwal cattle) was also may be due to the development of resistance due to constant exposure to parasites [9,55]. Higher rates of tick infestation in exotic breeds of cattle have been noted in previous studies in Pakistan [7,12,13,14,55,56,57] as well as in Egypt [58]. Previous studies [4,24] also reported higher tick infestation rates in local breeds of cattle, which is also observed in our study, as the Dhanni breed of cattle were highly infested with ticks. Our results regarding the higher rate of tick infestation in crossbred cattle disagree with several other studies that observed a lower rate of infestation in cross breeds [34,56,59]
The higher rates of tick infestation observed in the summer are likely due to the combination of increased moisture and higher temperature [48,60]. Previous studies have shown peak infestation rates occurring in the summer [57,61,62] or during other seasons [63,64] depending on local climatic and environmental conditions, such as humidity, temperature, and host animal availability [65,66,67]. As large-bodied ticks, Hyalomma is generally more resistant to desiccation and some species, such as H. dromedarii, are well adapted to living in dry, even desert habitats [68].
Animal age had an important effect on the prevalence of ticks [69]. Young and adult cattle were heavily infested with ticks as compared to calves as has been previously reported [7,24,57]. Grooming of calves and the smaller surface area of animals may be factors in the lower tick burdens [70]. In sheep and goats, age had no significant effect on tick infestation, as others have described [53].
Female cattle, sheep, and goats were slightly more likely to have ticks than males. This result is contrary to some previous studies [56,71]. In buffalo, males were more likely to be infested than females, as has been previously described [21].

5. Conclusions

This study described the prevalence of tick infestation in cattle, sheep, goats, and buffalo in Punjab Province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, and Islamabad. Eleven tick species that can transmit a variety of pathogens to livestock and humans were identified. This information will help develop locally appropriate tick control and education programs in the region.

Author Contributions

S.S.K. conducted the study and wrote the manuscript; M.S.A. helped in sampling; M.R.K. and R.J.B. did revisions in the manuscript; H.A. helped in the research and supervised the study; J.D.O. helped in tick species identification and writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the Institutional guidelines and approved by the Ethical Committee of COMSATS University (permit no. CUI/Bio/ERB/2021/42).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Specimens of female and immature ticks have been retained at the University of Minnesota Division of Environmental Health Sciences and are available for study.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Muhammad Arslan for his help in statistical analysis and the biosciences department, COMSATS University, who spent their crucial time to complete this research. Wasim Haider helped in the statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan. Available online: http://finance.gov.pk/survey_1314.html (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  2. Irshad, N.; Qayyum, M.; Hussain, M.; Khan, M.Q. Prevalence of tick infestation and theileriosis in sheep and goats. Pak. Vet. J. 2010, 30, 178–180. [Google Scholar]
  3. Mather, T.N.; Abdullah, G.A. Building molecular biology capacity for preventing tick-transmitted diseases in Pakistan. Pak. USA Sci. Technol. Coop. Program 2015, 11, 15–23. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ramzan, M.; Naeem-Ullah, U.; Saba, S.; Iqbal, N.; Saeed, S. Prevalence and identification of tick species (Ixodidae) on domestic animals in district Multan, Punjab Pakistan. Int. J. Acarol. 2020, 46, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. APLDA. All Pakistan Livestock and Dairy Association. Available online: http://aplda.org.pk/statstics.html (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  6. FAO. Dairy Development in Pakistan. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/aal750e.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  7. Rehman, A.; Nijhof, A.M.; Sauter-Louis, C.; Schauer, B.; Staubach, C.; Conraths, F.J. Distribution of ticks infesting ruminants and risk factors associated with high tick prevalence in livestock farms in the semi-arid and arid agro-ecological zones of Pakistan. Parasites Vectors 2017, 10, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ali, A.; Ahelha, S.; Zahid, H.; Ullah, F.; Zeb, I.; Ahmed, H.; da Silva Vaz, I., Jr.; Tanaka, T. Molecular survey and spatial distribution of Rickettsia spp. in ticks infesting free-ranging wild animals in Pakistan (2017–2021). Pathogens 2022, 11, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jongejan, F.; Uilenberg, G. The global importance of ticks. Parasitology 2004, 129, S3–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sonenshine, D.E.; Roe, R.M. Biology of Ticks, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 353–381. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaur, D.; Jaiswal, K.; Mishra, S. Studies on prevalence of ixodid ticks infesting cattle and their control by plant extracts. IOSR J. Pharm. Biol. Sci. Ver. III 2015, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sajid, M.S.; Iqbal, Z.; Khan, M.N.; Muhammad, G. Prevalence and associated risk factors for bovine tick infestation in two districts of lower Punjab, Pakistan. Prev. Veter. Med. 2009, 92, 386–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Iqbal, A.; Sajid, M.S.; Khan, M.N.; Khan, M.K. Frequency distribution of hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) infesting bubaline population of district Toba Tek Singh, Punjab, Pakistan. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Farooqi, S.H.; Ijaz, M.; Saleem, M.H.; Rashid, M.I.; Oneeb, M.; Khan, A.; Aqib, A.I.; Mahmood, S. Distribution of ixodid tick species and associated risk factors in temporal zones of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2017, 49, 1937–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Muhammad, A.; Bashir, R.; Mahmood, M.; Afzal, M.S.; Simsek, S.; Awan, U.A.; Khan, M.R.; Ahmed, H.; Cao, J. Epidemiology of Ectoparasites (Ticks, Lice, and Mites) in the Livestock of Pakistan: A Review. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 780738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mushtaq, A.; Shoukat, T.; Mumtaz, T.; Qasim, M.; Ajmal, K.; Fatima, N.; Khan, A.; Kouser, M.; Hussain, N.; Khan, S.S.; et al. Tick-borne Diseases in Sheep and Goats in Pakistan: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acta Parasitol. 2021, 66, 1316–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mustafa, I.; Saman Asif, S.; Ahmed, H. Seasonal activity of tick infestation in goats and buffalo of Punjab province (District Sargodha), Pakistan. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2014, 20, 655–662. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jonsson, N. The productivity effects of cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) infestation on cattle, with particular reference to Bos indicus cattle and their crosses. Veter. Parasitol. 2006, 137, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jabbar, A.; Abbas, T.; Sandhu, Z.-U.; Saddiqi, H.A.; Qamar, M.F.; Gasser, R.B. Tick-borne diseases of bovines in Pakistan: Major scope for future research and improved control. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Karim, S.; Budachetri, K.; Mukherjee, N.; Williams, J.; Kausar, A.; Hassan, M.J.; Adamson, S.; Dowd, S.E.; Apanskevich, D.; Arijo, A.; et al. A study of ticks and tick-borne livestock pathogens in Pakistan. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghafar, A.; Gasser, R.B.; Rashid, I.; Ghafoor, A.; Jabbar, A. Exploring the prevalence and diversity of bovine ticks in five agro-ecological zones of Pakistan using phenetic and genetic tools. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2020, 11, 101472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vieira, L.L.; Canever, M.F.; Cardozo, L.L.; Cardoso, C.P.; Herkenhoff, M.E.; Neto, A.T.; Vogel, C.I.G.; Miletti, L.C. Prevalence of Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bovis, and Babesia bigemina in cattle in the Campos de Lages region, Santa Catarina state, Brazil, estimated by multiplex-PCR. Parasite Epidemiol. Control. 2019, 6, e00114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Estrada-Peña, A.; Szabó, M.; Labruna, M.; Mosqueda, J.; Merino, O.; Tarragona, E.; Venzal, J.M.; De La Fuente, J. Towards an Effective, Rational and Sustainable Approach for the Control of Cattle Ticks in the Neotropics. Vaccines 2019, 8, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Zeb, J.; Shams, S.; Ayaz, S.; Din, I.U.; Khan, A.; Adil, N.; Ullah, H.; Raza, A. Epidemiology of ticks and molecular characterization of Rhipicephalus microplus in cattle population in North-Western Pakistan. Int. J. Acarol. 2020, 46, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Durrani, A.Z.; Shakoori, A.R. Study on ecological growth conditions of cattle Hyalomma ticks in Punjab, Pakistan. Iran. J. Parasitol. 2009, 4, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  26. Durrani, A.Z.; Younus, M.; Kamal, N.; Mehmood, N.; Shakoori, A.R. Prevalence of ovine Theileria species in District Lahore, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2011, 43, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  27. Levine, N.D. Protozoan Parasites of Domestic Animals and of Man; Nabu Press: Charleston, SC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Aktas, M.; Altay, K.; Dumanli, N. PCR-based detection of Theileria ovis in Rhipicephalus bursa adult ticks. Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 140, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mans, B.J.; Pienaar, R.; Latif, A.A. A review of Theileria diagnostics and epidemiology. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2015, 4, 104–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Bente, D.A.; Forrester, N.L.; Watts, D.M.; McAuley, A.J.; Whitehouse, C.A.; Bray, M. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever: History, epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical syndrome and genetic diversity. Antivir. Res. 2013, 100, 159–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Otranto, D.; Dantas-Torres, F.; Giannelli, A.; Latrofa, M.S.; Cascio, A.; Cazzin, S.; Ravagnan, S.; Montarsi, F.; Zanzani, S.A.; Manfredi, M.T.; et al. Ticks infesting humans in Italy and associated pathogens. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. WHO. Surveillance, Forecasting and Response: Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever in Pakistan; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  33. Khan, A.; Nasreen, N.; Niaz, S.; Shah, S.A.S.; Mitchell, R.D., III; Ayaz, S.; Naeem, H.; Khan, L.; De León, A.P. Tick burden and tick species prevalence in small ruminants of different agencies of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Pakistan. Int. J. Acarol. 2019, 45, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ahmad, Z.; Anwar, Z.; Adnan, M.; Imtiaz, N.; Rashid, H.U.; Gohar, F. Collection and prevalence of ticks in cattles and buffaloes from free-range management systems of Islamabad. J. Basic Appl. Zool. 2019, 80, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lihou, K.; Vineer, H.R.; Wall, R. Distribution and prevalence of ticks and tick-borne disease on sheep and cattle farms in Great Britain. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kasi, K.K.; von Arnim, F.; Schulz, A.; Rehman, A.; Chudhary, A.; Oneeb, M.; Sas, M.A.; Jamil, T.; Maksimov, P.; Sauter-Louis, C.; et al. Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus in ticks collected from livestock in Balochistan, Pakistan. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2020, 67, 1543–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Available online: https://punjab.gov.pk/about_punjab_geography#:~:text=Punjab%20is%20the%20most%20populous,the%20national%20figure%20of%20164 (accessed on 3 January 2022).
  38. Khan, D.; Saeed, A.; Junaid, A.; Qamar, I.; Yazdan, F.; Din, S.; Tariq, M. Assessment of riparian vegetation in Dhrabi watershed and Chakwal Region in Pakistan. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 29, 260–267. [Google Scholar]
  39. Available online: http://kpboit.gov.pk/swat-district/#:~:text=Livestock%20and%20dairy%20development%20sector,80048%20Sheep%20and%20236%2C229%20Goats (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  40. Available online: https://www.visitswatvalley.com/swat-weather/#:~:text=The%20swat%20weather%20varies%20by,upper%20regions%20i.e.%20in%20Kalam (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  41. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/place/Pakistan/Economy (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  42. Lorenz, R.T. Disease surveillance in livestock—A guide for the determination of sample sizes. Bonn AID 1990, 1–51. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ica, A.; Inci, A.; Vatansever, Z.; Karaer, Z. Status of tick infestation of cattle in the Kayseri region of Turkey. Parasitol. Res. 2007, 101, 167–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Soulsby, E. Helminths, arthropods and protozoa of domesticated animals. Protozoology 1982, 291, 56–67. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kaiser, M.N.; Hoogstraal, H. The Hyalomma ticks (Ixodoidea, Ixodidae) of Afghanistan. J. Parasitol. 1963, 49, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Walker, A.R. Ticks of Domestic Animals in Africa: A Guide to Identification of Species; Bioscience Reports: Edinburgh, UK, 2003; pp. 3–210. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hosseini-Chegeni, A.; Tavakoli, M.; Telmadarraiy, Z. The updated list of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae & Argasidae) occurring in Iran with a key to the identification of species. Syst. Appl. Acarol. 2015, 24, 2133–2166. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tylor, M.O.; Coop, R.L.; Wall, R.L. Veterinary Parasitology, 3rd ed.; Blackwell Publishing Oxford: Ames, IA, USA, 2007; pp. 838–839. [Google Scholar]
  49. Walpole, R.E.; Myers, R.H.; Myers, S.L.; Ye, K. Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1993; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  50. Telmadarraiy, Z.; Chinikar, S.; Vatandoost, H.; Faghihi, F.; Hosseini-Chegeni, A. Vectors of Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever virus in Iran. J. Arthropod-Borne Dis. 2015, 9, 137. [Google Scholar]
  51. Perveen, F. Distribution and identification of ixodid tick species on livestock in northern Pakistan. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2011, 1, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ramzan, M.; Naeem-Ullah, U.; Abbas, H.; Adnan, M.; Rasheed, Z.; Khan, S. Diversity of hard ticks in goats and sheep in Multan, Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Res. 2019, 35, 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rashid, M.; Godara, R.; Yadav, A.; Katoch, R. Prevalence of ticks in sheep and goats of Jammu region. Ind. J. Small Rum. 2018, 24, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alessandra, T.; Santo, C. Tick-borne diseases in sheep and goats: Clinical and diagnostic aspects. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 106, S6–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ahmed, S.; Numan, M.; Manzoor, A.W.; Ali, F.A. Investigations into Ixodidae ticks in cattle in Lahore, Pakistan. Vet. Ital. 2012, 48, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Shoaib, M.; Rashid, I.; Akbar, H.; Sheikh, A.A.; Farooqi, S.H.; Asif, M.; Khan, M.A.; Mahmood, S.; Khan, F.A. Prevalence of Rhipicephalus and Hyalomma ticks in cattle and associated risk factors in three districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2021, 53, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gul, S.; Ahmed, S.; Usman, T.; Khan, K.; Ayaz, S.; Gul, S.; Ali, N. Prevalence of Anaplasma marginale in tropical area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2021, 53, 1977–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Asmaa, N.M.; ElBably, M.A.; Shokier, K.A. Studies on prevalence, risk indicators and control options for tick infestation in ruminants. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Kakar, M.E.; Khan, M.A.; Khan, M.S.; Ashraf, K.; Kakar, M.A.; Jan, S.; Razzaq, A. Prevalence of tick infestation in different breeds of cattle in Balochistan. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2017, 27, 797–802. [Google Scholar]
  60. Aktas, M.; Dumanli, N.; Angin, M. Cattle infestation by Hyalomma ticks and prevalence of Theileria in Hyalomma species in the east of Turkey. Veter. Parasitol. 2004, 119, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rony, S.A.; Mondal, M.M.H.; Begum, N.; Islam, M.A.; Affroze, S. Epidemiology of ectoparasitic infestations in cattle at Bhawal forest area, Gazipur. Bangladesh J. Vet. Med. 2010, 8, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Ullah, N.; Durrani, A.Z.; Avais, M.; Ahmad, N.; Ullah, S.; Ullah, S.; Khan, M.A.; Haq, I.U.; Khan, N.U. A first report on prevalence of caprine theileriosis and its association with host biomarkers in Southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Small Rumin. Res. 2018, 159, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shah, S.S.A.; Khan, M.I.; Rahman, H.U. Epidemiological and hematological investigations of tick-borne diseases in small ruminants in Peshawar and Khyber Agency, Pakistan. J. Adv. Parasitol. 2017, 4, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  64. Naz, S.; Maqbool, A.; Ahmed, S.; Ashraf, K.; Ahmed, N.; Saeed, K.; Latif, M.; Iqbal, J.; Ali, Z.; Shafi, K.; et al. Prevalence of theileriosis in small ruminants in Lahore-Pakistan. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2012, 2, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  65. Díaz MÁ, A.; Silva, B.J.L.; de Magalhães Labarthe, A.C.L.; Vivas, R.I.R. Infestación natural de hembras de Boophilus microplus Canestrini, 1887 (Acari: Ixodidae) en dos genotipos de bovinos en el trópico húmedo de Veracruz, México. Vet. México 2007, 38, 503–509. [Google Scholar]
  66. Magona, J.W.; Walubengo, J.; Olaho-Mukani, W.; Jonsson, N.N.; Welburn, S.W.; Eisler, M.C. Spatial variation of tick abundance and seroconversion rates of indigenous cattle to Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bigemina and Theileria parva infections in Uganda. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2011, 55, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Greenfield, B.P.J. Environmental parameters affecting tick (Ixodes ricinus) distribution during the summer season in Richmond Park, London. Biosci. Horiz. 2011, 4, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Fard, S.R.N.; Fathi, S.; Asl, E.N.; Nazhad, H.A.; Kazeroni, S.S. Hard ticks on one-humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) and their seasonal population dynamics in southeast, Iran. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Manan, A.; Khan, B.A.Z. Prevalence and identification of ixodid tick genera in frontier region Peshawar. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2007, 2, 21–25. [Google Scholar]
  70. Mooring, M.S.; Benjamin, J.E.; Harte, C.R.; Herzog, N.B. Testing the interspecific body size principle in ungulates: The smaller they come, the harder they groom. Anim. Behav. 2000, 60, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Musa, H.I.; Jajere, S.M.; Adamu, N.B.; Atsanda, N.N.; Lawal, J.R.; Adamu, S.G.; Lawal, E.K. Prevalence of tick infestation in different breeds of cattle in Maiduguri, Northeastern Nigeria. Bangladesh J. Vet. Med. 2014, 12, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Map of Pakistan showing sampling location for this study.
Figure 1. Map of Pakistan showing sampling location for this study.
Ijerph 19 03024 g001
Table 1. Host wise prevalence rate of male ticks.
Table 1. Host wise prevalence rate of male ticks.
HostsNon-InfestedTick-InfestedTotalPrevalence (%)
Buffalo58318934.83
Cattle534791132559.69
Goat28625353946.93
Sheep616612751.96
Chi-square test (p-value)41 (0.001 *)
* Significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Breed wise prevalence rate of male ticks.
Table 2. Breed wise prevalence rate of male ticks.
HostsBreedsNon-InfestedTick-InfestedTotalPrevalence (%)
CattleAustralian12546681.81
Cross breed399713671.32
Dhanni1787998.73
Freisian18121739854.52
Sahiwal28433862254.34
Jersey7172470.84
Chi-square test (p-value)65.8 (0.001 *)
BuffaloNeeli Ravi42287040
Ravi1631915.78
Chi-square test (p-value)3.86 (0.049 *)
SheepPure Kajla616612751.96
GoatsRajanpuri34266043.34
Beetal587813657.35
Desi Teddy1097618541.08
Lal puri956315839.87
Chi-square test (p-value)18.5 (0.001 *)
* Significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Prevalence of male tick infestation in relation to age and gender.
Table 3. Prevalence of male tick infestation in relation to age and gender.
HostSUp to 6 Months6 Month–1 Year1–3 Years4–6 Years7–14 YearsN%
+N%+N%+N%+-veN%+N%
BuffaloM00006162227.27981752.940000000038.46
F000028102014253935.890000000032.65
% 02541.0700
GoatsM35397447.29779917641.236458144.4461785.71000045.56
F14324630.4331518237.840185868.961211392.3022048.25
% 40.8341.8654.67900
CattleM37103035407546.6648532180660.171772470.8310110059.06
F32560911204521712934662.7121163756.75011061.12
% 4046.3160.9362.2950
SheepM25285347.16971656.25224500000000049.31
F13173043.331662272.72112500000000055.56
% 45.7865.785000
S = Sex, M = Male, F = Female, + = Tick infested, − = Non-Infested, N = Total, % = Prevalence, N% = Total Prevalence.
Table 4. Area wise prevalence rate of male ticks.
Table 4. Area wise prevalence rate of male ticks.
AreaLatitude NLongitude ENon-InfestedTick InfestedTotalPrevalence (%)
Bhakkar31.608271.08548142263.63
Chakwal32.917272.40811410612088.34
Dera Ghazi Khan30.048970.645526164238.09
Fateh Jang33.567372.650632356752.23
Gujranwala32.187774.19454151978.94
Gujrat32.529573.977136266241.93
Hafizabad32.262373.694503030100
Islamabad33.629673.11237312419762.94
Kharian32.814373.88319411621055.23
Khushab32.174872.219546111553.04
Kunjah32.529573.977110213167.74
Lahore31.463574.204715516832352.01
Mandi Bahudin32.574273.48287606789.55
Mianwali32.674971.2785614110240.19
Multan29.871771.323147418846.59
Makwal30.585170.7258828116349.69
Muzaffargarh29.381770.91311552025
Sargodha32.07472.68612131586.67
Sheikupara31.716773.9852463020
Sialkot32.494574.522912233565.71
Swat35.222772.425856389440.42
Talagang32.917272.40811572231.81
Taunsa30.704670.657411122352.17
Taxila33.740872.7858585010846.29
Zahir Pir28.810770.532443327542.67
Table 5. Seasonal prevalence rate of male ticks.
Table 5. Seasonal prevalence rate of male ticks.
SeasonNon-InfestedTick InfestedTotalPrevalence (%)Chi-Square (χ2) p-Value
Autumn756626138245.291890.001 *
Summer14046360376.78
Winter2463020
Spring19466570.76
* Significant (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Number of male ticks by species found in Punjab, Islamabad, and KPK, Pakistan.
Table 6. Number of male ticks by species found in Punjab, Islamabad, and KPK, Pakistan.
ProvinceAreasTick Species
Haemaphysalis punctataHaemaphysalis sulcataHyalomma dromedariiHyalomma anatolicumHyalomma detritumHyalomma excavatumHyalomma marginatumHyalomma rufipesRhipicephalus microplusRhipicephalus decoloratusRhipicephalus sanguineus
PunjabMandi Bahudin 100410030326
Kharian101123040432
Dera Ghazi Khan311824101201245
Muzaffargarh 000400101110
Mianwali001644030003
Zahir Pir002 53100012
Fateh Jang 000100120414
Sheikupara 00010010800
Lahore 00045356100030
Chakwal 000712514111020
Sargodha 000100000130
Hafizabad 000160000010
Gujrat 000192720300
Bhakkar 00010000210
Multan00010000000
Taxila 00070300000
Sialkot 00001010220
IslamabadIslamabad310304020060303
KPKSwat40002040018
Total12252871053510514522393
Table 7. Number of tick species (males) found on various animals.
Table 7. Number of tick species (males) found on various animals.
Tick SpeciesGoatSheepBuffaloCattle
Haemaphysalis punctata11100
Rhipicephalus sanguineus3503463
Haemaphysalis sulcata0020
Hyalomma anatolicum2798243
Hyalomma detritum4418142
Hyalomma excavatum83123
Hyalomma marginatum2113071
Rhipicephalus microplus21042
Rhipicephalus decoloratus20119
Hyalomma rufipes0001
Hyalomma dromedarii4001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, S.S.; Ahmed, H.; Afzal, M.S.; Khan, M.R.; Birtles, R.J.; Oliver, J.D. Epidemiology, Distribution and Identification of Ticks on Livestock in Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053024

AMA Style

Khan SS, Ahmed H, Afzal MS, Khan MR, Birtles RJ, Oliver JD. Epidemiology, Distribution and Identification of Ticks on Livestock in Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):3024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Sadia Salim, Haroon Ahmed, Muhammad Sohail Afzal, Mobushir Riaz Khan, Richard J. Birtles, and Jonathan D. Oliver. 2022. "Epidemiology, Distribution and Identification of Ticks on Livestock in Pakistan" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 3024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053024

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