Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, December 2008, p. 7138-7144, Vol. 74, No. 23
0099-2240/08/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/AEM.00310-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
,
Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8031, 6700 EH Wageningen, The Netherlands,1 Resource Ecology Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3A, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands2
Received 5 February 2008/ Accepted 22 September 2008
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (84K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Map of The Netherlands showing the study site. Inset, detail of the study area. The dotted line marks the fence around the area in which cattle could range freely. Blank areas represent pastures, shaded areas represent forest. Plots: A, oak habitat, cattle excluded; B, pine habitat, cattle excluded; C, oak habitat, cattle resident; D, pine habitat, cattle resident; E, pasture, cattle resident. Plots D and B were also used for rodent captures. Detailed map courtesy of ANWB B.V.
|
A qualitative vegetation record of the forest plots was made in accordance with the Elton and Miller method, which describes vegetation in terms of the percent coverage (30). Plot E, which is situated within the pasture at 50 m from the edge of the forest, is covered mainly by perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), and red fescue (Festuca rubra). Dominating herbs are spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), field thistle (Cirsium arvense), persicaria (Persicaria maculosa), ragwort (Senecio jacobae), and patches of stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) and common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum). Plot A is dominated by red oak (Quercus rubra) and European mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia). The groundcover consists of small patches of wavy hair grass (Deschampsia flexuosa) in between large areas of oak litter. Plot B contains mostly Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), with a ground cover of wavy hair grass and some patches of blackberry (Rubus fruticosa) and blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus). Plot C is dominated by common oak (Quercus robur) at a higher density than that of plot A. The ground layer consists mainly of oak litter and small patches of wavy hair grass. Plot D is dominated by Scots pine. Like plot B, the ground layer is dominated by wavy hair grass but has more litter in between. The plot also includes a patch of blueberry and some blackberry.
A few objects (some fallen branches and blackberry branches) that would have obstructed the blanket dragging for tick collection were removed from the study transects prior to the experimental period.
Collection of meteorological data.
Temperature (maximum, minimum, and average) and relative humidity were recorded throughout the study period, using automated data loggers (Gemini Tinytag Plus TPG 1500; Intab Benelux, Cuijk, The Netherlands). Data loggers were suspended, using a metal wire, from a livestock-proof metal cage (Lastec B. V., Wageningen, The Netherlands) 5 cm above the litter layer. The data loggers were protected from the direct impact of rain water by a polyvinylchloride cover, which was attached to the metal wire. The data loggers were programmed to take one measurement per minute. One data logger was placed in the pasture, one in the grazed woodlot, and one in the ungrazed woodlot. Weekly data sets were uploaded to a computer, using Easyview software (version 5.5.1.1, 2002; Intab Benelux).
Collection of ticks.
Tick collections were done weekly over a 15-week period, from March to July 2005 (weeks 11 to 25). Sampling started at 09:00 h and ended at around 13:00 h. In each plot, an area of 200 m2 was sampled according to the method described by Wielinga et al. (32). Ticks were collected by blanket dragging using a white cotton blanket of 1 by 1 m. A metal chain sewn into the lower hem ensured the blanket's contact with the vegetation. The blanket was inspected for ticks at 25-m intervals (32). Ticks of all three stages were counted and placed in 1.5-ml tubes, using forceps. Captured ticks were pooled per 25 m2 and stored at 4°C in 70% ethanol until DNA extraction. Sampling was postponed until the next day when the weather was too wet.
In addition to the tick sampling by blanket dragging, ticks were collected on two occasions from nine of the cattle grazing in the study site to obtain information on the average number of ticks per animal. For this purpose, the cattle were gathered in a crush where they could be restrained by two coworkers using a rope harness around the cows' heads. Once restrained, the cattle were examined as described by L'Hostis et al. (18).
Identification of Borrelia infections.
All life stages of collected I. ricinus ticks were examined for infection with Borrelia spp. DNA extraction was performed as described by Schouls et al. (27), where DNA extracts were produced by boiling individual nymphs and adults in a 4 M ammonium hydroxide solution for 20 min, followed by 20 s of centrifuging at 14,000 rpm, and a final step consisting of 20 min at 90°C in PCR vials with opened caps to evaporate the ammonia. The resulting DNA extracts of approximately 60 µl were stored at –80°C until further analyses. The occurrence of transovarial transmission was examined by extracting DNA from larval I. ricinus as described above. Prior to DNA extraction, larvae from two different sampling dates were pooled for each plot into 75 samples of up to 10 larvae.
DNA extracts were analyzed for the presence of Borrelia spp., using the protocol described by Michel et al. (20), which uses the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) method with PCR products that were amplified from the B. burgdorferi sensu lato outer surface protein A (OspA) gene. Following a nested-PCR procedure, each B. burgdorferi sensu lato-positive PCR product was digested separately using five different restriction enzymes (SspI, SfuI, BglI, Kpn21, and HindIII) to generate genospecies-specific digestion products. This RFLP technique can distinguish B. afzelii, two different strains of B. valaisiana, five different OspA types (types 3 to 7) of B. garinii, two strains of B. burgdorferi sensu stricto, and one strain each of B. lusitaniae and Borrelia strain A14.
Mark-recapture of rodent populations.
Rodents were trapped in two plots with pine trees, one with and one without cattle, over a 5-day period in June (week 24) of 2005. In each plot, 24 Longworth small-mammal traps (Alana Ecology Ltd., Shropshire, United Kingdom) were placed on the ground in a grid of 4 by 6 m and 5 m apart. The rodent grids were 375 m2 and included the original tick sampling plots.
A prebaiting period of 4 days was performed prior to the trapping period. The traps were placed on the ground and covered with some litter to minimize excessive heat from the sun. The bait consisted of one mealworm and an oatmeal-peanut butter mixture. The bait was refreshed daily. Rodent traps were inspected at 6-h intervals (00:00, 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00 h) to reduce stress endured by insectivorous shrews. All animals captured were identified as to species, and attached ticks were counted. A sample of ticks (as many as practically possible, with a maximum of five ticks) was taken from the rodents, except from shrews, which were set free immediately after inspection. The rodent trapping was approved by the Ethical Animal Experimentation committee of Wageningen University and Research Centre (number 2005056).
Population size estimation.
Captured bank voles and wood mice were gently marked with an individual pattern by clipping off some of the top fur with a pair of scissors. The number and frequency of recaptures were used to estimate the rodent population size as described by Lange et al. (16).
Observation of cattle behavior and counts of cow pats.
The distribution and behavior (resting or foraging) of cattle grazing in the study area were observed over two different periods by walking the study area and using binoculars, without disturbing the cattle. The first observation was done over a 17-h period, from 06:00 to 23:00 h, distributed over 3 days. The second observation was conducted during the rodent capture week.
To estimate the residence time of cattle in different habitats of the study area, cow pats were counted twice in the pasture and in the grazed zones of the pine habitat and in the oak habitat, with a 1-month interval. Pats were marked with a stick to prevent double counts. The recording of cow pats was done in the same 400-m2 plots in which ticks were sampled (1).
Statistical analysis.
Statistical analyses were performed using Genstat software (release version 8.11). The data from the pasture were excluded from the analyses. Data of Borrelia infections in ticks were analyzed using the number of infected ticks as the fraction of the total number of infected ticks analyzed with the RFLP technique. A generalized linear model (GLM; binomial distribution, linked in logit) was used to investigate the effect of the woodland type and the presence of cattle on these fractions. Two-sided t probabilities were calculated to test pairwise differences in means. Adult ticks and larvae were excluded from the statistical analysis of infections. Data for tick abundance, cow pats, and tick burden on rodents were analyzed with GLM (Poisson distribution, linked in logarithm), followed by post-hoc t tests. Effects were considered to be significant at a P value of <0.05.
|
|
|---|
Population dynamics of ticks.
A total of 1,747 ticks were collected with the blanket dragging method during the study period. I. ricinus was the only tick species found. The weekly distribution of the tick collections over the study plots is shown in Fig. 2 for all three life stages. A few larval ticks were already collected in late March, but the majority of larvae appeared only after mid-April, with a peak at the end of May. Nymphal ticks were found for the first time on 10 March 2005 and remained present during the entire study period without a clear peak in population density. Adult ticks were active on nearly each sampling day, albeit in very low numbers.
![]() View larger version (31K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Population dynamics of I. ricinus over the five study plots. Plots: A, oak habitat, cattle excluded; B, pine habitat, cattle excluded; C, oak habitat, cattle resident; D, pine habitat, cattle resident; E, pasture, cattle resident.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Distribution of Ixodes ricinus ticks per life stage and study plota
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Prevalence of Borrelia infections in adult and nymphal I. ricinus ticksa
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. B. garinii OspA types in I. ricinus nymphsa
|
![]() View larger version (19K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Percentage of I. ricinus nymphs infected with B. burgdorferi sensu lato per plot. n, number of nymphs analyzed. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences (P < 0.05). Error bars represent ±SEM.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 4. Rodent populations and rodent larval tick burdens in areas with and without cattlea
|
Cattle.
During the cattle observation days, the animals were frequently sighted within the forested area, in particular during the night. Occasionally, roe deer were also seen. Significantly more cow pats (P < 0.001) were counted in the grazed oak area (mean, 15.63 ± 3.12 standard error of the mean [SEM]) than in the pasture (mean, 1.50 ± 0.33 SEM) and pine forest (mean, 1.25 ± 0.31 SEM), whereas no differences were found between the pasture and pine areas. Nine cattle were inspected on two different occasions (5 weeks apart). Four animals were free of ticks; on the other five, the number of ticks collected varied between 1 and 6. With the exception of one nymph, these consisted of adult ticks. All ticks were attached to the cows' upper legs.
|
|
|---|
Rodents were abundant at the time of our study, and the tick burden on rodents corresponded to burdens found in studies elsewhere in Europe (4, 6, 10, 19), with a strong variation between individual rodents and rodent species, as reported by Kurtenbach et al. (15). Most ticks on rodents were in the larval stage, similar to data from other studies. As only few nymphs were present on the rodents, it is suggested that in our study area, nymphal stage ticks feed mostly on host species other than wood mice and bank voles.
Our data show that the population density of I. ricinus was significantly higher in the ungrazed woodland than in the grazed area, notably in the oak-dominated forest. The dominant factor differentiating both sites was the presence of cattle. The observed interaction between cattle and habitat for nymphal abundance can be explained by our observations from animal behavior and cow pat counts, indicating that cattle were more often present in the oak area than elsewhere in the forest. During the study, cattle were frequently observed resting in the oak area, thereby inflicting damage to patches of litter layer, which may negatively affect tick survival by increasing tick exposure and making them more vulnerable to desiccation during periods of high saturation deficit. Deer lairs were present in both sites, so large hosts other than cattle were available to the ticks not only in the ungrazed forest but also in the grazed area. Small rodents were numerous in both sites, albeit more numerous and carrying more ticks in the ungrazed woodlot than in the grazed one. Cattle may have had a negative effect on the small rodents (28).
Whereas tick densities were significantly affected by the presence of cattle, the overall Borrelia infection rates in ticks were similar in the grazed and ungrazed woodlots and suggest that the presence of cattle had no effect on infections. Moreover, differences in nymphal infection rate were better explained by habitat type than by grazing status, where nymphs in the ungrazed oak habitat showed a significantly higher infection rate than nymphs in the ungrazed pine habitat. The observed difference in nymphal infection rates between oak and pine forest may have several explanations. The majority of Borrelia infections identified in I. ricinus in The Netherlands are caused by B. afzelii (26, 32), suggesting that most larval ticks feed on small rodents, which are more abundant in oak than in pine forests (28, 29). Hence, infection rates are likely to be higher in ticks present in oak than in pine forests. As B. garinii and B. valaisiana species were also relatively common in the Borrelia infections of the nymphal ticks in our study (Table 2), birds also may have been common hosts for I. ricinus larvae in our study area (7, 9). From the mark-recapture study, it was noted that at least one rodent moved freely between both study areas, so the Borrelia reservoir may have dispersed between both areas, possibly causing a similar proportion of infected rodents in both areas. Assuming a random, nonselective, host-frequenting behavior, questing larval ticks, therefore, would have a similar chance of becoming infected with Borrelia.
Richter and Matuschka (25) recently reported that grazing of cattle had a negative impact on Lyme disease risk. In their study in northern France, however, the effect was caused by significantly different Borrelia infection rates in ticks rather than by tick densities. Unlike our study, where tick densities could be compared because of our rigid sampling strategy, Richter and Matuschka do not mention sampling intensity or record tick densities, although they mention that half as many ticks were found in areas where cattle were present than areas where cattle were absent. The effect of grazing on Lyme disease risk in their study was therefore likely to be even stronger than in our study. Based on Borrelia infection rates in ticks, however, the results of both studies are different. It is possible that differences in vegetation structure and topography between the study areas may have contributed to this result, as Richter and Matuschka collected ticks in a pasture, whereas in our study, ticks were collected from a woodlot where Borrelia-infected mice are likely to be more abundant than in a pasture. As mentioned above, in our study area, the rodents could readily move between both sites, as shown by the dispersal behavior of at least one recaptured mouse, and the probabilities of ticks becoming infected with Borrelia might therefore have been similar in the grazed and the ungrazed sites. We are not aware of any other study reporting the grazing of livestock in woodland areas and the risk of Lyme disease, but the results of both studies, suggesting that grazing cattle can reduce Lyme disease risk, seem to merit additional studies to understand the reported effects.
It is an interesting observation that the oak forest supported a significantly higher tick population than the pine forest. Previously, we found an opposite result in two other areas in The Netherlands, with significantly higher tick densities in pine forest than oak forest (R. Smit, unpublished data). It is likely that this effect is area specific. In the present study, we did not estimate the rodent population in the oak forest. However, given the number of larval ticks found on the rodents, ranging from 2.8 to 6.1 ticks per rodent in the grazed and ungrazed pine forests, respectively (Table 3), it may be assumed that rodents were equally abundant in the oak forests to support such a high density of questing ticks as observed for this study. The ground cover in the oak forest was very different from that in the pine forest and consisted of dead leaves and blueberries in the former and mostly thick grass in the latter. This difference may have resulted in different questing behaviors of ticks between the two sites, so that notably larval populations remained "hidden" from our sampling method in the pine forest.
The pasture area just outside the forest obviously did not support a population of I. ricinus ticks. This was possibly caused by the exposure of the grass to sunlight and subsequent higher saturation deficits in the pasture than in the forest. Larval ticks especially are negatively affected when exposed to a saturation deficit value exceeding 4 (23). We assume that small rodents might have used the pasture for foraging, as there were very many wild plants providing good refuge for numerous sources of rodent food. Yet, this did not cause an increase in the abundance of ticks. Moreover, the pasture could serve as a lethal sink for ticks that have attached to the cattle in the woodlands and dropped from the cattle in the pasture (2). Although we have no data for the feeding frequency of I. ricinus on cattle in our study area, we know from the counts of cow pats that cattle were very often present in the woodlots and therefore were readily available to ticks as blood hosts. We have no comparative data for tick infestation rates of cattle and other large herbivores sharing the same habitat, but data from Sweden mention a tick burden of 428 to 2,072 on roe deer (31), which is much higher than the tick burden on our cattle or on cattle studied in Germany (17) and France (2, 18). Possibly, cattle are less suitable for ticks than roe deer and red deer, which may explain the reduced density of ticks in natural tick habitats grazed by cattle. Our study does not provide an answer to the mechanism that caused the negative impact of cattle on the tick population. Possibly, natural immune responses from cattle following tick bites may be detrimental to tick survival and/or fecundity (14, 33).
The results of this study are of significance for the management of nature reserves in The Netherlands and elsewhere, as these areas are increasingly being stocked with free-ranging livestock such as Scottish highland cattle, Galloway cattle, or Limousin cattle to prevent the areas from turning into closed forests (22). Further studies are needed to elucidate whether livestock have a direct negative impact on the fitness of ticks. If so, a novel tool for the control of Lyme disease is available, which might go hand-in-hand with efficient strategies for the management of nature reserves.
Published ahead of print on 3 October 2008. ![]()
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://aem.asm.org/. ![]()
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»