Table 1.
Infection rates (%) of Iranian Tick Species with CCHF Virus in Different Localities of Iran
|
Tick species |
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Province• | T/P | D. marginatus | H. anatolicum | H. asiaticum | H. detritum | H. dromedarii | H. marginatum | H. schulzei | H. sp | Ha. inermis | Ha. punctata | O. lahorensis | R. bursa | R. sanguineus |
| Ardebil* | 130/35 | - | - | - | - | 0.8 | 0.8 | 4.6 | 6.9 | 13.8 | ||||
| Azarbayjan-e Sharqi** | 56/15 | 7 | - | 3.7 | 5.4 | - | 11 | - | ||||||
| Golestan | 130/7 | 2.3 | - | - | 1.6 | 0.7 | - | 0.7 | ||||||
| Hamadan*** | 88/10 | 1.2 | - | 2.3 | 3.4 | 1.2 | - | 1.2 | 2.3 | |||||
| Ilam | 74/3 | 1.35 | 1.35 | - | 1.35 | |||||||||
| Khorasan-e Joonobi | 115/7 | - | 1.8 | 1.8 | - | - | 0.9 | - | - | 0.9 | 0.9 | |||
| Khorasan-e Shomali | 67/5 | - | 4.5 | - | 3 | |||||||||
| MazandaranI | 58/1 | 1.7 | ||||||||||||
| MazandaranII | 42/4 | - | - | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | |||||||
| Qom | 14/1 | - | - | 7.1 | - | |||||||||
| Sistan-o Baluchistan**** | 140/6 | - | - | - | 8.3 | - | ||||||||
| Tehran | 50/2 | - | 2,E | - | - | - | - | 2 | ||||||
| Yazd***** | 140/8 | - | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 0.7 | - | ||||||
| Total | 1112/108 | 7 | 11.85 | 9.55 | 1.4 | 23.9 | 14.95 | 0.8 | 17.1 | 10.7 | 3.6 | 17.9 | 18.3 | 38 |
References related to other studies including papers authored/co-authored by senior author (ZT) including;
*****:
D: Dermacentor, Ha. Haemaphysalis, H: Hyalomma, R: Rhipicephalus, O: Ornithodoros
•:
Numbers arranged according to collection sites in the map (Fig. 2)
T/P: total tested/positive tick specimen, I. Pushtekooh district, II. Ghaemshahr county, E: egg mass, Blank places: not done, -: negative