Table 8.
Pathogen-tick associations
| R. sanguineus (1) | R. appendiculatus | R. simus | Rhipicephalus spp. (2) | H. elliptica (3) | H. spinulosa | Haemaphysalis spp. (4) | A. variegatum | Ixodes spp. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. phagocytophilum | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| B. canis | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| B. rossi | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 50.0 |
| D. immitis | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| E. chaffeensis | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| E. canis | 7.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 |
| H. canis | 63.0 a,2,3,4 | 100.0 | 80.0 | 46.7 c, 1 | 75.0 b, 1 | 20.0 | 65.3 a, 1 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| A. platys | 12.7 a | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 a | 0.0 b | 0.0 | 1.3 b | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| R. africae | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| R. conorii | 0.3 a, 3,4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.3 a | 10.0 b,1 | 0.0 | 17.3 b, 1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| C. burnetti | 7.5 a, 3,4 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 a | 55.0 b, 1 | 0.0 | 40.0 b, 1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Tick samples | 332 | 2 | 5 | 30 | 20 | 5 | 75 | 1 | 2 |
Only the dogs in which a single tick taxon was observed (based on the extractions of the set of pooled ticks) were included in the analysis. Statistical analyses on the occurrence of pathogens (H. canis, A. platys, R. conorii and C. burnetti) were done on tick taxa with ≥ 20 individuals (R. sanguineus, Rhipicephalus spp., H. elliptica, Haemaphysalis spp.). Africa-wide comparison: within a row, same letters behind prevalences indicate no significant difference. Country-corrected comparisons: numbers (see column headings for tick reference numbers) refer to the tick species from which the prevalence differs (P < 0.05). For this latter analysis, in the following groups of countries a sufficient number of dogs was sampled to allow for pairwise statistical comparisons. Tanzania, Namibia, Uganda: Rhipicephalus spp. vs R. sanguineus; Ghana, Kenya, Uganda: Haemaphysalis spp. vs R. sanguineus; Kenya, Uganda: H. elliptica vs (R. sanguineus and Haemaphysalis spp.); Uganda: R. sanguineus vs (Rhipicephalus spp., Haemaphysalis spp., H. elliptica)
Africa-wide comparison: same lowercase letters indicate no significant difference. Country-corrected comparisons: for pathogens in each tick species’ column, pathogens followed by a number is linked with a significant difference (P < 0.05) with one of the other tick species: (R. sanguineus (1), Rhipicephalus spp. (2), H. elliptica (3), Haemaphysalis sp. (4)
For the following groups of countries a sufficient number of dogs were sampled to allow for pairwise statistical comparisons between tick taxa: Tanzania, Namibia, Uganda: Rhipicephalus sp. vs R. sanguineus; Ghana, Kenya, Uganda: Haemaphysalis spp. vs R. sanguineus; Kenya, Uganda: H. elliptica vs (R. sanguineus and Haemaphysalis sp.); Uganda: R. sanguineus vs (Rhipicephalus spp., Haemaphysalis sp., H. elliptica)