These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Increasing density and Borrelia burgdorferi infection of deer-infesting Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) in Maryland.
    Author: Amerasinghe FP, Breisch NL, Neidhardt K, Pagac B, Scott TW.
    Journal: J Med Entomol; 1993 Sep; 30(5):858-64. PubMed ID: 8254631.
    Abstract:
    A statewide survey of Ixodes dammini Spielman was done in November 1991 as a follow-up to a study in 1989. In total, 3,434 adult ticks were collected from 922 hunter-killed white-tailed deer processed at 22 check stations (1 per county in 22 of 23 counties in the state). Significantly more male than female ticks were collected. Tick infestation was significantly heavier on male than female deer. The pattern of tick distribution was similar to that in 1989, with low prevalence (percentage tick-infested deer) and abundance (mean ticks per deer) in the Appalachian region, moderate values in the Piedmont, and high values in the western and eastern Coastal Plains regions. The pattern of tick infection with Borrelia burgdorferi spirochetes (determined by polyclonal immunofluorescence assay) was similar to the tick distributional pattern. Overall, tick prevalence and abundance were higher in 1991 than in 1989, as was the spirochete infection rate in ticks. Multiple regression analysis of tick prevalence against six selected physical and biotic parameters (elevation, rainfall, summer and winter temperature, percentage of forest land, deer density) showed a significant relationship with rainfall and elevation in 1989 and elevation alone in 1991. A more extensive study in Caroline and Dorchester counties in the eastern Coastal Plains region (which showed exceptionally low tick density indices in a generally tick-abundant region in 1989) demonstrated that I. dammini was well established in Caroline but not in Dorchester County.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]