Received tick types
In overall, 19,514 tick specimens were gathered in addition to particular paperwork by means of survey, 18,126 of them in between May 2020 and June 2021, throughout the initially visualized 14-month research study duration. The staying 1388 ticks were furthermore gathered from March–April 2020 (10/1,388) and July–October 2021 (1193/1388), or no date of collection was recorded on the survey (185/1388).
Most got ticks were recognized as I. ricinus (15,943/19,514, 81.70%), followed by D. reticulatus (2,013/19,514, 10.32%) and I. hexagonus (1012/19,514, 5.19%). Furthermore, Dermacentor marginatus (38/19,514, 0.19%), Rhipicephalus sanguineus (8/19,514, 0.04%), Haemaphysalis concinna (9/19,514, 0.05%), Ixodes canisuga (7/19,514, 0.04%) and Ixodes frontalis (6/19,514, 0.03%) were amongst the gotten ticks. The staying 452 ticks (2.32%) were just recognized to genus level due to the fact that of a shabby condition or the trouble to distinguish in between larval and nymphal I. hexagonus and I. canisuga (exactly 258 I. hexagonus/I. canisuga, 161 Ixodes spp., 43 Dermacentor spp. and 4 Rhipicephalus spp.).
In regards to host types, 8095 (78.69%) of the ticks discovered on dogs were recognized as I. ricinus, 1860 (18.08%) as D. reticulatus and 166 (1.61%) as I. hexagonus (Fig. 1). Further tick types found on dogs were R. sanguineus, H. concinna, I. canisuga, I. frontalis and D. marginatus (Table 1). Of all the ticks discovered on cats, 7344 (91.74%) were recognized as I. ricinus, 398 (4.97%) as I. hexagonus and 56 (0.70%) as D. reticulatus (Fig. 1). This circulation varied substantially compared to dogs (χ2 = 1555.5, df = 2, P < 0.001). Apart from dogs and cats, different other host types contributed an overall of 1222 ticks, as summed up in Table 1. Regarding tick developmental phases, just adult D. reticulatus specimens were sent in. For I. ricinus, 1.07% (87/8095) of specimens discovered on dogs and 1.67% (123/7344) of specimens from cats were immature phases (larvae or nymphs), respectively (Fig. 2). Regarding I. hexagonus, 18.67% (31/166) of the specimens separated from dogs and 43.72% (174/398) of those from cats were immature (Fig. 2). Immature phases of I. ricinus (larvae: 30/15,913; 1.89%; nymphs: 347/15,913; 2.18%) and I. hexagonus (larvae: 12/1012; 1.19%; nymphs: 226/1012; 22.33%) were primarily sent in from Germany, while just 2 larvae and 10 nymphs of I. ricinus were gotten from Austria.
Species circulation of the most typical ticks gathered from dogs and cats in Germany and Austria. Percentages describe the percentage for each host types
Developmental phase circulation of the 3 most often found tick types on dogs (A) and cats (B). Percentages describe the percentage for each tick types
Geographical circulation of gotten ticks
Most of the gathered ticks were sent in from Germany (17,789/19,514; 91.16%) and Austria (1,506/19,514; 7.72%). In addition, some erratic submissions from France (15/19,514; 0.08%), The Netherlands (3/19,514; 0.02%) and Switzerland (3/19,514; 0.02%) were gotten, while the nation and postcode of 198/19,514 submissions (1.01%) was not shown. The circulation of I. ricinus and D. reticulatus per postcode location is displayed in Fig. 3. As anticipated, I. ricinus was gotten from all getting involved vets. Due to the area of hired practices, some clustering (> 50 ticks per postcode location) in the German federal states of Lower Saxony and Bavaria was observed. Regarding the federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, just couple of ticks were gotten due to the fact that just a few vets from the northeast of this federal state took part in the research study.
Geographical circulation (postal code locations) and variety of all ticks (A), I. ricinus (B) and D. reticulatus (C) separated from dogs and cats in Germany and Austria. A map of the federal states of Germany and Austria is displayed in the upper right corner (Germany: BW = Baden-Württemberg, BY = Bavaria, BE = Berlin, BB = Brandenburg, HB = Bremen, HH = Hamburg, HE = Hesse, LS = Lower Saxony, MV = Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, NW = North Rhine-Westphalia, RP = Rhineland-Palatinate, SL = Saarland, SN = Saxony, ST = Saxony-Anhalt, SH = Schleswig–Holstein, TH = Thuringia; Austria: BU = Burgenland, CA = Carinthia, LA = Lower Austria; UA = Upper Austria, SA = Salzburg; ST = Styria, TY = Tyrol, VA = Vorarlberg, VI = Vienna)
Except for Schleswig-Holstein and the 2 city states Hamburg and Bremen in the northern most part of Germany, from where less ticks were gotten in general due to the fact that of couple of getting involved vets, D. reticulatus was likewise sent in from all German federal states. Primarily, D. reticulatus specimens were sent in from the east of Germany, where the percentage of D. reticulatus amongst ticks discovered on dogs rose to 66.67% (federal state of Saxony-Anhalt, Table 2, Fig. 4). Among the staying federal states, this percentage differed in between 0.99 and 63.59%. Regarding cats, the percentage of D. reticulatus differed in between 0 and an optimum of 1.81% (federal state of Saxony-Anhalt, Table 2). The problem rates with the most often gathered tick types amongst tick-infested dogs and cats in the various German and Austrian federal states are given up Additional file 1: Table S1.
Proportions of the 3 most regular tick types separated from dogs per German federal state. A map of the federal states of Germany is displayed in the upper right corner (Germany: BW = Baden-Württemberg, BY = Bavaria, BE = Berlin, BB = Brandenburg, HB = Bremen, HH = Hamburg, HE = Hesse, LS = Lower Saxony, MV = Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, NW = North Rhine-Westphalia, RP = Rhineland-Palatinate, SL = Saarland, SN = Saxony, ST = Saxony-Anhalt, SH = Schleswig-Holstein, TH = Thuringia)
Due to the lower number and irregular circulation of hired veterinary practices in Austria, ticks were mainly sent in from 5 federal states, particularly Burgenland, Salzburg, Styria, Lower Austria and Tyrol, with erratic collections in other locations. Regarding D. reticulatus, 91.15% (43/47) of the Austrian specimens were gotten from the state of Burgenland, with 22 specimens (46.81%) discovered in just one postcode location (7023). Most I. ricinus submissions originated from Salzburg (284/1,375; 20.65%), Styria (271/1,375; 19.71%), Burgenland (261/1,375; 18.98%) and Lower Austria (223/1,375; 16.22%), so that other parts of Austria might be underrepresented, because just a few vets took part in Austria. An introduction of the circulation of the most often gathered tick types from cats and dogs over the Austrian federal states is given up Additional file 2: Table S2.
Characterisation of tick origin
Only a couple of owners offered particular info on animal husbandry, particularly that the animal just had access to their lawn or garden (280/18,295; 1.53%) or lives near the coast (43/18,295; 0.23%).
Most of the ticks were most likely gotten in the stated postcode location, as the host animals had actually not left this area throughout the last 2 weeks prior to tick collection (16,178/19,514; 82.90%). While 6.90% (1,347/19,514) of host animals had a travel history beyond the offered postcode location and even beyond the German border, in 10.19% (1,989/19,514) of cases, no information on travel history were available.
Infestation strength and co-infestations in dogs vs. cats
In overall, 6335 dogs became part of this submission research study and supplied an overall of 10,287/19,514 ticks, so that the typical problem was 1.62 ticks per dog. Of all dogs, 5011 (79.10%) were plagued with a single tick just and 1324 (20.90%) with more than one tick, where the optimum variety of separated ticks from one dog totaled up to 96. This dog was reported as a Labrador-Husky mix co-infested with 91 grownup I. ricinus and 5 grownup D. reticulatus.
Concerning cats, 4248 animals were tested and supplied a sample size of 8,005/19,514 ticks, so that the typical problem was 1.88 ticks per cat. The variety of single problems totaled up to 2932 (69.02%), while 1316 cats (30.98%) were plagued with several ticks. The percentage of several problems on cats was substantially greater compared to dogs (χ2 = 137.45, df = 1, P < 0.001). The greatest problem strength was taped on a European shorthair, which was plagued with 54 I. hexagonus specimens, consisting of 50 nymphs and 4 women.
The seasonal pattern of problems with several vs. single specimens of the most often found tick types (i.e. I. ricinus and D. reticulatus for dogs and I. ricinus and I. hexagonus for cats) is imagined in Fig. 5. Regarding I. ricinus, both single and several problems peaked throughout the duration of primary tick activity, which was from May to July (Fig. 5A, C). Concerning D. reticulatus, likewise both problem types peaked throughout the tick’s primary activity durations, e.g. September to October 2020 in addition to in March to April 2021 (Fig. 5B). In contrast, single problems with I. hexagonus in cats happened throughout the research study duration without unique peaks, while problems with several specimens peaked in May 2021 (Fig. 5D). While in dogs the variety of single problems was constantly above the level of several problems, cats were plagued with several ticks regularly in the times of species-related activity peaks (Fig. 5C, D). Cats had a considerably greater percentage of several problems with I. ricinus than dogs in each season of the year (Table 3).
Multiple and single problems with the 2 most often gathered tick types on dogs (I. ricinus [A] and D. reticulatus [B]) and cats (I. ricinus [C] and I. hexagonus [D]) throughout the research study. Red boxes show the primary durations of tick species-specific distinctions
The seasonal contrast of single and several problems in between the 2 most often gathered tick types per host revealed considerable distinctions in dogs. The percentage of several problems by D. reticulatus was substantially greater compared to I. ricinus in the fall of 2020 (χ2 = 47.092, df = 1, P < 0.001), winter season of 2020/21 (χ2 = 21.886, df = 1, P < 0.001) and spring 2021 (Fisher’s specific test, P < 0.001), while in summertime 2021 the opposite pattern happened (χ2 = 9.3044, df = 1, P < 0.001). For cats, no considerable distinction in between seasonal rates of several problems with I. ricinus and I. hexagonus was taped (P > 0.05).
Most several problems were restricted to one tick types, while less mixed-species problems were likewise observed, particularly in 128 (2.02%) dogs and 84 (1.98%) cats. These revealed a comparable pattern in dogs and cats throughout the research study and peaked in between March and June 2021 (Fig. 6). Regarding the various tick types in these blended problems, in dogs almost as numerous D. reticulatus (40.1%) as I. ricinus (48.5%) specimens were discovered, followed by some I. hexagonus (3.2%). In cats, the controling types was I. ricinus (59.3%), followed by I. hexagonus (17.1%) and not more determinable Ixodes sp. (9.9%).
Number of problems with more than one tick types on dogs and cats per research study month
Attachment duration
Attachment duration was computed for 10,871 female I. ricinus, 5175 of which were gathered from dogs and 5544 from cats. For another 1421 specimens gathered from dogs (21.54%) and 674 of those from cats (10.84%), the accessory time was not determinable due to the fact that of estimation limitations leading to severe worths; for that reason, these ticks were omitted. Dogs plagued with female I. ricinus specimens harboured these for 78.76 h usually (basic variance [SD] = 45.22 h, typical = 76.85 h). In cats, the typical accessory time was somewhat greater (Mann-Whitney U-test, χ2 = 13,300,506, P < 0.001), with approximately 82.73 h (SD = 41.65 h, typical = 82.94 h; Fig. 7).
Distribution of accessory time of female I. ricinus specimens gathered from dogs (A) and cats (B)
Among the 1159 female D. reticulatus specimens gathered from dogs, 42.02% (487/1159) were totally engorged, 21.92% (254/1159) were partly engorged and 35.98% (417/1159) were separated prior to engorgement began, while for one specimen the phase of engorgement was difficult to identify due to the fact that of the tick’s condition. In cats, the circulation was comparable although the sample size was substantially lower. Of the 33 gathered women, 45.45% (15/33) were totally engorged, 21.21% (7/33) were partly engorged and 33.33% (11/33) were unengorged.
Temporal course of I. ricinus and D. reticulatus collection
To represent the reality that the variety of actively getting involved veterinary practices differed in between specific months, the month-to-month variety of gotten ticks was divided by the variety of active individuals because month (Fig. 8a). The research study began in May 2020 with 86 getting involved vets and led to an optimal variety of 219 hired individuals in September 2020, 197 from Germany and 22 from Austria. After September 2020, no brand-new individuals were hired and the variety of actively getting involved vets, indicating all individuals that did not sign off for the month and got a brand-new collection package, never ever dropped listed below 200 throughout the fixed research study duration approximately June 2021 (Fig. 8). In July 2021, simply 160 vets were provided with tick collection boxes due to the fact that just staying packages were sent. However, vets might have utilized staying boxes from the preceding months, as evidenced by the reality that some ticks were still sent in after the formerly figured out research study duration from July to October 2021 (1193/19,514; 6.11%). Therefore, the variety of ticks per actively getting involved vet was not computed since July 2021. Concerning the primary research study duration, it cannot be omitted that some vets were not participating throughout some months regardless of having actually bought boxes. Nevertheless, normalising tick numbers by the documented variety of individuals monthly was concerned to yield a more precise quote of tick activity than normalising by inbound boxes due to the fact that empty boxes might not have actually been sent to our institute.
Collected I. ricinus and D. reticulatus specimens per actively getting involved vet throughout the research study duration (A) and overall variety of gotten ticks monthly (B). The variety of specimens per active individual is not shown for March to April 2020 or July to October 2021, as these durations were outside the 14-month research study duration and no collection packages were sent for these months
Both I. ricinus and D. reticulatus were gathered throughout the year (Fig. 8). Regarding the temporal circulation of gotten I. ricinus ticks, 2 significant peaks appeared, particularly in June 2020 (2007 ticks gotten in overall, 13.93 per individual) and May 2021 (3300 ticks gotten in overall, 15.71 per individual). A smaller sized peak was likewise observed in September 2020 (524 ticks gotten in overall, 2.00 per individual). Over the winter season duration from December 2020 to February 2021, a typical variety of 70 ticks monthly was sent in (0.34 ticks per individual).
Regarding D. reticulatus, collections peaked in September 2020 (345 ticks gotten in overall, 1.56 per individual) and in March 2021 (300 ticks gotten in overall, 1.49 per individual). Over the winter season duration (December 2020–February 2021), approximately 108 D. reticulatus specimens was sent in monthly (0.53 ticks per individual).
