Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:49:43.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptation of field strains of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus Neumann (Acarina: Ixodidae) to host resistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. W. Chiera ,
R. M. Newson  and
G. R. Karuhize
J. W. Chiera
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
R. M. Newson
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
G. R. Karuhize
Affiliation:
University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A comparison of feeding and breeding performance was made between a laboratory strain (LS) and two freshly collected field strains (FS1, FS2) of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. The LS had been cultured for over 30 years on tick-susceptible rabbits. When fed on susceptible rabbits LS produced smaller eggs and unfed larvae, nymphs and adults than those of FS. Eggs and larvae from females engorged on cattle were larger than those from females engorged on rabbits. LS and FS females engorged on susceptible hosts were of similar weight, but the FS females were twice as heavy as LS females when tick-resistant hosts were used. A higher proportion of LS ticks than of FS ticks engorged on susceptible hosts, but a lower proportion on resistant hosts. Thus on susceptible hosts LS showed a higher reproduction efficiency than FS, but a lower one than FS on resistant hosts. The proportional reductions of engorged weights and numbers feeding successfully on resistant hosts were significantly lower for LS than FS ticks. Cross-resistance was low between LS and FS. Although all strains were affected by host resistance, it was concluded that the field strains were better adapted to withstand resistance than the laboratory strain.

Keywords

Rhipicephalus appendiculatusadaptationhost resistancefeedingbreeding performance.
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , August 1989 , pp. 149 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, J. R., & Humphreys, S. J., (1979). Immunisation of guinea pigs and cattle against ticks. Nature, London 280, 491–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, W. W., (1966). Genetic divergence in M. Vetukiv's experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster. 3. Divergence in body size. Genetical Research 7, 255–66.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. W., (1973). Genetic divergence in body size among experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura kept at different temperatures. Evolution 27, 278–84.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. P., (1960). Notes on the rearing of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and their infection with Theileria parva for experimental transmission. Bulletin of Epizootic Diseases of Africa 8, 33–43.Google Scholar
Boese, J. L., (1974). Rabbit immunity to the rabbit tick, Haemaphysalis leporispalustris. Journal of Medical Entomology 11, 503–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branagan, D., (1974). The maintenance of Theileria parva infections by means of the ixodid tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. Tropical Animal Health and Production 1, 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiera, J. W., Newson, R. M., & Cunningham, M. P., (1985 a). Cumulative effects of host resistance on Rhipicephalus appendiculatus in the laboratory. Parasitology 90, 401–8.Google Scholar
Chiera, J. W., Newson, R. M., & Cunningham, M. P., (1985 b). The effect of size on feeding and breeding performance of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. Insect Science and Its Application 6, 555–60.Google Scholar
Hunt, L. M., & Drummond, R. O., (1983). Effect of laboratory rearing on the reproductive biology of the lone star tick. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 76, 374–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvin, A. D., Purnell, R. E., & Peirce, M. A., (1973). Some observations on the feeding behaviour of the tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus on cattle and rabbits in the laboratory. Tropical Animal Health and Production 5, 87–97.Google Scholar
Loverde, P. T., Dewald, J., Minchella, D. J., Bosshardt, S. C., & Damian, R. T., (1985). Evidence for host-induced selection in Schistosoma mansoni. Journal of Parasitology 72, 297–301.Google Scholar
Newson, R. M., & Chiera, J. W., (1989). Development of resistance in calves to nymphs of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus Neumann (Acarina: Ixodidae) during test feeds. Experimental and Applied Acarology 6, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, R., (1977). Project tick control. Queensland Agricultural Journal 103, 443–74.Google Scholar
Stewart, N. P., Callow, L. L., & Duncarfe, F., (1982). Biological comparisons between a laboratory-maintained and a recently isolated field strain of Boophilus microplus. Journal of Parasitoloy 68, 691–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherst, R. W., Norton, G. A., Barlow, N. D., Conway, G. R., Birley, M., & Comins, H. N., (1979). An analysis of management strategies for cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) control in Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 16, 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trager, W., (1939). Acquired immunity to ticks. Journal of Parasitology 25, 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, D., (1984). Evasion of the immune response: survival within low responder individuals of the host population. Parasitoloy 88, 639–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, P. R., (1962). Selection of cattle for tick resistance and effect of herds of differing susceptibility on Boophilus populations. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 974–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar