Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:34:22.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boophilus microplus: rejection of larvae from British breed cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. Koudstaal ,
D. H. Kemp  and
J. D. Kerr
D. Koudstaal
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Health and Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, P.O., Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia4068
D. H. Kemp
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Health and Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, P.O., Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia4068
J. D. Kerr*
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Health and Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, P.O., Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia4068
*
*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Larvae of Boophilus microplus were labelled with [32P] and used to study the rejection of larvae from British breed cattle with different levels of resistance. On animals of high resistance the loss of larvae due to grooming ranged from 9–54% during the first 24 h of infestation, and more time was spent grooming by these animals. Most of the grooming activity could be attributed to the presence of tick larvae and the presence of older tick stages did not increase the percentage of larvae lost. Grooming was directed to attached larvae and these could be removed. Animals of low resistance did not lose a significant number of larvae as a result of grooming, but all previously infested hosts lost a proportion of the larvae (18–39%) which could not be accounted for by grooming. This loss was greater than the total loss of larvae (11%) on animals not previously exposed to B. microplus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , June 1978 , pp. 379 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Bagnall, B. G. (1975). Cutaneous immunity to the tick Ixodes holocyclus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Bennett, G. F. (1969). Boophilus microplus (Acarina: Ixodidae): experimental infestations on cattle restrained from grooming. Experimental Parasitology 26, 323–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, G. F. (1974). Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) (Acaridae: Ixodidae) on the bovine host. I. Mortality during the developmental cycle. Acarologia 16, 643–50.Google Scholar
Bennett, G. F. & Wharton, R. H. (1968). Variability of host resistance to cattle tick. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 3, 150–4.Google Scholar
Kemp, D. H., Koudstaal, D. & Kerr, J. D. (1971). Labelling larvae of the cattle-tick Boophilus microplus, with [32P] to follow their movements on the host. Parasitology 73, 323–30.Google Scholar
Kemp, D. H., Koudstaal, D., Roberts, J. A. & Kerr, J. D. (1976). Boophilus microplus: the effect of host resistance on larval attachments and growth. Parasitology 73, 123–36.Google Scholar
Riek, R. F. (1956). Factors influencing the susceptibility of cattle to tick infestation. Australian Veterinary Journal 32, 204–8.Google Scholar
Riek, R. F. (1962). Studies on the reactions of animals to infestation with ticks. VI. Resistance of cattle to infestation with the tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 532–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. A. (1968 a). Resistance of cattle to the tick. Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). II. Stages of the life-cycle of the parasite against which resistance is manifest. Journal of Parasitology 54, 667–73.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. A. (1968 b). Acquisition by the host of resistance to the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). Journal of Parasitology 54, 657–62.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. A. (1971). Behaviour of larvae of the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini), on cattle of differing degrees of resistance. Journal of Parasitology 57, 651–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schleger, A. V., Lincoln, D. T., McKenna, R. V., Kemp, D. H. & Roberts, J. A. (1976). Boophilus microplus: cellular responses to larval attachment and their relationship to host resistance. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 29, 499–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowball, G. J. (1956). The effect of self-licking by cattle in infestations of cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 7, 227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampa, S. (1959). Tick paralysis in the Karoo areas of South Africa. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 28, 169–228.Google Scholar
Tachell, R. J. & Moorhouse, D. E. (1968). The feeding processes of the cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). II. The sequence of host-tissue changes. Parasitology 58, 441–59.Google Scholar
Trager, W. (1939). Acquired immunity to ticks. Journal of Parasitology 25, 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R. H., Utech, K. B. W. & Sutherst, R. W. (1973). Tick resistant cattle for the control of Boophilus microplus. Proceedings of the 3rd international Congress of Acarology, 1971, 697–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willadsen, P. & Williams, P. G. (1976). Isolation and partial characterization of an antigen from the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus. Immunochemistry 13, 591–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willadsen, P., Williams, P. G., Roberts, J. A. & Kerr, J. D. (1977). Responses of cattle to allergens from Boophilus microplus. International Journal for Parasitology (in the Press).Google Scholar