Ectoparasite Fauna of Rodents and Shrews from Four Habitats in Kuala Lumpur and the States of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia and Its Public Health Significance
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Tropical Biomedicine 26(3): 303–311 (2009) Ectoparasite fauna of rodents and shrews from four habitats in Kuala Lumpur and the states of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia and its public health significance Paramasvaran, S.1, Sani, R.A.2, Hassan, L.2, Krishnasamy, M.1, Jeffery, J.3, Oothuman, P.4, Salleh, I.5, Lim, K.H.1, Sumarni, M.G.1 and Santhana, R.L.1 1 Institute for Medical Research, Jalan Pahang, 50588 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. 3 Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 4 Kulliyah of Medicine, International Islamic University, P.O. Box 141, 25710 Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia. 5 College of Medical Laboratory Technology, IMR, Jalan Pahang, 50588 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected] Received 20 August 2009; received in revised form 6 October 2009; accepted 8 October 2009 Abstract. A total of 204 rodents comprising 14 host species from four different habitats were examined. Nine rodent species were trapped from the forest and another five species were trapped from the coastal, rice field and urban habitats. Rattus rattus diardii (67%) was the predominant rodent species examined. Fifty six (47.3%) rodents and shrews were found to be infested with at least one of the 20 species of ectoparasite recovered. Mites belonging to the family Trombiculidae were the predominant ectoparasite species recovered. Ticks belonging to the family Ixodidae were recovered mainly from the forest dwelling rodents. Polyplax spinulosa and Hoplopleura pacifica were the common lice species found infesting the urban rodents. Xenopsylla cheopis was the only flea species recovered. The following ecto-parasites have been incriminated as important vectors or as mechanical carriers for the transmission of zoonotic diseases: Ixodes granulatus, Dermacentor sp. Haemaphysalis sp., Amblyomma sp. Ascoschoengastia indica, Leptotrombidium deliense, Ornithonyssus bacoti, Laelaps nuttalli, H. pacifica, P. spinulosa and Xenopsylla cheopis. Urban and forest rodents were significantly higher in ecto-parasitic infestation, compared to rats from the other two habitats. However, there was no significant statistical association between male and female rodents infested with ectoparasites. INTRODUCTION rodents are classified into five main groups, Mesostigmata (mites), Prostigmata Rodents especially those that live in close (chiggers), Acarina (ticks), Phthiraptera proximity with humans (synanthropic (louse) and Siphonaptera (fleas). rodents) play a significant role in the In Malaysia, several studies identifying transmission of diseases to humans and the rodent host and its arthropod ecto- animals while others act as reservoir host. parasites have been conducted (Audy, 1957; These rodents also play a significant role as Kohls, 1957; Nadchatram et al., 1966; Lim, pests in the agricultural and urban 1972; Zahedi et al., 1984; Ho et al., 1985; environment causing economic losses Ho & Krishnasamy, 1991; Shabrina, 1990; (Walsh et al., 1993; Mayer et al., 1995; Mariana et al., 1996; Salleh et al., 2003; Singleton et al., 2003). Chulan et al., 2005). However, no The arthropod ectoparasites of rodents comprehensive studies has been conducted are important vectors of pathogenic thus far to compare the prevalence of microorganisms and for parasitic zoonoses ectoparasites in different rodent habitats. like babesiosis (Singleton et al., 2003), plague This study was conducted to determine the and others. Ectoparasites recovered from species distribution of ectoparasites and 303 compare the infestation rate in four different any ectoparasites seen were recovered using habitats and their zoonotic implications. the moistened end of a sharpened wooden applicator stick and placed in a collection tube containing 70% alcohol. A separate MATERIALS AND METHODS container was used for each animal. Trapping locations Processing of ectoparasites Trapping of rodents was conducted in the Mesostigmatid mites were removed from the four habitats from 2004 to 2006. The habitats alcohol and rinsed in water. They were next were, forest, ricefield, coastal, and urban placed in lactophenol (a clearing agent) for (wet markets). Fruits, coconuts, dried fish up to 1 week at room temperature. Small and sweet potatoes were used as baits. punctures were made with minute pin in the Urban rodents were trapped from the lateral edges of larger specimens (fleas and following wet markets: Chow Kit, Dato ticks) to facilitate lactopehenol entry. Keramat, Setapak, Jinjang and Kepong in Cleared specimens were washed once in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. Forest rodents distilled water and mounted in Hoyer’s were trapped from the Gombak Forest medium. Individual chiggers (larval Reserve in Selangor which is situated about trombiculid mites) were removed from the 21 kilometres away from Kuala Lumpur. Rice alcohol and placed directly in a drop of field rodents were trapped at Tanjung Hoyer’s mounting medium on a glass slide. Tualang, Selangor paddy fields. The coastal A cover slip was placed over the specimen. rats were trapped along the beaches at Port The slide was intermittently warmed in an Dickson, Negeri Sembilan (Figure 1). open oven to facilitate clearing of the chiggers. At the same time occasional light Trapping pressure was exerted using a sharpened All rodents were trapped alive using specially applicator stick on areas of the cover slip made wire traps measuring 29x22x50cm. surrounding the specimen. Trapped rodents were killed humanely by Listrophorid mites and lice were placing them in a cloth bag containing cotton processed and mounted following the wool soaked with chloroform. The killed technique used for mesostigmatid mites. All animal was then tagged for identification. mounted slides were incubated at 40ºC for one week to harden the mounting medium. Identification of rodent species All the mesostigmatid mites, ticks and lice Keys and illustrations developed by Harrison found were identified using available keys, & Quah (1962) and Medway (1983) were published taxonomic drawings and used to identify the rodent species by reference manuals (Kohls, 1957; Drummond morphological measurements and physical & Baker, 1960; Johnson, 1964; Nadchatram appearances. & Ramalingam, 1974). Listrophorid mites were not identified as taxonomic keys were Examination of ecto-parasites not available. The fur of each anaesthetised rat was combed with a fine tooth comb to dislodge Data analysis any ecto-parasite into an enamel tray. Fine The significance of individual factors forceps were used to remove ticks and mites (habitats and sex) as determinants for from the skin of rats when it was difficult to ectoparasite infestation was investigated by dislodge them by combing. Each cloth bag univariate Fisher Exact test and Chi-square where the rat was placed was inverted over analysis. The analysis was performed using the enamel tray to collect dislodged ecto- SPSS (Statistics Package for Social Sciences) parasites. The contents of the enamel tray version 12. was examined carefully with a hand lens and 304 Figure 1. Rodent trapping locations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION from rats from all the habitats (Tables 1 & 2). Mites (47.3%) were the predominant A total of 20 different species of ecto- ectoparasite found on rats from all the four parasites comprising five orders namely habitats followed by fleas (12.4%), lice Mesostigmata (mites), Prostigmata (chiggers), (11.9%) and ticks (10.4%) (Table 3). Fifty six Metastigmata (ticks), Phthiraptera (louse) (57.7%) rodents were found to be infested and Siphonaptera (fleas) were recovered with at least one species of ectoparasite. 305 Table 1. Ectoparasites recovered from wild (forest) rodents Rodent Host Mites Chiggers Ticks Maxomys rajah Listrophoridae Gahrlepia fletcheri Amblyomma sp. Laelaps sanguisugus Dermacentor sp Laelaps sculpturata Ixodes granulatus Longolaelaps longulus Haemaphysalis Laelaps aingworthae Leopoldamys sabanus Laelaps aingworthae Walchiella oudemansi Dermacentor sp Listrophoridae Ixodes granulatus Haemaphysalis Sundamys mulleri Listrophoridae Gahrlepia fletcheri Dermacentor sp. Laelaps sculpturata Ixodes granulatus Haemaphysalis Rattus bowersi Listrophoridae – Dermacentor sp. Laelaps sculpturata Ixodes granulatus Laelaps aingworthae Haemaphysalis Maxomys whiteheadi Laelaps sculpturata – – Laelaps aingworthae Tupaia glis Laelaps sculpturata – Dermacentor sp. Laelaps aingworthae Lariscus insignis – – Ixodes granulatus Table 2. Ectoparasites recovered from three rat host species from urban, coastal and rice field habitats Rat Host Fleas Lice Mites Chiggers Ticks Habitat Rattus r. Xenopsylla Polyplax Laelaps Ascoschoengastia Urban diardii cheopis spinulosa echidinus indica Hoplopleura Laelaps nuttali Urban pacifica Ornithonyssus Urban bacoti Noetodres muris Urban Laelaps nuttali Urban Leptotrombidium Coastal deliense Walchiella Coastal oudemansi Listrophoridae Amblyomma sp. Rice Laelaps Field ecidininus Rattus Xenopsylla Polyplax Ascoschoengastia Urban novergicus cheopis spinulosa indica Rattus Laelaps Ascoschoengastia Coastal exulans nuttali indica 306 Table 3. Percentage of ectoparasite infestation in four habitats No. of rats No of rats No. of rats No. of rats No. of rats Habitat examined +ve for lice +ve for fleas +ve for mites +ve for ticks (%) (%) (%) (%) Urban 097 16 (16.5) 23 (23.7) 56 (57.7) 00 (0%)0 Forest 051 00 (23.7) 00 (23.7) 23 (45.1) 18 (35.3) Rice Field 031 00 (23.7) 00 (23.7) 07 (2.6)002 (6.45) Coastal