Veterinary Parasitology 228 (2016) 17–22 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Veterinary Parasitology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/vetpar Research paper Ectoparasites of free-roaming domestic cats in the central United States a b,1 a a,∗ Jennifer E. Thomas , Lesa Staubus , Jaime L. Goolsby , Mason V. Reichard a Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 250 McElroy Hall Stillwater, OK 74078, USA b Department of Clinical Science, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 1 Boren Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital Stillwater, OK 74078, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Free-roaming domestic cat (Felis catus) populations serve as a valuable resource for studying ectoparasite Received 11 May 2016 prevalence. While they share a similar environment as owned cats, free-roaming cats do not receive rou- Received in revised form 27 July 2016 tine veterinary care or ectoparasiticide application, giving insight into parasite risks for owned animals. Accepted 29 July 2016 We examined up to 673 infested cats presented to a trap-neuter-return (TNR) clinic in the central United States. Ectoparasite prevalences on cats were as follows: fleas (71.6%), ticks (18.7%), Felicola subrostratus Keywords: (1.0%), Cheyletiella blakei (0.9%), and Otodectes cynotis (19.3%). Fleas, ticks, and O. cynotis were found in Cat all months sampled. A total of 1117 fleas were recovered from 322 infested cats. The predominate flea Feline recovered from cats was Ctenocephalides felis (97.2%) followed by Pulex spp. (2.8%), Cediopsylla simplex Felis catus (0.6%), and Nosopsyllus fasciatus (0.6%). A total of 373 ticks were recovered from 126 infested cats. The Feral cat Stray cat predominate tick species was Amblyomma americanum (65.9%) followed by Ixodes scapularis (32.5%), Der- Ectoparasite macentor variabilis (10.3%), and Rhipicephalus sanguineus (0.8%). Immature tick stages accounted for 54.7% Flea of all ticks found, highlighting an under-appreciated source of tick burden on domestic cats. The results Tick of this study emphasize the importance of year-round use of ectoparasiticides with both insecticidal and Louse acaricidal activity on domestic cats. Mite © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Ear mite 1. Introduction have varying ectoparasiticide protocols, which may differ within a shelter as well, depending on the individual animal’s personality Free-roaming domestic cat (Felis catus) populations serve as a and response to being handled. Shelter animals are obtained from valuable resource for studying ectoparasite prevalence. Sometimes a variety of sources (i.e., owner surrender, confiscation, stray, or called community cats, the term free-roaming can be employed feral) and have an unknown history of acaricide use and veterinary to describe feral, stray, and other non-owned cats which are not care. Variations in shelter holding time prior to sampling also raises considered pets and live exclusively outdoors (Centonze and Levy, the question of whether parasites were acquired prior to shelter 2002). Many of these cats have a close association with homes and acquisition or from contaminated shelter environments. Similarly, human activities, sharing a similar environment as domestic pets. shelter surveys may underestimate the prevalence of tick infesta- However, since these free-roaming domestic cats have limited or tions. Ticks feed for a period of 2–14 days (Diamant and Strickland, no history of veterinary care or ectoparasiticide use, they provide a 1965) and may have fed to repletion and fallen off a host by the unique sampling population to estimate risk of ectoparasite expo- time an animal is examined in a shelter survey. Thus, sampling free- sure for owned cats under veterinary care. roaming domestic cats can provide unique insight into ectoparasite Ectoparasite studies of free-roaming cats provide value over prevalence. similarly conducted shelter surveys for multiple reasons. Shelters Historically, ectoparasite studies conducted on cats have pri- marily focused on fleas. This is likely due to the number of recognized flea-transmitted pathogens (i.e., Bartonella spp., Rick- ettsia felis, Mycoplasma haemofelis, Dipylidium caninum, etc.) and ∗ Corresponding author. relative ease of flea detection and collection in comparison to other E-mail address: [email protected] (M.V. Reichard). ectoparasites. There are few primary literature reports of natu- 1 Present address: Department of Veterinary Technology, Oklahoma State Uni- ral tick infestations on cats in the United States (Akucewich et al., versity, 230 Agriculture Resource Center, 400N, Portland Avenue, Oklahoma City, 2002; Bishopp and Trembley, 1945; Burroughs et al., 2016; Curran OK 73107, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.07.034 0304-4017/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 18 J.E. Thomas et al. / Veterinary Parasitology 228 (2016) 17–22 and Fish, 1989; Magnarelli et al., 1990; Shock et al., 2014) and 2.4. Ear mites even fewer comprehensive ectoparasite surveys (Akucewich et al., 2002). The purpose of the current study was to characterize the On each cat sampled, the vertical portion of the external ear prevalence of a variety of ectoparasites in a free-roaming domes- canal was swabbed using cotton-tipped applicators regardless of tic cat population presented to a trap-neuter-return clinic in the presence, color, or texture of exudate. Each swab was placed in an central United States. individual vial until examination. Each swab was examined indi- vidually using a stereomicroscope within 5 h of collection. Swab surfaces were examined for all life stages of Otodectes cynotis. 2. Materials and methods 2.5. Data analyses 2.1. Feline population The prevalence of ectoparasite infestation was calculated Cats were sampled opportunistically from animals presented to according to Bush et al. (Bush et al., 1997). 95% confidence inter- a trap-neuter-return (TNR) clinic in north central Oklahoma, USA. vals were calculated according to Sterne’s exact method (Reiczigel, All cats were required to be a minimum of 3 months of age in order 2003) using Quantitative Parasitology 3.0 (Rózsa et al., 2000). Com- to participate in the clinic. Any indication that a cat was owned, as parisons of the prevalence of fleas, ticks, and ear mite among determined by the presence of a collar or microchip, disqualified the months sampled and age group of cats were done using Chi-square cat from participation in the clinic and ectoparasite collection. All (Sokal and Rohlf, 1997). Chi-square tests were performed using research procedures and sample collections were approved by the SigmaPlot 12.5 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, California, United Oklahoma State University Institution Animal Care and Use Com- States). The prevalence of lice and fur mites were not compared mittee (IACUC). Trappers signed a waiver permitting these samples statistically due to the low occurrence of parasites. Statistical sig- to be collected and data used for research and publication. Cats nificance was assumed at ␣ = 0.05. were anesthetized prior to examination (Williams et al., 2002) in accordance with the clinic’s protocols. Cats were aged by dentition (Humane Society of the United 3. Results States (HSUS), 1996) and grouped into 3 categories: less than 6 months of age (<6mo), between 6 months and 2 years of age 3.1. Feline population (6mo–2yr), and greater than 2 years of age (>2yr) at time of pre- sentation (Holmstrom et al., 2013; Vogt et al., 2010). Additional A total of 941 cats were presented during eight clinics held information collected included the physical location from which January–May and September–November 2014. Cats were trapped they were trapped and coat length (Dallas et al., 2006). throughout the state of Oklahoma and from southern Kansas. Of Sampling corresponded with the dates of the trap-neuter- these, 673 cats (71.5% of all cats presented to the TNR clinic) were return clinic, occurring once each month from January–May and examined for flea and tick infestation (Table 1). Ages were recorded September–November 2014. for 658 of the cats studied for fleas and ticks: 142 cats (21.6%) were <6mo, 385 (58.5%) were 6mo–2yr, and 131 (19.9%) were >2yr. Hair samples from 589 cats (62.6% of all cats presented to the 2.2. Fleas and ticks TNR clinic) were analyzed for lice and fur mites from March–May and September–November. Ages were recorded for 520 of the cats Cats were examined for fleas and ticks by parting the coat and from which hair samples were collected; 80 (15.4%) were <6mo, visually examining for ectoparasites, as well as combing through 325 (62.5%) were 6mo–2yr, and 115 (22.1%) were >2yr. the coat using a flea comb (Dryden et al., 1994; Marchiondo et al., A total of 472 cats (50.2% of all cats presented to the TNR 2013). For the current study, time spent examining a cat and remov- clinic) were studied for ear mite infestation during the clinics held ing ectoparasites was limited to 2 min per animal. All ticks found April–May and September–November. Of the cats examined for were removed using forceps and recommended removal tech- ear mite infestation, ages were recorded for 470 animals, and 103 nique (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2015; (21.9%) were <6mo, 275 (58.5%) were 6mo–2yr, and 92 (19.6%) were Marchiondo et al., 2013). Evidence of flea infestation was recorded >2yr. when either the presence of fleas or flea frass was noted. Fleas were caught opportunistically for identification. Flea burden was 3.2. Fleas and ticks not determined. Fleas and ticks were stored in 100% ethanol until identification. Fleas were identified using taxonomic keys (Centers Of 673 cats examined, 479 (71.6%) cats had evidence of flea for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1969; Fox, 1940; Hopkins infestation (Table 1).