Control ticks/fleas/lice in wild mammal populations

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

30%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Although the effects of parasites, such as ticks, fleas and lice, on their hosts are often undetectable, there can be serious adverse health effects of high parasite burdens, including reduced reproductive output and increased mortality (Wall 2007). Furthermore, in some cases, parasites can be carriers of disease that can have severe adverse effects on populations (e.g. Biggins & Kosoy 2001). Treatments, developed primarily for domestic animals, may be administered to wild mammals to reduce parasite burdens. The administering of such treatments, though, can be challenging.

Biggins D.E. & Kosoy M.Y. (2001) Influences of introduced plague on North American mammals: implications from ecology of plague in Asia. Journal of Mammalogy, 82, 906–916.

Wall R. (2007) Ectoparasites: future challenges in a changing world. Veterinary Parasitology, 148, 62–74.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of controlling ticks, fleas or lice in wild mammal populations. Both studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Condition (2 studies): A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that a grain-bait insecticide product did not consistently reduce flea burdens on Utah prairie dogs. A controlled study the USA found that treating wolves with ivermectin cleared them of infestations of biting dog lice.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2009–2010 on six grasslands in Utah, USA (Jachowski et al. 2012) found that following treatment with a grain-bait insecticide product, there was no consistent reduction in flea burdens on Utah prairie dogs Cynomys parvidens. After one summer, fewer fleas were recorded on prairie dogs in treated than untreated colonies at two sites, there was no difference at one site and more fleas were recorded in treated than untreated colonies at one site. After the second summer (with treatments applied twice) there were fewer fleas on prairie dogs in treated than untreated colonies at one site and no difference at two sites. See paper for full data. At six sites with prairie dog colonies, treatment and control plots were established, covering 2–190 ha, depending on animal density. Four sites were monitored in 2009 and three in 2010. In 2009, 56 g of imidacloprid-treated oat grain bait (Kaput®) was scattered within 2.4 m of each burrow in treatment colonies, once in May–June. Imidacloprid is an insecticide that can reduce burdens of fleas and, thus, reduce the risk of transmission of plague. In 2010, the treatment was applied twice, five days apart, in April–May. Prairie dogs were trapped monthly, using 100 live traps for five days in both treatment and control areas at each site, in June–October, and combed to count fleas.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Jachowski D.S., Brown N.L., Wehtje M., Tripp D.W., Millspaugh J.J. & Gompper M.E. (2012) Mitigating plague risk in Utah prairie dogs: evaluation of a systemic flea-control product. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 36, 167-175.
A controlled study in 2002–2010 in a forested area of Alaska, USA (Gardner et al. 2013) found that treating wolves Canis lupus with ivermectin cleared them of infestations of biting dog lice Trichodectes canis. All of 12–19 wolf packs treated with ivermectin, were lice-free in the winter following treatment. In spring, 15–50% of packs were infested over the three years of treatments, 5% were infested the following spring, with 0% spring infestation in the last two years of monitoring. Three untreated packs remained infested throughout four years of monitoring. In a 13,000-km² study area, lice infestation in two packs was confirmed by inspecting animal hides harvested by trappers in 2002–2005. Moose or lynx meat, injected with ivermectin, was distributed aerially at den and rendezvous sites of 12–19 wolf packs at 10–20 day intervals in 2005–2007. Infestation status and responses to treatments were determined by live-trapping wolves, direct observations and by inspection of hides obtained from trappers during 2005–2010.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Gardner C.L., Beckmen K.B., Pamperin N.J. & Del Vecchio P. (2013) Experimental treatment of dog lice infestation in interior Alaska wolf packs. Journal of Wildlife Management, 77, 626-632.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Establish populations isolated from disease Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Control ticks/fleas/lice in wild mammal populations Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Eliminate highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link