Control ticks/fleas/lice in wild mammal populations

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    0%

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)

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

  1. 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
  2. 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
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

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust