The Keds Are Alright: Community Collection of Ticks (Ixodida: Ixodidae) and Keds (Diptera: Hippoboscidae) From Hunter-Harvested Deer

Abstract

Deer keds [Lipoptena cervi (L. 1758)] are ectoparasitic and hematophagous dipterans. Originally native to Northern Europe, L. cervi records in the United States begin in 1907 when they were found in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Subsequently, they have been recorded from several states and parasitize many native cervids (Artiodactyla: Cervidae) including white-tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmerman 1780)]. Concurrently, blacklegged ticks [Ixodes scapularis (Say 1821)], and cases of Lyme disease are increasing in prevalence in the Northeast. The continued expansion and increase in vectors and vector-borne diseases present an opportunity for study and community outreach. We used a combination of active and passive collection techniques, using deer hunters as community scientists, to collect ectoparasites of deer in Pennsylvania over two hunting seasons (2018–2019, 2019–2020). Community scientists were recruited through Facebook groups, e-mail, and hunting clubs. In total, 1,226 L. cervi and 1,954 I. scapularis were collected from white-tailed deer harvested by the community and deer processors across both hunting seasons. The community collected 298 L. cervi and 472 I. scapularis during the 2018–2019 season. In the same season, 529 L. cervi and 577 I. scapularis were collected from deer processors. For the 2019–2020 season, 225 L. cervi and 381 I. scapularis were collected by the community and 174 L. cervi and 524 I. scapularis were collected from deer processors. Benefits and drawbacks were identified for each collection method and a combination of both methods was found to be most effective in gathering specimens without sacrificing standardization.

All for One Health and One Health for All: Considerations for Successful Citizen Science Projects Conducting Vector Surveillance from Animal Hosts

“…If a project involves a large sample size, then postage costs of sending and returning kits may be prohibitive. For example, Evans et al [ 22 ] created collection kits which were light in materials (three microcentrifuge tubes, a pair of forceps, instructions, and datasheets) and cost approximately $3 per kit; however, the total cost of postage stamps was approximately $7.50 to send and receive the kits. Material costs may be reduced by purchasing in bulk or using less expensive alternatives, e.g., alcohol-based hand sanitizer instead of ethanol as a preservative [ 23 ].…”

“…Integrative collection techniques can be further extended outside of game check stations to deer meat processors. In states where hunting is popular but there are few-to-no check stations, animal processors can be an effective alternative for collection [ 22 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ]. While deer processors can provide the animal carcasses to allow researchers to search for arthropods, this sampling often requires researchers on site to accomplish most of the ectoparasite collecting since workers at meat processors have limited time and are often busy during hunting season.…”

“…from harvested game animals at check stations, so providing these data and ectoparasites to researchers would require little additional effort on their part. Furthermore, since they are quickly processing through many animals to satisfy their clientele, having professional wildlife accessors search for ectoparasites using an efficient systematic method (timed or by body section) may help them prioritize ectoparasite collection within their normal data collection or processing duties [ 22 , 73 , 76 ].…”

“…Similar to those with professional wildlife access, studies involving groups with recreational wildlife access used either a completely passive surveillance system or an integrative approach to data collection, where samples from recreational wildlife users were supplemented by researcher-led collection of ectoparasites or citizen scientists brought animals for researchers to sample. Researchers in some cases sent out collection kits and instructions and depended on hunters to collect, store, and return ectoparasites from their harvest [ 22 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 70 ]. These kits contained essential materials for preserving and returning samples to researchers, such as a datasheet, vials with ethanol solution, mailers to return the samples, and, in some cases, forceps and flea combs.…”

“…If a collection needs to be robust, widespread, and varied, this citizen science group can be essential to completing the project. Evans et al [ 22 ] found that recreational wildlife users were able to submit more geospatially diverse samples compared to researcher-led sampling events. Additionally, the authors showed that once the citizen science group becomes familiar with an ectoparasite that was once unfamiliar, citizen scientists collected more samples than trained researchers in the following collection season [ 22 ].…”