2011
DOI: 10.11158/saa.16.3.5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tick surveillance of dogs in the Republic of Korea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ticks are obligate blood-feeding ectoparasites of wildlife (Heath et al 1987, 2010a) that also infest domestic animals (Choe et al 2011) and incidentally bite man (Cho et al 1995, Ryu et al 1998, Chae et al 2000, Ko et al 2002, Suh et al 2008, Kim et al 2010b due to the proximity of human habitations or human activities in tick-infested habitats. As vectors of a number of zoonotic arboviruses, bacteria, and protozoan pathogens, ticks significantly impact human and animal health.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ticks are obligate blood-feeding ectoparasites of wildlife (Heath et al 1987, 2010a) that also infest domestic animals (Choe et al 2011) and incidentally bite man (Cho et al 1995, Ryu et al 1998, Chae et al 2000, Ko et al 2002, Suh et al 2008, Kim et al 2010b due to the proximity of human habitations or human activities in tick-infested habitats. As vectors of a number of zoonotic arboviruses, bacteria, and protozoan pathogens, ticks significantly impact human and animal health.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The natural hosts of ticks are wild animals (Heath et al 1987, 2010a; however, since they also infest domestic animals (Choe et al 2011) and bite man (Cho et al 1995, Ryu et al 1998, Chae et al 2000, Ko et al 2002, Suh et al 2008, Kim et al 2010b, they pose significant veterinary and medical health risks. While tick-host-pathogen relationships are important to understand, collecting ticks from small-large wild animal and bird hosts (Heath et al 1987) is time consuming and can incur excessive manpower and costs (Kim et al 2010a.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Korea, some studies have serologically identified Borrelia in dogs, and the seroprevalence ranges between 1.1% and 2.2% [12,35,36]; however, Borrelia infection in dogs has not been molecularly proven. Haemaphysalis longicornis is known as a dominant tick species in Korea, and other tick species, including Ixodes, Amblyomma, and Rhipicephalus, have been identified in different environments [37,38]. The fact that I. nipponensis is not a dominant tick species in dogs and in environments in Korea [38] might be the reason for the low seroprevalence of Lyme borreliosis in dogs in this country.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Haemaphysalis longicornis is known as a dominant tick species in Korea, and other tick species, including Ixodes, Amblyomma, and Rhipicephalus, have been identified in different environments [37,38]. The fact that I. nipponensis is not a dominant tick species in dogs and in environments in Korea [38] might be the reason for the low seroprevalence of Lyme borreliosis in dogs in this country. Considering the distribution of Borrelia in animals, the existence of vector ticks, and the gradual increase in human clinical cases, continuous monitoring of Borrelia in vector ticks and animals in Korea is required.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%