Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:59:54.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Host location, survival and fecundity of the Oriental rat flea Xenopsylla cheopis (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) in relation to black rat Rattus rattus (Rodentia: Muridae) host age and sex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. Mears ,
F. Clark ,
M. Greenwood  and
K.S. Larsen
S. Mears*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
F. Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
M. Greenwood
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Loughborough, UK
K.S. Larsen
Affiliation:
KSL Consulting, Ramløsevej 25, Denmark
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Host choice and fecundity are two factors that may contribute to the variation in flea counts observed when assessing the potential risk of flea-borne transmission of pathogens from rodents to humans. Using the black rat, Rattus rattus Linnaeus, as host the effects of age and sex on host choice and fecundity of the Oriental rat flea, Xenopsylla cheopis Rothschild, were examined experimentally at 25°C and 80% rh. During the first two days of emergence from cocoons, female fleas dominated the sex ratio by 4:1 but from the third day onwards this switched to a male-dominated sex ratio of 4:1. The sex of the flea did not influence their host-seeking behaviour. Newly emerged fleas of both sexes were not influenced by the rat‘s presence and at seven days old both sexes demonstrated similar levels of attraction toward the rat host. The sex of the rat did not affect flea host-seeking behaviour. There was a 50–70% decline in the initial number of adult fleas during the first week after their release onto a rat host, and this decline was greatest on juvenile rats. Flea fecundity was also significantly lower on juvenile rat hosts but no differences due to the sex of the rat were observed. This experimental study supports the hypothesis that differences in flea count due to host sex, reported in field surveys, result from sexual differences in host behaviour and not from discriminatory host-seeking behaviour by X. cheopis. Differences in flea count due to host age may be affected by differences in X. cheopis fecundity, which may itself be mediated by host behaviour such as grooming.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 92 , Issue 5 , October 2002 , pp. 375 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnett, A. (1997) Male hormones make for a lousy life. New Scientist March 15 (2073), 19.Google Scholar
Bell, J.F. & Clifford, C.M. (1964) Effects of limb disability on lousiness in mice. II. intersex grooming relationships. Experimental Parasitology 15, 340–349.Google Scholar
Benton, A.H. & Lee, S.Y. (1965) Sensory reactions of siphonaptera in relation to host finding. American Midland Naturalist 74, 119–125.Google Scholar
Benton, A.H., Cerwonka, R. & Hill, J. (1959) Observations on host perception in fleas. Journal of Parasitology 45, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P.A. (1936) Quantitative studies on the biology of Xenopsylla cheopis (Siphonaptera). Indian Journal of Medical Research 26, 505–530.Google Scholar
Buxton, P.A. (1948) Experiments with mice and fleas I. The baby mouse. Parasitology 39, 119–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, F., Greenwood, M. & Smith, S.J. (1993) Use of an insect activity monitor in behavioural studies of the flea, Xenopsylla cheopis (Rothschild). Bulletin of the Society for Vector Ecology 18, 26–32.Google Scholar
Cole, L.C. (1945) The effect of temperature on the sex ratio of Xenopsylla cheopis recovered from live rats. Public Health Report 60, 1337–1342.Google Scholar
Cotton, M.J. (1970) The life history of the hen flea, Ceratophyllus gallinae (Shrank) (Siphonaptera: Ceratophyllidae). Entomologist 103, 45–48.Google Scholar
Cowx, N.C. (1967) Some aspects of the ecology and biology of some small mammal fleas from Yorkshire. Journal of Biological Education 1, 75–78.Google Scholar
Dryden, M.W. & Broce, A.B. (1993) Development of a trap for collecting newly emerged Ctenocephalides felis (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) in homes. Journal of Medical Entomology 30, 901–906.Google Scholar
Edney, E.B. (1945) Laboratory studies on the bionomics of the rat fleas Xenopsylla brasiliensis, Baker, and X. cheopis Roths. I. Certain effects of light, temperature and humidity on development and adult longevity. Bulletin of Entomological Research 35, 399–416.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. & Cohen, L. (1996) Practical statistics for field biology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. & Waddell, M.S. (1974) The importance of social and self grooming for the control of ectoparasitic mites on normal and dystrotrophic laboratory mice. Laboratory Practice 23, 58–59.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M.T., Clark, F. & Smith, J.S. (1991) Automatic recording of flea activity. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 5, 93–100.Google Scholar
Haas, G.E. (1965) Comparative suitability of the four murine rodents of Hawaii as hosts for Xenopsylla vexabilis and X. cheopis (Siphonaptera). Journal of Medical Entomology 2, 75–83.Google Scholar
Haas, G.E. (1966) Cat-flea–mongoose relationships in Hawaii. Journal of Medical Entomology 2, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirst, F.L. (1927) Researches on the parasitology of plague. Ceylon Journal of Science, section D, Medical Science, 155–455.Google Scholar
Humphries, D.A. (1968) The host-finding behaviour of the hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae (Schrank) (Siphonaptera). Parasitology 58, 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, J.D. & Wills, W. (1991) Ecology of sylvatic plague in the San Jacinto Mountains of southern California. Bulletin of the Society for Vector Ecology 16, 183–199.Google Scholar
Larsen, K. (1995) Laboratory rearing of the squirrel flea Ceratophyllus sciurorum sciurorum with notes on its biology. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 76, 241–245.Google Scholar
Lehane, M.J. (1991) Biology of blood-sucking insects. Harper Collins Academic (Pub).Google Scholar
Lodmell, D.L., Bell, J.F., Clifford, C.M., Moore, G.J. & Raymond, G. (1970) Effects of limb disability on lousiness in mice V. Hierarchy disturbance on mutual grooming and reproductive capacities. Experimental Parasitology 27, 184–192.Google Scholar
Lundqvist, L. & Brinck-Lindroth, G. (1990) Patterns of co-existence: ectoparasites on small mammals in northern Fennoscandia. Holarctic Ecology 13, 39–49.Google Scholar
Marshall, A.G. (1981) The ecology of ectoparasitic insects.459 pp. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mears, S. (1996) The effects of rat host(Rattus rattus) age and gender upon the behaviour of the Oriental Rat Flea Xenopsylla cheopis. MSc thesis, University of Leicester.Google Scholar
Mohr, C.O. (1961) Relation of ectoparasite load to host size and standard range. Journal of Parasitology 47, 978–984.Google Scholar
Mohr, C.O. & Adams, L. (1963) Relation of flea infestations to the spacing between cottontail rabbits. Journal of Wildlife Management 27, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, C.O. & Stumpf, W.A. (1962) Relation of ectoparasite load to host size and home area in small mammals and birds. pp 174–183. in Transactions of the 27th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources ConferenceMarch 12–14, 1962,DenverWildlife Management Institute.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A. (1981) Spatial differentiation of ectoparasites on small mammals. Holarctic Ecology 4, 184–190.Google Scholar
Osbrink, W.L.A. & Rust, M.K. (1985) Cat flea (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae): factors influencing host finding behaviour in the laboratory. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 78, 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitzer, R. (1954) Plague.WHO Monograph Series No. 22,698.Google Scholar
Prasad, R.S. (1969) Influence of host on fecundity of the Indian rat flea X. cheopis. Journal of Medical Entomology 6, 443.Google Scholar
Prasad, R.S. (1987) Host dependency among haematophagous insects: a case study on flea–host association. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science (Animal Sciences) 96, 349–360.Google Scholar
Rothschild, M., Ford, B. & Hughes, M. (1970) Maturation of the male rabbit flea (Spilopsyllus cuniculi) and the Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis): some effects of mammalian hormones on development and impregnation. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 32, 107–188.Google Scholar
Shulov, A. & Naor, D. (1964) Experiments on the olfactory responses and host specificity of the Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis). Parasitology 54, 225–231.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. & Castellan, N.J. (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Stark, H.E. & Miles, V.I. (1962) Ecological studies of wild rodent plague in the San Francisco Bay area of California. VI. The relative abundance of certain flea species and their host relationships on coexisting wild and domestic rodents. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 11, 525–534.Google Scholar
Traub, R., Wisseman, A. & Farhang-Azad, C.L. (1978) The ecology of murine typhus – a critical review. Tropical Disease Bulletin 75, 237–317.Google Scholar
Wade, S.E., Georgi, J.R. (1988) Survival and reproduction of artificially fed cat fleas, Ctenocephalides felis Bouche (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 25, 186–190.Google Scholar
Webster, W.J. (1930) Observations on rat fleas and the transmission of plague. Part III. Flea bionomics. Indian Journal of Medical Research 18, 391–405.Google Scholar