# Seasonal dynamic of ticks infesting cattle (Bos indicus) farms in two provinces in Cambodia

Sony Yean, Didot B Prasetyo, Theary Ren, Davy Krib, Saoya Sen, Bunthon

Chea, Sothyra Tum, San Sorn, Samuth Sum, Sébastien Boyer

► To cite this version:

Sony Yean, Didot B Prasetyo, Theary Ren, Davy Krib, Saoya Sen, et al. Seasonal dynamic of ticks infesting cattle (Bos indicus) farms in two provinces in Cambodia. PLoS ONE, 2025, 20 (4), pp.e0320879. 10.1371/journal.pone.0320879. hal-05070280

HAL Id: hal-05070280

https://hal.science/hal-05070280v1

Submitted on 16 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Seasonal dynamic of ticks infesting cattle
*(Bos indicus) farms in two provinces in
Cambodia*

Sony Yean<sup>1**</sup>, Didot B. Prasetyo<sup>1*</sup>, Theary Ren<sup>2</sup>, Davy Krib<sup>1</sup>, Saoya Sen<sup>1</sup>, Bunthon Chea<sup>3</sup>,
Sothyra Tum<sup>2</sup>, San Sorn<sup>2</sup>, Samuth Sum<sup>3</sup>, Sébastien Boyer<sup>1</sup>

1 Medical and Veterinary Entomology Unit, Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, Phnom Penh, Cambodia,

2 National Animal Health and Production Research Institute, General Directorate of Animal Health and Production, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 3 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

© These authors contributed equally to this work.

* ysony@pasteur-kh.org

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

Cattle tick infestations pose a significant threat to livestock health and productivity worldwide. These parasitic arthropods, feed on blood and may cause various diseases in cattle, such as anaplasmosis, babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, and theileriosis. The objective of this study is to understand the seasonal dynamic and distribution patterns of tick infesting cattle in Cambodia. A longitudinal tick survey was conducted from January to December 2023 in two cattle farms in the Takeo and Kampong Speu provinces. Ticks were collected directly from the animal hosts with fine-tip forceps or specialized tools such as tick twisters, and from the vegetation using a combination of dragging and flagging method. A total of 13,678 ticks were collected from 240 inspected cattle and 11,384 ticks were found from vegetation around the two farms. The most prevalent species was *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex (60.6%), while *R. haemaphysaloides* was recorded in small numbers (0.4%). Unidentified species represented 39% of the collected ticks, consisting of immature *Rhipicephalus* spp. In addition, one adult *Rhipicephalus linnaei*, 245 immatures of *Hae-maphysalis* spp., and 11,138 larvae of *Rhipicephalus* spp. were collected using dragging and flagging methods. The results revealed significant seasonal differences in tick population dynamics across both provinces, with 60.24% in Kampong Speu and 57.09% in Takeo during the rainy season, compared to 39.76% and 42.91% during the dry season. Statistical analysis on questing activity showed no significant differences in tick density across different collection sites, times of the day and province. Our findings indicate a very high density of tick-borne pathogen vectors was observed on cattle in the two farms, which a poses potential risk to cattle productivity in Cambodia.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Yean S, Prasetyo DB, Ren T, Krib D, Sen S, Chea B, et al. (2025) Seasonal dynamic of ticks infesting cattle (*Bos indicus*) farms in two provinces in Cambodia. PLoS ONE 20(4): e0320879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879

**Editor:** Shawky M Aboelhadid, Beni Suef University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, EGYPT

**Received:** October 16, 2024

**Accepted:** February 25, 2025

**Published:** April 16, 2025

**Copyright:** © 2025 Yean et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data availability statement:** Data are all contained within the paper and supporting information files.

**Funding:** This study was supported by the French Embassy in Cambodia through its FSPI – The Solidarity Fund for Innovative Projects. The funders had no role in study design, data

## Introduction

Ticks are recognized as the second most significant vectors, after mosquitoes, for transmitting a variety of pathogens to humans and animals, including viruses, bacteria, and protozoa [1–3]. Tick infestations on cattle pose a substantial risk to the health and productivity of livestock,
collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

particularly in tropical and subtropical regions [4–7]. Tick-borne diseases result in weight loss, decreased milk production [8,9], and increased costs for managing and treating affected animals. These issues can also lead to restrictions on animal movement between countries [10]. Approximately 80% of the global cattle population is affected by tick infestations, causing substantial economic losses [3,11–13]. An estimated USD 13.9–18.7 billion has been spent annually worldwide on economic losses and management of cattle tick infestation associated tick-borne diseases [14].

Ticks are obligate hematophagous organisms and play a crucial role as vectors in trans-
mitting various pathogens that can affect livestock animals in Southeast Asia [15]. Common
pathogens, such as those from the genus *Anaplasma*, *Babesia*, *Theileria* [15], and *Ehrlichia*
[12,13,16,17] are frequently found in cattle in Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia
[3], Thailand [16,18], Malaysia [19], and Vietnam [20]. *Rhipicephalus microplus*, a tick species
from the Ixodidae family, is a major vector of tick-borne diseases affecting cattle. Originally
native to India, it has spread to other Southeast Asian regions through cattle trade [21],
becoming a significant threat to livestock due to its ability to transmit a variety of pathogens
[3,22]. This species is the most prevalent tick infesting cattle and has been reported as the
primary vector in Malaysia [8], Thailand [18,23], Indonesia [3], and Vietnam [24].

The prevalence of *Rhipicephalus microplus* highlights the importance of effective tick con-
trol strategies to mitigate its adverse effects on animal sustainability in the region. *Rhiphiceph-
alus microplus* has a single-host life cycle throughout its parasitic phase which lasts about
23 days in development from larvae to nymph and then to adult. Once feeding is complete,
engorged females detach from the host to lay eggs in the environment, marking the start of
the non-parasitic phase and hatching of eggs, as well as the questing behavior of larvae to find
a new host [25]. Understanding the ecology, behavior, and dynamics of ticks is crucial for
developing targeted interventions to manage this vector and reduce its impact on livestock
populations [26,27].

In Cambodia, *Bos indicus* cattle, commonly referred to as yellow cattle due to their distinc-
tive yellowish coat color, are the predominant breed reared in the country. This local breed is
crossed with Haryana and other breeds [28]. Due to limitations in studies and gaps in knowl-
edge, no ticks or associated tick-borne diseases have been reported in cattle in Cambodia [29].
This study aims to investigate tick infestations on cattle and surrounding vegetation in farm
settings in Cambodia, which is important for understanding tick biology and leading to a
more effective control strategy.

**Methods**

Ethic statement

The study was approved and supported by the General Directorate of Animal Health and Pro-
duction from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Cambodia, under permit
No. 2981, signed on 1st October 2021. The study sites are located on both privately owned and
government-owned land, but none are situated within protected areas. Ticks were collected
exclusively from farmed cattle; no other animal species were sampled. During each collection
effort, government veterinarians were present to oversee the cattle handling procedures. No
invasive procedures have been performed and ticks were collected with minimal disturbance
to the cattle.

Study sites

Two cattle farms located in Kampong Speu and Takeo provinces (Fig 1) were selected as study sites. These locations are about 76 km apart and have substantially different environmental
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig 1. Tick collection sites at the cattle farm in Kampong Speu and Takeo province, Cambodia.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879.g001

conditions. Ecological variations, such as differences in altitude between the two sites, may affect temperature and humidity levels, which could influence tick presence and activity patterns. Both farms are also located near the capital, Phnom Penh, which provides logistical advantages for researchers in terms of accessibility and collaboration. The farm in Takeo is surrounded by vast grasslands and consists of 120 cattle, while the farm in Kampong Speu is surrounded by agricultural areas and has a total of 50 cattle. Cattle were periodically released for grazing on both farms. Tick inspections were conducted monthly from January to December 2023.

## Tick collection and morphological identification

In each farm, ten cattle were randomly selected every month in Kampong Speu and Takeo province. Additionally, some individual cattle were sampled multiple times throughout the month for tick collection. We conduct monthly interviews with farm owners and record the tick control measures implemented on the farms. However, it was noted that ivermectin was occasionally used to inject cattle, depending on the individual animal and not on a regular basis. Ticks were collected using direct sampling from cattle hosts and through dragging- flagging to collect questing ticks from vegetation. A team visually inspected seven predilection sites (head, ear, neck, back, abdomen including udder and scrotum, tail, and legs) on each cattle for 30 minutes per animal. Infesting ticks were removed from the host using fine-tip forceps or specialized tools like tick twisters, ensuring minimal discomfort to the animals. The collected ticks were stored in 15 ml conical tubes containing 70% ethanol and labeled according to the host and predilection site.

Questing ticks were collected by dragging a 1 x 1m white cloth over vegetation in a designated area [30–32]. The dragging method involves moving the white cloth along a 50 m
transect at a slow and steady pace, with stops every 10 meters to check for ticks [33]. Tick flag-
ging was performed using a 40x60 cm white cloth attached to a 1.5 m pole, swiped over taller
vegetation-like bushes, with frequent checks for ticks to prevent them from dropping off. Both
dragging and flagging methods were employed by six collectors for up to 30 minutes, inter-
changeably depending on the landscape of the study sites. Collected ticks were removed from
the cloths using masking tape, stored in individual Ziplock bags, and labeled by date, location,
and time of collection. Dragging and flagging were conducted at three different times of the
day corresponding to morning (7-8 am), midday (11-12 pm), and early evening (5-6 pm) to
determine tick density per person-hour according to different times (Fig 2). Monthly rotations
of collection points minimized location effects. Collection of questing ticks was conducted in
grazing areas and around farms. However, in Kampong Speu, the collection was done only in
the areas surrounding farms due to logistical difficulties.

In the laboratory, ticks were sorted based on location, collection period, host, and predi-
lection sites. Species identification was performed under a stereomicroscope using species
descriptions and identification keys developed in-house by the Medical and Veterinary Ento-
mology Unit at Institut Pasteur du Cambodge [34–38].

**Statistical analysis**

Tick density was expressed as the mean number of ticks per cow and the mean number of
ticks per person-hour for questing tick collections, presented as mean ± SD. To observe
seasonality, tick density was analyzed according to four seasonal phases: (a) **early dry season**
(November – January), characterized by low precipitation (mean daily: 2 mm) and moderately
cool weather with a mean temperature of 26.6°C (min: 23.1°C, max: 31°C); (b) **late dry season**
(February – April), characterized by low precipitation (mean daily: 0.7 mm) and hot weather
with a mean temperature of 29.8°C (min: 25.4°C, max: 35°C); (c) **early rainy season** (May –
July), characterized by increasing precipitation (mean daily: 6.5 mm) and a mean temperature
of 29.2°C (min: 26.2°C, max: 34°C); (d) **late rainy season** (August - October), characterized
by relatively high precipitation (mean daily: 8.3 mm) and a mean temperature of 28.1°C (min:
25.2°C, max: 32°C).

The nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used to compare the average of tick infestation
between female and male cattle. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the average of
monthly collected ticks. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the impact

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Dragging-Flagging sites (coded as A, B, C) for questing ticks from vegetation around cattle farm in (a) farm area in Kampong Speu, (b) farm and (c) grazing area in Takeo province.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879.g002
of stage and predilection sites, including their interaction with time, for dragging and flagging data. Dunn's test was used for pairwise comparisons of tick density per season, tick stage, and tick attachment across different cattle body parts. All statistical analyses were conducted using R Studio version 4.2.2. [39]. The infestation rate was calculated using the formula: (number of infested animals/total number of animals) x 100 [40].

# Results

## Tick collection according to host sex

Among the 240 animal hosts sampled across Kampong Speu and Takeo provinces, 210 cattle (87.5%) were found to be infested with ticks. In Kampong Speu, 100 females and 20 males cattle were sampled (83.3% female; and 16.7% male), while in Takeo province, 99 females and 21 males cattle were sampled (82.5% female and 17.5% male). In Kampong Speu, 77 out of 100 females cattle were infested with ticks, resulting in a prevalence of 77%, while 15 out of 20 males cattle were infested, giving a prevalence of 75%. This indicates no difference in tick infestation rates between female and male cattle, suggesting that infestation rates are similar across sexes in this province. In Takeo, tick infestation rates are higher in overall, with 98 out of 99 females cattle infested (0.99) and 20 out of 21 male cattle infested (0.95) (Table 1). There is also no difference of the infestation rate between male and female cattle in Takeo. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in tick infestation rates between sexes in each province, with Wilcoxon tests showing p-values of 0.3 for Kampong Speu and p-values of 0.64 for Takeo.

## Tick collection on host

A total of 13,678 ticks were collected in Kampong Speu (n = 9,087) and Takeo (n = 4,591). The overall average density of ticks per cow across both provinces was 56.8 ticks (56.8 ± 69.9). In details, cattle in Kampong Speu had in average 75.7 ticks per cow (75.7 ± 90.8), while in Takeo cattle had 38.3 ticks per cow (38.3 ± 30.9). The maximum number of ticks observed on a single cow was 570 ticks in Kampong Speu, and 183 ticks in Takeo.

Two species of ticks were identified at both locations: the *R. microplus* complex and *R. haemaphysaloides* (Table 2), with the vast majority being *R. microplus* complex (>99%). In Kampong Speu, an assessment of tick infestations among 120 cattle showed significant findings across different species. A total of 5,489 *R. microplus* complex were collected from 89 cattle, yielding in a density per cow (45.7 ± 55.8) following by *Rhipicephalus* spp. accounted for 3,453 ticks on 80 cattle (29.5 ± 46.5). Furthermore, *R. haemaphysaloides* exhibited a notably lower presence, with only 55 ticks collected from 32 infested cattle, with a lowest density per cow (0.45 ± 0.95). In Takeo, similar observations were collected: a total of 2,797 *R. microplus* complex on 118 cattle with the highest density per cow (23.3 ± 19.4) followed by *Rhipicephalus* spp. 1,791 on 109 cattle (14.9 ± 15.2) and only three *R. haemaphysaloides* were collected from three cattle, showing a very low density per cow (0.02 ± 0.15) (Table 2).

<table><caption>Table 1. Prevalence of ticks according to sex of cattle.</caption><thead><tr><th>Province</th><th>Sex</th><th>No. of cattle surveyed</th><th>No. of cattle infested</th><th>Prevalence %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Kampong Speu</td><td>Female</td><td>100</td><td>77</td><td>77.0</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>75.0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Takeo</td><td>Female</td><td>99</td><td>98</td><td>99.0</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>21</td><td>20</td><td>95.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879.t001
<table><caption>Table 2. Prevalence of ticks on cattle from Kampong Speu and Takeo, Cambodia.</caption><thead><tr><th>Host (n total inspected)</th><th>Tick species</th><th>n cattle infested (%)</th><th>Total number of ticks</th><th>Density per cow (Mean ± SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Kampong Speu</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Bos indicus (n = 120)</td><td>Rhipicephalus microplus complex</td><td>89 (74.1)</td><td>5,489</td><td>45.7 ± 55.8</td></tr><tr><td>Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides</td><td>32 (26.6)</td><td>55</td><td>0.45 ± 0.95</td></tr><tr><td>Rhipicephalus spp.</td><td>80 (66.6)</td><td>3,543</td><td>29.5 ± 46.5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Takeo</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Bos indicus (n = 120)</td><td>Rhipicephalus microplus complex</td><td>118 (98.3)</td><td>2,797</td><td>23.3 ± 19.4</td></tr><tr><td>Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides</td><td>3 (2.5)</td><td>3</td><td>0.02 ± 0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Rhipicephalus spp.</td><td>109 (90.8)</td><td>1,791</td><td>14.9 ± 15.2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>210 (87.5)</td><td>13,678</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879.t002

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig 3. Temporal distribution of tick infestation on cattle over one year period by season.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879.g003

## Seasonality of *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex infestation on cattle

The results revealed a significant seasonal effect on tick density at both Kampong Speu and Takeo farms (Fig 3). The Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant seasonal variation in tick density in Kampong Speu ($\chi^2$ = 74.2, df = 3, p = 5.38e-16), and in Takeo ($\chi^2$ = 18.22, df = 3, p = 3.95e-4). In Kampong Speu, tick density began to increase in the early dry season, with 294 ticks collected (9.8 ± 15.8). This increase continued into the late dry season, with a sharp rise to 3,319 ticks (111.0 ± 57.3). The peak tick density occurred in the early rainy season, with 4,759 ticks collected (159.0 ± 112.0). Tick density then declined in the late rainy season, with 715 ticks collected (23.8 ± 44.7). Similarly, in Takeo, tick density also started to rise in the early dry season, with 633 ticks collected (21.1 ± 18.8). This trend persisted into the late dry season, where tick numbers increased to 1,337 (44.6 ± 27.8). The highest tick density in Takeo was observed in the early rainy season, with 1,411 ticks collected (47.0 ± 36.8). Tick density then decreased in the late rainy season, with 1,210 ticks collected (40.3 ± 31.9). These findings the seasonal fluctuations in tick density, with peaks during the early rainy season and notable decreases during the late rainy season.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 4.** Prevalence of tick infestation on cattle based on life stages in (a) Kampong Speu and (b) Takeo.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879.g004

### Rhipicephalus microplus complex infestation according to life stages

Tick infestation across life stages on cattle in Kampong Speu (Kruskal-Wallis test, $\chi^2 = 78.6$, df=2, p < 0.0001) and Takeo provinces exhibited significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis test, $\chi^2 = 209.52$, df=2, p < 0.0001) (Fig 4). In Kampong Speu, adult ticks were the most prevalent (46.2 ± 56.6), followed by nymphs (24.0 ± 39.2) and larvae (5.06 ± 13.0). Similarly, in Takeo, adult ticks were predominant (23.7 ± 19.7), followed by nymphs (13.8 ± 13.7) and larvae (0.75 ± 2.75). These results highlight significant differences in tick life stage distribution in cattle in the two provinces.

The analysis based on life stages revealed the seasonality of ticks, as indicated by a Kruskal-Wallis test. In Kampong Speu province, adult tick density increased from the early dry season, peaked in the early rainy season, and decreased in the late rainy season (S1 Fig). Similarly, in Takeo province, adult tick density increased from the early dry season to the late dry season, but with no significant differences observed in the subsequent seasons (S4 Fig). Nymph ticks in both Kampong Speu (S2 Fig) and Takeo (S4 Fig) exhibited a similar pattern, with density rising during the early dry season, peaking in the early rainy season, and showing no significant differences in the later seasons. Larvae ticks in Kampong Speu followed the same seasonal trend as adults, with density increasing during the early dry season, peaking in the early rainy season, and decreasing in the late rainy season (S3 Fig). In contrast, larvae tick density in Takeo showed no significant variation across seasons (S6 Fig).

### Rhipicephalus microplus complex infestation according to predilection sites

The pattern of tick distribution on various body parts showed significant differences in Kampong Speu (Kruskal-Wallis test: $p = 1.1e-09$) and Takeo provinces (Kruskal-Wallis test: $p = <2e-16$). In Kampong Speu, the ear was the most frequently infested body part across all tick stages on cattle, followed by the neck, legs, back, abdomen, tail, and lowest the head. Similarly, in Takeo, the ear was predominantly infested, followed by the legs, abdomen, neck, back, tail, and lowest on the head. These findings highlight the most common feeding sites for ticks were the ear and lowest on the head in both provinces (Table 3).

### Tick collected from dragging & flagging

A total of 11,384 ticks were collected from vegetation around the two farms. One *Rhipicephalus sanguineus* adult, five *Haemaphysalis* spp. nymph, 240 *Haemaphysalis* spp. larvae and
<table><caption>Table 3. Ticks abundance on cattle based on predilection sites.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Province</th><th rowspan="2">Predilection site</th><th colspan="2">Adult</th><th colspan="2">Nymph</th><th colspan="2">Larvae</th></tr><tr><th>Total</th><th>Mean ± SD</th><th>Total</th><th>Mean ± SD</th><th>Total</th><th>Mean ± SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Kampong Speu</td><td>Abdomen</td><td>860</td><td>7.16 ± 9.17<sup>a</sup></td><td>287</td><td>2.39 ± 4.33<sup>ab</sup></td><td>7</td><td>0.05 ± 0.32<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Back</td><td>733</td><td>6.10 ± 11.93<sup>a</sup></td><td>395</td><td>3.29 ± 6.04<sup>ab</sup></td><td>32</td><td>0.26 ± 1.65<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Ear</td><td>1,286</td><td>10.71 ± 23.38<sup>a</sup></td><td>926</td><td>7.71 ± 16.72<sup>a</sup></td><td>477</td><td>3.97 ± 11.94<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Head</td><td>144</td><td>1.2 ± 2.59<sup>b</sup></td><td>111</td><td>0.92 ± 2.18<sup>b</sup></td><td>10</td><td>0.08 ± 0.45<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Legs</td><td>952</td><td>7.93 ± 10.83<sup>a</sup></td><td>275</td><td>2.29 ± 4.44<sup>ab</sup></td><td>15</td><td>0.12 ± 0.94<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Neck</td><td>923</td><td>7.69 ± 10.28<sup>a</sup></td><td>569</td><td>4.74 ± 10.19<sup>a</sup></td><td>27</td><td>0.22 ± 1.12<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Takeo</td><td>Abdomen</td><td>792</td><td>6.6 ± 6.80<sup>a</sup></td><td>253</td><td>2.11 ± 2.81<sup>a</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Back</td><td>126</td><td>1.05 ± 3.4<sup>b</sup></td><td>53</td><td>0.44 ± 0.95<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Ear</td><td>635</td><td>5.29 ± 9.21<sup>c</sup></td><td>538</td><td>4.48 ± 7.27<sup>a</sup></td><td>75</td><td>0.62 ± 2.51<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Head</td><td>25</td><td>0.20 ± 0.74<sup>b</sup></td><td>12</td><td>0.10 ± 0.45<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Legs</td><td>789</td><td>6.57 ± 7.11<sup>a</sup></td><td>363</td><td>3.02 ± 4.18<sup>a</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Neck</td><td>419</td><td>3.49 ± 5.56<sup>c</sup></td><td>373</td><td>3.10 ± 5.28<sup>a</sup></td><td>15</td><td>0.12 ± 1.19<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Tail</td><td>56</td><td>0.46 ± 1.12<sup>b</sup></td><td>63</td><td>0.52 ± 1.27<sup>b</sup></td><td>1</td><td>0.00 ± 0.09<sup>b</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Dunn's test: a # b, a = ab, a # b # c.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320879.t003

11,138 *Rhipicephalus* spp. (*Boophilus*) larvae were collected by dragging and flagging. In Kampong Speu, a total of 7,941 ticks were collected, yielding an average density of 221.0 ± 749.0 ticks per times of the day. The peak tick density of 1,484 per person-hour was observed around midday in April (n = 4,453), and lower densities of 0.33 ticks per person-hour were recorded in January, May, and November, these differences were not statistically significant (ANOVA test: p = 0.5) (S1 Table).

Similarly, in Takeo province, a total of 3,443 ticks were collected, resulting in an average density of 47.8 ± 147.0 ticks per times of the day. Notable a higher in the evening in the density of 658.0 ticks per person-hour in May (n = 987), and only one tick per person-hour on morning in July, these differences were also not statistically significant (ANOVA test: p = 0.7) (S1 Table).

Overall findings showed no significant differences in questing tick density on vegetation across different collection times, sites, and province (ANOVA test: p = 0.16).

Discussion

According to a classification system used in Mexico [40] tick infestation level are categorized based on the number of ticks per animal: “low” for 1 to 30 ticks, “moderate” for 31 to 60 ticks, and “high” for more than 61 ticks. In this study, the overall average infestation level was considered as moderate with an average 57 tick per cow. In Kampong Speu, the level is high, with an average of 75 ticks per cow, while Takeo is moderate, with an average of 38 ticks per cow. This represents the highest tick density per host animal (*Bos indicus*) compared to Thailand, where the average is 2.22 ticks per cow [41]. Moreover, a single cow in Kampong Speu experienced a severe infestation, with the tick count reaching 570 ticks in June.

Our study shows only two tick species from a *Rhipicephalus* genus were found infesting cattle in the study area: *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex and *R. haemaphysaloides*. Up to 99% of the total ticks collected on-host were identified as *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex in both provinces. In contrast, a notably higher species richness has been recorded in neighboring countries; three species in Thailand [22] and Indonesia [3], four species in Vietnam [24], Laos [42], and nine species in Sri Lanka [43]. In addition to the *Rhipicephalus* ticks, ticks from
the genus *Haemaphysalis* and *Amblyomma* were recorded in Vietnam, Laos and Sri Lanka recorded. In our study, the collection is limited to only two cattle farms, therefore do not represent the diversity of ticks infesting cattle across different habitat types in the entire country. The finding of only two tick species could be attributed to several factors. The limited movement of cattle in the farm settings might restrict the introduction of ticks from other habitats, such as forests. Additionally, while the sampling effort was extensive, the study focused on only two cow farms in two locations with similar environmental conditions. This limited geographic scope could be a factor in the reduced diversity of tick species observed. Although additional species, such as *Rhipicephalus linnaei* "the tropical lineage of *R. sanguineus"* and *Haemaphysalis* spp., were collected from the vegetation surrounding the farm, their absence on cattle suggests that cattle are not their preferred hosts. *Rhipicephalus microplus* is known to be a predominant tick species on cattle in Thailand, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka [41,43–45], consistent with the findings in Cambodia. Furthermore, higher prevalence of *R. microplus* than any other species has been observed in India and Sri Lanka [43,46] with a reported prevalence of 63.33% in Pakistan [40,47], and 70.3% in Bhutan [48]. *Rhipicephalus microplus* is a complex species differentiated from the three tick species based on their morphological characteristics, consisting of *R. australis*, *R. annulatus*, and *R. microplus* (clades A, B, and C) [1]. The identification of this species complex presents challenges due to the similarity in morphology and discordance between morphology and molecular data, especially for *R. australis* and *R. microplus* [21,38]. Another species found infesting cattle in this study, *R. haemaphysaloides*, showed lower abundance and infestation rates compared to the *R. microplus* complex. It has a three-hosts life cycle, leading to lower host specificity [1], which may explain its lower abundance on cattle compared to *R. microplus* complex that almost exclusively infests Bovidae family. This species is known for its wider host preference, including domestic animals and wildlife, and also may serves as vector of pathogens [1,49]. This species has been found infesting pigs and rabbits in Sri Lanka [43] and is considered as a common tick species infesting companion animals in worldwide [27].

This study is the first in Cambodia to describe the seasonal variation of tick abundance on cattle. In Thailand, research indicates that tick numbers peak during summer followed by winter and lowest in rainy season [41]. Similarly, in Vietnam, ticks also reach their highest density in the summer [24]. In contrast, the number of ticks tends to peak during the rainy season in Pakistan [50]. This pattern is consistent with observations from Cameroon, where ticks are most abundant in rainy season and least abundant in dry season [51]. These variations highlight the impact of seasonal changes and geographic differences on local temperature and environmental conditions influence on tick prevalence [41]. Furthermore, In Brazil temperature is critical for tick activity and survival on cattle, with optimal conditions not more than 28°C. However, temperatures exceeding this can be detrimental to tick development. Conversely, when temperatures fall below 19 °C, ticks may enter diapause, effectively halting their development and activity [52]. In this study, the peak density of ticks observed during the early rainy season is a consequence of the substantial increase of population density during the preceding driest and hottest months. These meteorological conditions seem to favorize the multiplication of the ticks in Cambodia. Understanding these regional differences in tick seasonality can be crucial for farm owners. Raising awareness about periods of peak tick abundance can help farmers for implementing timely preventive measures to manage tick infestations more effectively.

Ticks collected from cattle in this study predominantly consisted of adult ticks, followed by nymphs and larvae. The finding was consistent with those reported in China [53]. Biologically, cattle ticks complete their life cycle on a single host. They can develop from larva to adult within 23 days, although this duration varies based on climatic conditions, species, and
geographical location [54]. Notably, male adult ticks can remain attached and feed for longer periods than females, typically lasting up to 70 days [55]. This extended feeding duration increases the likelihood of collecting adult ticks compared to immature stages. Moreover, adult ticks are larger and more visible compared to the immature stages, which are smaller and often harder to detect especially larvae due to their size and the limited time available during collection. This limitation in collecting immature stages may underestimate their actual prevalence and distribution on cattle. Therefore, studies focusing on tick populations should consider employing more refined methodologies that effectively capture and differentiate between all life stages to provide a comprehensive understanding of tick population structure on cattle.

Regarding tick predilection sites on cattle, the ear, legs, neck, abdomen, back, and tail have been identified as the favorable location for tick attachment. In both study sites, ear was found to have the highest tick abundance for all life stages, while the head had the lowest. Similar research in Nigeria also identified the ear, neck, legs, and head as favorable site for ticks, mainly to escape predators such as entomophagous birds [56]. However, the same study also revealed that age, sex, cattle breed, and color may influence the distribution of tick in the cattle body. Ticks often prefer the hidden, less-hairy, and well-vascularized areas to facilitate feeding and protection from predator [57–59], which explain the high number of ticks observed in areas such as the ear and under the tail. This finding enabled targeted interventions and monitoring strategies to reduce tick-borne diseases in cattle.

Immature ticks, such as larvae and nymphs, are typically more abundant in sampling by using flagging and dragging [31]. The questing behavior of immature stages makes them more accessible to these common sampling methods, which collect ticks from vegetation and the environment. The smaller size of immature ticks allows them to move through vegetation and other microhabitats more easily, further increasing their chances of being sampled [60]. In contrast, adult ticks, which spend much of their life cycle attached to hosts, are less likely to be collected through these methods. This is particularly true for ticks like *Rhipicephalus microplus*, which follows a one-host life cycle on bovine cattle, reducing the likelihood of adult ticks being captured from vegetation during methods such as flagging and dragging, which primarily target ticks in the environment. Notably, we collected adult *Rhipicephalus linnaei* (the tropical lineage of *R. sanguineus*) and immature *Haemaphysalis* spp. from vegetation but did not find these ticks on cattle hosts. This discrepancy could be due to the host preferences of these tick species. For instance, *R. linnaei* is more commonly associated with dogs rather than cattle, which may explain why we did not find it on the cattle hosts during our sampling [61,62]. Moreover, *Haemaphysalis* species, which were found in the immature stages on vegetation, may not be able to be collected from cattle hosts in their immature form, as they typically require specific host or different habitats for development before attaching to hosts. Interestingly, our tick sampling over vegetation revealed no significant effect of season and times of the day on the number of questing ticks in both Kampong Speu and Takeo province. There were no seasonal fluctuations in the density of ticks collected from vegetation around the farm. This suggests that cattle on the farm face a consistent risk of tick infestation from the environment throughout the year. The steady availability of hosts, like cattle, provides a stable environment for ticks, supporting the idea that tick populations in the pasture remain constant over time. While temperature is a key factor influencing tick activity, with higher temperatures facilitating feeding and growth, extreme heat (>40°C) can lead to dehydration and increased mortality rates for ticks [63]. In regions with more distinct seasonal fluctuations, such as Europe, environmental factors like temperature and humidity play a significant role in influencing tick questing behavior [64,65]. During the hottest parts of the day, tick larvae may retreat into the soil during the
hotter parts of the day and emerge in the cooler morning or evening hours to search for hosts [66]. Local microclimate conditions and farming practices are more likely have significant effect to the activity of questing ticks. For example, the presence of agricultural area likely provides shade and maintaining a more favorable conditions for tick activity, regardless of the season. Farming practice, such as spraying insecticide or as simple as grass cutting may also affect the spatial distribution of the questing ticks on the vegetation [67,68]. These environmental factors play a crucial role in shaping tick activity patterns, emphasizing the importance of considering microclimate variations when implementing tick control measures and monitoring strategies in different regions [66]. Consequently, the dynamic of tick density in both the animals and the pasture appears to be balanced, with environmental factors such as host availability and habitat conditions playing crucial roles in tick distribution. Although limited to only two cattle farms, this study provides initial insight into basic knowledge on tick biology in the farm setting in Cambodia. A longer observation period is necessary to address the full dynamics of tick infestation on cattle such as variability over times of the day, seasonal patterns, and factors influencing tick density. Expanding the study to include more cattle farms across various geographical areas and ecological settings, combined with pathogen screening, would allow for a broader assessment of tick diversity and tick-borne disease threats in Cambodia.

## Conclusions

The *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex shows the highest density complex among tick species infesting cattle in Cambodia, posing a significant threat to livestock due to high infestation rate. Effective vector control measures are essential to mitigate this risk. To optimize cattle health and productivity, preventive tick management should be prioritized at the onset of the dry season, before infestation peaks.

## Supporting information

S1 Table. Density of *Rhipicephalus* spp. larvae collected from vegetation around cattle farm in both province.
(TIF)

S1 Fig. Seasonal fluctuations in the density of adult tick of *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex in Kampong Speu.
(TIF)

S2 Fig. Seasonal fluctuations in the density of nymph tick of *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex in Kampong Speu.
(TIF)

S3 Fig. Seasonal fluctuations in the density of larva tick of *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex in Kampong Speu.
(TIF)

S4 Fig. Seasonal fluctuations in the density of adult tick of *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex in Takeo.
(TIF)

S5 Fig. Seasonal fluctuations in the density of nymph tick of *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex in Takeo.
(TIF)
S6 Fig. Seasonal fluctuations in the density of larva tick of *Rhipicephalus microplus* complex in Takeo.

(TIF)

S1 Dataset. Dataset Longitudinal.

(XLSX)

**Acknowledgments**

The author extends gratitude to the medical and veterinary entomology team for their assistance in tick collection and morphological identification. Special thanks to the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Royal University of Agriculture, for their support in facilitating tick collection activities. The author is also thankful to the National Animal Health and Production Research Institute, General Directorate of Animal Health and Production, for their excellent coordination. Lastly, appreciation is due to the veterinary departments of both provinces for granting authorization to collect ticks from cattle farms.

**Author contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Sebastien Boyer.

**Data curation:** Sony Yean, Didot Budi Prasetyo.

**Formal analysis:** Sony Yean.

**Funding acquisition:** Sebastien Boyer.

**Investigation:** Sony Yean, Didot Budi Prasetyo, Theary Ren, Davy Krib, Saoya Sen, Bunthon Chea, Sothyra Tum, Samuth Sum.

**Methodology:** Sony Yean, Didot Budi Prasetyo.

**Project administration:** Didot Budi Prasetyo, Sebastien Boyer.

**Supervision:** Sothyra Tum, San Sorn, Sebastien Boyer.

**Validation:** Sebastien Boyer.

**Writing – original draft:** Sony Yean.

**Writing – review & editing:** Sony Yean, Didot Budi Prasetyo, Sebastien Boyer.

**References**

1. Tan LP, Hamdan RH, Hassan BNH, Reduan MFH, Okene IA-A, Loong SK, et al. Rhipicephalus Tick: A Contextual Review for Southeast Asia. Pathogens. 2021;10(7):821. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10070821 PMID: 34208961

2. Fontenille D, Cruaud A, Vial L, Garros C. Understanding the role of arthropod vectors in the emergence and spread of plant, animal and human diseases. A chronicle of epidemics foretold in South of France. C R Biol. 2021;343(3):311–44. https://doi.org/10.5802/crbiol.34 PMID: 33621458

3. Sahara A, Nugraheni YR, Patra G, Prastowo J, Priyowidodo D. Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) infestation on cattle in various regions in Indonesia. Vet World. 2019;12(11):1755–9. https://doi.org/10.14202/vet-world.2019.1755-1759 PMID: 32009753

4. Roy BC, Estrada-Peña A, Krücken J, Rehman A, Nijhof AM. Morphological and phylogenetic analyses of Rhipicephalus microplus ticks from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018;9(5):1069–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.03.035 PMID: 29661691

5. Burger TD, Shao R, Barker SC. Phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial genome sequences indicates that the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, contains a cryptic species. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2014;76:241–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2014.03.017 PMID: 24685498

6. Kaewmongkol S, Kaewmongkol G, Inthong N, Lakkitjaroen N, Sirinarumitr T, Berry CM, et al. Variation among Bm86 sequences in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus ticks collected from cattle across
Thailand. Exp Appl Acarol. 2015;66(2):247–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-015-9897-0 PMID: 25777941

7. Pereira DFS, Ribeiro HS, Gonçalves AAM, da Silva AV, Lair DF, de Oliveira DS, et al. Rhipicephalus microplus: An overview of vaccine antigens against the cattle tick. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2022;13(1):101828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101828 PMID: 34628330

8. Idris NH, Khalex AMH, Mohammed MA. Identification and analysis of ticks on Brahman and Friesian-Sahiwal cattle in an institutional teaching farm in Bintulu, Sarawak, Malaysia. 2023. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/22396/1/serangga%2028_2.pdf

9. Grisi L, Leite RC, Martins JR de S, Barros ATM de, Andreotti R, Cançado PHD, et al. Reassessment of the potential economic impact of cattle parasites in Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2014;23(2):150–6. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-29612014042 PMID: 25054492

10. Abubakar M, Perera PK. Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens. BoD – Books on Demand. 2019.

11. Monakale KS, Ledwaba MB, Smith RM, Gaorekwe RM, Malatji DP. A systematic review of ticks and tick-borne pathogens of cattle reared by smallholder farmers in South Africa. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis. 2024;6:100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpvbd.2024.100205 PMID: 39258000

12. Tay ST, Koh FX, Kho KL, Ong BL. Molecular survey and sequence analysis of Anaplasma spp. in cattle and ticks in a Malaysian farm. Trop Biomed. 2014;31(4):769–76. PMID: 25776603

13. Ybañez AP, Sivakumar T, Ybañez RHD, Ratilla JC, Perez ZO, Gabotero SR, et al. First molecular characterization of Anaplasma marginale in cattle and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus ticks in Cebu, Philippines. J Vet Med Sci. 2013;75(1):27–36. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.12-0268 PMID: 22878542

14. Hurtado O. JB, Giraldo-Ríos C. Economic and health impact of the ticks in production animals. Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens. 2019;14.

15. Altay K, Aydin MF, Dumanli N, Aktas M. Molecular detection of Theileria and Babesia infections in cattle. Vet Parasitol. 2008;158(4):295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.09.025 PMID: 19008048

16. Thinnabut K, Rodpai R, Sanpool O, Maleewong W, Tangkawanit U. Genetic diversity of tick (Acari: Ixodidae) populations and molecular detection of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia infesting beef cattle from upper-northeastern Thailand. Infect Genet Evol. 2023;107:105394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee-gid.2022.105394 PMID: 36502740

17. Wattanamethanont J, Kaewthamasorn M, Tiawsirisup S. Natural infection of questing ixodid ticks with protozoa and bacteria in Chonburi Province, Thailand. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018;9(3):749–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.02.020 PMID: 29519772

18. Poolkhetkit S, Chowattanapon W, Sungpradit S. Molecular detection of blood protozoa in ticks collected from cattle in the buffer zone of Sai Yok National Park, Thailand. Wetchasan Sattawaphaet. 2015.;45:619–25.

19. Ola-Fadunsin SD, Gimba FI, Abdullah DA, Sharma RSK, Abdullah FJF, Sani RA. Epidemiology and risk factors associated with Anaplasma marginale infection of cattle in Peninsular Malaysia. Parasitol Int. 2018;67(6):659–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2018.06.013 PMID: 29960083

20. Huynh LN, Diarra AZ, Pham QL, Le-Viet N, Berenger J-M, Ho VH, et al. Morphological, molecular and MALDI-TOF MS identification of ticks and tick-associated pathogens in Vietnam. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(9):e0009813. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009813 PMID: 34582467

21. Sankar M, Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Parthasarathi BC, Nandi A, Neethu CKS, et al. Genetic Diversity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus for a Global Scenario: A Comprehensive Review. Pathogens. 2024;13(6):516. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13060516 PMID: 38921813

22. Tanrawatpan C, Vaisusuk K, Chatan W, Pilap W, Suksavate W, Andrews RH, et al. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic analyses of ixodid ticks infesting cattle in northeast Thailand: the discovery of Rhipicephalus microplus clade C and the rarely detected R. haemaphysaloides. Exp Appl Acarol. 2022;86(4):535–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-022-00704-z PMID: 35230584

23. Eamudomkarn C, Mai C. Tick-borne pathogens and their zoonotic potential for human infection in Thailand. Veterinary Journal. 2017;15(1):127–36.

24. Hornok S, Farkas R, Duong N, et al. A morpho-phylogenetic update on ixodid ticks infesting cattle and buffalos in Vietnam, with three new species to the fauna and a checklist of all species indigenous to the country. Parasites & Vectors. 2024;17:319.

25. Nava S, Gamietea IJ, Morel N, Guglielmone AA, Estrada-Peña A. Assessment of habitat suitability for the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus in temperate areas. Res Vet Sci. 2022;150:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2022.04.020 PMID: 35803002
26. Marques R, Krüger RF, Peterson AT, de Melo LF, Vicenzi N, Jiménez-García D. Climate change implications for the distribution of the babesiosis and anaplasmosis tick vector, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Vet Res. 2020;51(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-020-00802-z PMID: 32546223

27. Ali A, Khan MA, Zahid H, Yaseen PM, Qayash Khan M, Nawab J, et al. Seasonal Dynamics, Record of Ticks Infesting Humans, Wild and Domestic Animals and Molecular Phylogeny of Rhipicephalus microplus in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Front Physiol. 2019;10:793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00793 PMID: 31379587

28. Young JR, O'Reilly RA, Ashley K, Suon S, Leoung IV, Windsor PA, et al. Impacts on rural livelihoods in Cambodia following adoption of best practice health and husbandry interventions by smallholder cattle farmers. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2014;61 Suppl 1:11-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12193 PMID: 24393407

29. Galon EM, Zafar I, Ji S, Li H, Ma Z, Xuan X. Molecular Reports of Ruminant Babesia in Southeast Asia. Pathogens. 2022;11(8):915. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080915 PMID: 36015035

30. Dantas-Torres F, Lia R, Capelli G. Efficiency of flagging and dragging for tick collection. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2013;61(1):119-27.

31. Espada C, Cummins H, Gonzales JA, Notto L, Gaff HD. A Comparison of Tick Collection Materials and Methods in Southeastern Virginia. J Med Entomol. 2021;58(2):692-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaa207 PMID: 33017464

32. Newman BC, Sutton WB, Wang Y, Schweitzer CJ, Moncayo AC, Miller BT. A standardized method for the construction of a tick drag/flag sampling approach and evaluation of sampling efficacy. Exp Appl Acarol. 2019;79(3-4):433-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-019-00429-6 PMID: 31677026

33. Salomon J, Hamer SA, Swei A. A Beginner's Guide to Collecting Questing Hard Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae): A Standardized Tick Dragging Protocol. J Insect Sci. 2020;20(6):11. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieaa073 PMID: 33135760

34. Cooley RA. The genera Boophilus, Rhipicephalus, and Haemaphysalis (Ixodiidae) of the New World. 1946.

35. Berry CM. Resolution of the taxonomic status of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. 2024.

36. Estrada-Peña A, Venzal JM, Nava S, Mangold A, Guglielmone AA, Labruna MB, et al. Reinstatement of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) australis (Acari: Ixodidae) with redescription of the adult and larval stages. J Med Entomol. 2012;49(4):794-802. https://doi.org/10.1603/me11223 PMID: 22897039

37. Walker J, Keirans J, Horak I. The genus Rhipicephalus (Acari, Ixodidae): A guide to the brown ticks of the world. 2000.

38. Kazim AR, Low VL, Tappe D, Houssaini J, Heo CC. Rhipicephalus annulatus, R. australis or R. microplus? Discordance between morphological and genetic data among three cattle tick species. Exp Appl Acarol. 2022;87(1):119-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-022-00726-7 PMID: 35810417

39. Bedouhene A, Kelanemer R, Medrouh B, et al. Seasonal dynamics and predilection sites of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) feeding on cows in the western parts of the Djurdjura, Algeria. Frontiers in Tropical Diseases. 2022;3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fitd.2022.856179

40. Ramzan M, Naeem-Ullah U, Saba S, Iqbal N, Saeed S. Prevalence and identification of tick species (Ixodidae) on domestic animals in district Multan, Punjab Pakistan. International Journal of Acarology. 2020;46(2):83-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2020.1711803

41. Nithikathkul C, Polseela P, Changsap B, Leemingsawat S. Ixodid ticks on domestic animals in Samut Prakan Province, Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2002;33 Suppl 3:41-4. PMID: 12971472

42. Vongphayloth K, Brey P, Robbins R, et al. First survey of the hard tick (Acari: Ixodidae) fauna of Nakai District, Khammouane Province, Laos, and an updated checklist of the ticks of Laos. Systematic and Applied Acarology. 2016;21:166.

43. Liyanaarachchi D, Jinadasa H, Dilrukshi P, et al. Epidemiological study on ticks in farm animals in selected areas of Sri Lanka. Tropical Agricultural Research. 2015;24:336-46.

44. Yean S, Prasetyo D, Marcombe S, et al. Challenges for ticks and tick-borne diseases research in Southeast Asia: Insight from the first international symposium in Cambodia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024;18:e0012269.

45. Islam MK, Alim MA, Tsuji N, Mondal MMH. An investigation into the distribution, host-preference and population density of ixodid ticks affecting domestic animals in Bangladesh. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2006;38(6):485-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-006-4381-9 PMID: 17243476

46. Katuri RN, Das G, Chalhotra SK. Analysis of site of predilection for the ticks of family ixodidae. Int J. 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giridhari-Das/
publication/343889486engeratorics/analysisOFsitoFprediCTIONFOrthe tickSOFFam- ilyIXODIDAE/links/5f46837592851c6cfddd0952/analysisOFsiteOFprediCTIONFOr- theTICKS-OF-FAMILY-IXODIDAE.pdf

47. Hussain N, Shabbir RMK, Ahmed H, Afzal MS, Ullah S, Ali A, et al. Prevalence of different tick species on livestock and associated equines and canine from different agro-ecological zones of Pakistan. Front Vet Sci. 2023;9:1089999. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1089999 PMID: 36686198

48. Namgyal J, Lysyk TJ, Couloigner I, Checkley S, Gurung RB, Tenzin T, et al. Identification, Distribution, and Habitat Suitability Models of Ixodid Tick Species in Cattle in Eastern Bhutan. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2021;6(1):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed6010027 PMID: 33669524

49. Chao L-L, Erazo E, Robinson M, Liang Y-F, Shih C-M. First detection and molecular identification of a pathogenic spotted fever group Rickettsia, R. massiliae, from Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides ticks infesting dogs in southern Taiwan. Acta Trop. 2022;236:106666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2022.106666 PMID: 36030046

50. Atif FA. Prevalence of cattle tick infestation in three districts of the Punjab, Pakistan. PJS; 64. Epub ahead of print 2012. https://doi.org/10.57041/pjs.v64i1.463

51. Sado Yousseu F, Simo Tchetgna H, Kamgang B, Djonabaye D, McCall PJ, Ndip RN, et al. Infestation rates, seasonal distribution, and genetic diversity of ixodid ticks from livestock of various origins in two markets of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Med Vet Entomol. 2022;36(3):283-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12589 PMID: 35656818

52. Ferraz da Costa M do S, Guimarães MP, Lima WDS, Ferraz da Costa AJ, Facury Filho EJ, Araujo RN. Seasonal Variation and Frequency Distribution of Ectoparasites in Crossbreed Cattle in Southeastern Brazil. J Vet Med. 2014;2014:759854. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/759854 PMID: 26464941

53. Xu J, Gu X-L, Jiang Z-Z, Cao X-Q, Wang R, Peng Q-M, et al. Pathogenic Rickettsia, Anaplasma, and Ehrlichia in Rhipicephalus microplus ticks collected from cattle and laboratory hatched tick larvae. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(8):e0011546. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011546 PMID: 37647577

54. Bautista-Garfias C, Martínez-Ibañez F, García-Ortíz M, Salinas-estrella E. A laboratory manual on Rhipicephalus microplus. 2023.;13.

55. Hitchcock L. Studies on the parasitic stages of the cattle tick. Boophilus Microplus (Canestrini) (Acariina: Ixodidae). Aust J Zool. 1955;3:145.

56. Okwuonu E, Andong F, Ugwuanyi I. Association of ticks with seasons, age, and cattle color of North-Western region of Nigeria. Scientific African. 2021;12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00832

57. Katiyatiya CLF, Muchenje V, Mushunje A. Farmers' perceptions and knowledge of cattle adaptation to heat stress and tick resistance in the eastern cape, South Africa. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2014;27(11):1663-70. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2014.14174 PMID: 25358328

58. Adejoh V, Pam V, Uzoigwe N. Prevalence of hard ticks infesting cattle in Lafia, Nasarawa State, North Central Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Research and Natural Resources. 2019;3(1):1-19.

59. Opara M, Abdu Y, Okoli I. Survey of ticks of veterinary importance and tick-borne protozoa of cattle grazed in very hot months in Sokoto Municipality, Nigeria. Int J Agric Rural Dev. 2006;6(1). Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijard.v6i1.2604

60. Leal B, Zamora E, Fuentes A, Thomas DB, Dearth RK. Questing by Tick Larvae (Acari: Ixodidae): A Review of the Influences That Affect Off-Host Survival. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2020;113(6):425-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saaa013 PMID: 33244354

61. Galay RL, Manalo AAL, Dolores SLD, Aguilar IPM, Sandalo KAC, Cruz KB, et al. Molecular detection of tick-borne pathogens in canine population and Rhipicephalus sanguineus (sensu lato) ticks from southern Metro Manila and Laguna, Philippines. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11(1):643. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3192-y PMID: 30558678

62. Low VL, Prakash BK. First genetic characterization of the brown dog tick Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato in Peninsular Malaysia. Exp Appl Acarol. 2018;75(3):299-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-018-0279-2 PMID: 30066112

63. Eisen RJ, Eisen L, Ogden NH, Beard CB. Linkages of Weather and Climate With Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae), Enzootic Transmission of Borrelia burgdorferi, and Lyme Disease in North America. J Med Entomol. 2016;53(2):250-61. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjv199 PMID: 26681789

64. Knap N, Durmisi E, Saksida A, Korva M, Petrovec M, Avsic-Zupanc T. Influence of climatic factors on dynamics of questing Ixodes ricinus ticks in Slovenia. Vet Parasitol. 2009;164(2-4):275-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.06.001 PMID: 19560275
65. Tomkins JL, Aungier J, Hazel W, Gilbert L. Towards an evolutionary understanding of questing behaviour in the tick Ixodes ricinus. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110028 PMID: 25333919

66. Leal B, Thomas DB, Dearth RK. Population Dynamics of Off-Host Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) Larvae in Response to Habitat and Seasonality in South Texas. Vet Sci. 2018;5(2):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5020033 PMID: 29570655

67. Del Fabbro S. Fencing and mowing as effective methods for reducing tick abundance on very small, infested plots. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6(2):167-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.11.009 PMID: 25499616

68. Stafford KC III, Williams SC, Molaei G. Integrated Pest Management in Controlling Ticks and Tick-Associated Diseases. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. 2017;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmx018