Next Article in Journal
Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Biological Traits and Feeding of the Aphidophagous Predator Harmonia axyridis
Next Article in Special Issue
Deterrent Effects of Essential Oils on Spotted-Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii): Implications for Organic Management in Berry Crops
Previous Article in Journal
DNA Barcoding: A Reliable Method for the Identification of Thrips Species (Thysanoptera, Thripidae) Collected on Sticky Traps in Onion Fields
Previous Article in Special Issue
Floral Resources for Trissolcus japonicus, a Parasitoid of Halyomorpha halys
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/insects11080490
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Plant-Derived Natural Compounds for Tick Pest Control in Livestock and Wildlife: Pragmatism or Utopia?

by
Danilo G. Quadros
1,
Tammi L. Johnson
2,
Travis R. Whitney
1,
Jonathan D. Oliver
3 and
Adela S. Oliva Chávez
4,*
1
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, San Angelo, TX 76901, USA
2
Department of Rangelands, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University, Uvalde, TX 78801, USA
3
Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
4
Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2020, 11(8), 490; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11080490
Submission received: 24 June 2020 / Revised: 22 July 2020 / Accepted: 29 July 2020 / Published: 1 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organic Pest Management of Invertebrate Pests: A Frontier Borne of Constraints?)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ticks and tick-borne diseases are a significant economic hindrance for livestock production and a menace to public health. The expansion of tick populations into new areas, the occurrence of acaricide resistance to synthetic chemical treatments, the potentially toxic contamination of food supplies, and the difficulty of applying chemical control in wild-animal populations have created greater interest in developing new tick control alternatives. Plant compounds represent a promising avenue for the discovery of such alternatives. Several plant extracts and secondary metabolites have repellent and acaricidal effects. However, very little is known about their mode of action, and their commercialization is faced with multiple hurdles, from the determination of an adequate formulation to field validation and public availability. Further, the applicability of these compounds to control ticks in wild-animal populations is restrained by inadequate delivery systems that cannot guarantee accurate dosage delivery at the right time to the target animal populations. More work, financial support, and collaboration with regulatory authorities, research groups, and private companies are needed to overcome these obstacles. Here, we review the advancements on known plant-derived natural compounds with acaricidal potential and discuss the road ahead toward the implementation of organic control in managing ticks and tick-borne diseases.

1. Introduction

Ticks are the most important vectors of vector-borne diseases in the United States and one of the main arthropod vectors of human and animal pathogens worldwide, representing a substantial economic burden. The impact of Lyme disease alone has been calculated at approximately US$1.3 billion per year [1]. Furthermore, climate change may be affecting the distribution of tick species of human and animal health importance and is likely to extend the transmission cycle of many tick-borne pathogens in the US [2,3]. Similar predictions have been made in Europe concerning the distribution and extended questing activities of Ixodes spp. ticks [4,5]. Thus, additional options to control the spread of tick-borne diseases are warranted.
Due to the magnitude of economic losses related to ticks and tick-borne diseases for animals and humans, as well as tick-acquired acaricide resistance, negative environmental impacts, and potential chemical acaricides residues in food, novel methods of tick pest control and prevention based on natural organic molecules have been pursued. The objective of this paper is to highlight the most prominent plant extracts and secondary metabolites for tick control and prevention and challenges to scale up the acceptance and use of these products on a commercial scale. Final remarks will be directed towards the efficacy of natural organic compounds for tick pest control and answer whether their use in livestock production systems and wildlife is pragmatic or utopian. This review focuses only on plant-derived natural compounds and does not evaluate other biological control alternatives such as entomopathogenic fungi or nematodes [6,7]. Reviews related to alternatives for the control of ticks are available [8,9,10,11].

2. Ecology and Economic Importance of Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases of Livestock (Veterinary) and Public Health Concern

Ticks are obligate hematophagous arthropod ectoparasites that entirely depend on one or more hosts (e.g., mammals, birds, or reptiles) to complete their life cycle. More than 900 species of ticks exist globally. They are found in subarctic to Antarctic regions and in habitats that range from rainforest to deserts [12]. Hard ticks (Ixodidae) can be classified in one-, two-, or three-host ticks based on the number of hosts they utilize throughout their lifespan. One-host ticks seek out a host at the larval life stage and remain on the same host for the subsequent life stages until they drop off to lay eggs. As the name suggests, two- and three-host ticks obtain blood meals from two or three different individual hosts, respectively. Two-host ticks acquire blood meals as larvae and nymphs from a single host before dropping off the host to molt to the adult stage and then seeking out a second host. Three-host ticks drop into the environment and molt to the next stage after each blood meal. They must relocate to another host to obtain a subsequent blood meal. Thus, three-host ticks are often less host specific and frequently feed on small mammals, including birds and rodents, as immature stages and larger animals as adults. Three-host ticks normally have a lifespan of two to three years.
Several prominent tick-borne diseases of veterinary and public health importance are transmitted by ticks that can utilize both domestic and wild animals as hosts (Table 1).
As nearly 100% of the tick-borne pathogens present in the United States have a potential wildlife host component, a need remains to provide new economically feasible tools to reduce contact at the livestock–wildlife interface [33]. The development of strategies that decrease pathogen transmission between wildlife, livestock, companion animals, and human beings is required [33,34,35]. Therefore, the research and implementation of integrated control and prevention methods for ticks and tick-borne diseases are necessary to reduce ecological and economic impacts. Representative tick-borne diseases of veterinary importance and public health importance, associated vectors, and causative agents are described in Table 1.
The direct and indirect economic impacts related to ticks and tick-borne diseases are significant. Roughly 80% of the world’s cattle population is at risk of tick infestation and tick-borne diseases, which account for economic losses estimated up to US$30 billion yearly [36]. In addition to pathogen transmission, the infestation of animals with ticks causes other problems. When ticks bite their hosts, skin tissue injury occurs, which includes irritation, inflammation, or hypersensitivity [37]. The lesions also predispose the animal host to dermatitis, secondary bacterial infections, or myiasis [38]. In consequence, the animal becomes stressed, which affects behavior, production, and welfare [39]. Tick bites directly depreciate the quality of hides and skins and, consequently, the value of leather because they can become hard, opaque, perforated, and rough [40,41].
As hematophagous arthropods, ticks rely on blood as their only source of nutrients and can consume several hundred times their unfed body weight in blood [42,43]. In this way, ticks can cause anemia; immunosuppression; decreased feed intake, digestion, and metabolism; reduced milk production and quality; reduced weight gain and body condition; and reduced reproduction (e.g., increasing abortion rates and lowering pregnancy rates). Infection can become significant enough to cause death in some animals [44,45,46,47].
Tick-borne pathogens are transmitted through tick saliva, a phenomenon called saliva-assisted transmission [48]. Tick saliva can also contain a neurotoxin that causes host paralysis [49,50,51]. Thus, ticks and tick-borne diseases affect animal and human health worldwide.

3. Chemical Control Failure and the Hope of Natural Organic Products on Tick Pest Management

The integration of multiple strategies or integrated pest management (IPM) for tick control is considered the ideal approach. These strategies may include, but are not limited to: development of host resistance, pasture management, IPM based on tick abundance, biological control (e.g., ants, predatory mites, chickens, and others), the use of vaccines against ticks or tick-borne diseases (when available), acaricide resistance management, and cost/benefit analyses of acaricidal application [36,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61].
The use of synthetic acaricides is the most widely implemented method that producers use to control ticks [62,63,64,65]. In 2019, the estimated worldwide market value of acaricides was US$275.1 million. The animal husbandry industry alone accounts for roughly one-quarter of this market, while the remainder is represented by crop defense, home applications, and other uses [66]. The overuse and misuse of acaricides has led to acaricide resistance in some tick populations [39,62,64,67,68,69]. The number of reports of tick resistance to synthetic acaricides around the world is alarming (Table 2). The development of resistance to a new acaricide can now be expected within five to 10 years of its introduction unless practices are changed and resistance management is implemented [64]. When trying to overcome the problem of resistance, livestock managers often increase the frequency of application and recommended dose, mix products, and use “off-label” products, which contribute to the surge of tick populations with multiple resistance traits [64,65,70]. Further, in some cases acaricide resistant tick populations have been detected in wildlife populations. In Texas, permethrin resistant ticks with two mutations to the voltage-sensitive sodium channel (Vssc) gene have been collected from white-tailed deer and nilgai [71].
Beyond the resistance dilemma, the use of acaricides can have harmful effects on animals, humans, and the environment. A recent study detected residues of several pesticides in 26% to 60% of the milk samples collected from conventional dairy farms, but no residues were observed in organic milk samples [106]. In developing countries, acute pesticide poisoning due to lack of safety precautions has become a problem in terms of public, occupational, and environmental health [107,108]. From an environmental perspective, acaricides can have multiple, wide-ranging effects: organochlorines can persist in soil and are highly toxic to many arthropods; organophosphates are less persistent than the organochlorines in the land, but generally have much higher toxicity to birds and other wildlife; pyrethroids are toxic to fish and aquatic organisms as well as non-target and beneficial arthropod species; and carbamates tend to be more persistent in soil and vary significantly in mammalian toxicity [109].
A shift from conventional synthetically derived acaricides to more sustainable and naturally based organic control options is needed [84,110]. Novel tick control options can be incorporated into an IPM plan to decrease the risk of acaricides on public health and the environment [46,60,84,107,110]. Knowledge about local and regional plants with acaricidal properties is now necessary for developing safe, efficient, affordable, accessible, environmentally friendly, and community-driven successful strategic interventions for tick control and management programs [110].
The use of organic compounds for safe and efficient tick control may be suitable for organic and conventional livestock production systems. Both systems will strongly benefit from the development of commercial products based on natural compounds. Organic livestock production is experiencing rapid expansion. Nevertheless, organic farmers have a very limited number of options for tick control. Global organic production has increased over recent years as a result of growing consumer demand and public concern for sustainability [111,112]. In the US, “organics” are the fastest-growing segment of national agriculture. Dairy products represent a substantial portion of the market (15%), while meat/fish/poultry accounts for just 3% [113]. In the European Union, the portion of organic livestock remains small, despite the substantial increase in organic meat consumption in the last decade. Organic livestock systems represent only 0.7% and 3.3% of swine and poultry production, respectively, whereas sheep and bovines represent just 5.0% and 5.2% of the organic livestock production, respectively [111].
The current state of natural plant-based acaricides and tick repellents already available in the market is unknown, but this area has seen a sharp increase in interest from researchers, government, industry, and the public. Plants with insecticidal effects can be a promising alternative, with reduced toxicity to mammals, biodegradable characteristics, and less chance of development of resistance. Therefore, research focusing on acaricidal substances or repellents of plant origin should be further encouraged [114,115].

4. Plant-Derived Compounds with Potential Use for Tick Pest Control

Globally, more than 200 plant species with tick-repellent or acaricidal properties are known [116]. Essential oils, extracts, or pure allelochemicals are the primary forms of plant-based products with biocidal features in tick assays. Methods including steam distillation [117], hydrodistillation [118], ethanolic and aqueous extraction [119], methanolic extraction and spilanthol [120], and hexane, ethyl, and acetate extractions [120,121] have been used to obtain these substances.
Plant essential oils, which are the most studied plant-derived compounds for tick control and prevention [114,115,122,123], are complex mixtures of natural, volatile organic compounds predominantly composed of terpenic hydrocarbons [124]. Depending on how these compounds are extracted, they can be classified into different groups with variations in efficacy. A list of organic compounds with acaricidal and tick repellence properties is presented in Table 3.
Despite the fact that medicinal plants have been used in ethnoveterinary and human medicine dating back to ancient times, some can have toxic properties depending on their origin and nature [129,130]. Toxic plants, however, may contain active compounds with useful biological activities for biomedical applications [131,132]. For instance, glycosides, alkaloids, saponins, tannins, volatile oils, flavonoids, and diterpenoids are examples of active components that can be potentially toxic but are used in ethnoveterinary applications [133,134]. Obviously, the intercalating concern between pharmacology and toxicology is dose-dependent [131]. It is essential to be aware of the toxicity that plants of veterinary significance can have to avoid disease or mortality in livestock [135,136]. Studies defining the concentration and dosage of specific plant components or extracts that lead to detrimental effects in animals and humans are needed to define working dosages.

4.1. Plant Extracts

The preparation of plant extracts involves the isolation of bioactive compounds from plants with solvents and processes that may include maceration, heat extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, sonication, and other methods [137].
Extracts from Acmella oleracea (Asteraceae), the jambu plant of Amazonia, have been evaluated extensively for acaricidal activity on a variety of tick species and life stages. Extracts from this plant using hexane [138] and methanol [120,139] have proven more effective than aqueous, ethanol [140], and chloroform extractions [141]. The methanol extract is particularly toxic to tick larvae with an LC90 of 1.6 mg/mL and 6.6 mg/mL for larvae of R. microplus and Anocentor nitens, respectively [120,139]. It is also effective against nymphal and adult ticks, even though greater concentrations are required to achieve LC90. The lethal effects of A. oleracea are often attributed to the presence of the fatty acid amide spilanthol in the plant, and toxicity studies of the isolated constituent have demonstrated its efficacy [120]. However, A. oleracea specimens with low concentrations of spilanthol also demonstrate high lethality against ticks, indicating the presence of other effective compounds or synergistic effects [139].
Extracts from Annona muricata (sweetsop) and Annona squamosa (soursop) plants also exhibit acaricidal activity. A 2% solution of A. muricata seeds extracted with ethanol killed 100% of engorged R. microplus females [142]. Studies using A. squamosa extracts found these to be more effective with aqueous extracts of fruit peels, demonstrating an LC50 of 0.405 mg/mL for Haemaphysalis bispinosa adults and an LC50 of 0.548 mg/mL for R. microplus larvae [143]. Hexane-extracted leaf material proved even more toxic with an LC50 of 0.145 mg/mL against Ha. bispinosa adults [143].
Extracts from Nicotiana tabacum, the cultivated tobacco plant, are also potently acaricidal. While methanol extractions required greater concentrations (25–100 mg/mL) to kill 50% of Rhipicephalus decoloratus, Rhipicephalus pulchellus, or R. sanguineus adults within 24 h of exposure [144,145], hexane extractions proved more effective with an LC50 of 0.6 mg/mL for female R. microplus. Ethanol extracts also appeared to produce a greater level of toxicity [146] than other extracts.
Neem has also been tested as an acaricide. Aqueous extracts and oils have been tested due to their potential use as insecticides [147] and acaricides [148]. Azadirachtin is the most widely studied component purified from neem oils. A study comparing the effects of different concetrations of Azadirachtin and neem leaf extracts on R. sanguinneus larvae showed 80% and 95% mortalities after the Larval Packet Test (LPT), respectively, in the lower concentrations (0.5% and 10%, respectively) [148]. Nevertheless, this acaricidal effect was diminished in experiments with higher concentrations [148]. In adult females ticks, treatment with the aqueous extracts from neem leaf at 10% and 20% results in morphological changes during oocyte development when compared to control samples [149]. Similar outcomes were reported after treatment with neem oils containing Azadirachtin [150], indicating that the changes in morphology are possibly connected with this compound. Furthermore, neem oil also reduces cuticle thickness and distorts epithelial cell morphology of semi-engorged females [151]. However, neem leaf extracts can negatively affect oocytes and ovaries in mammals. Studies with rats indicate that neem leaf extracts increase oxidation in the oocytes and lead to apoptosis [152,153]. Although neem leaf material can produce anemia, reduced fertility, and cause abortions, aqueous extracts and purified components appear to be less toxic and require high concentrations to have negative effects on mammals [147], supporting the potential of this plant as a source for acaricidal compounds.
Tannins (phenolic compounds of high molecular weight ranging from 500 to more than 3000) are the most abundant secondary metabolites synthesized by plants [154]. Hydrolysable tannins (HTs) and condensed tannins (CTs, also known as proanthocyanidins) are two major classes of secondary metabolites that form an important line of defense against herbivory [155]. HTs may be toxic to livestock, including ruminants, while CTs can have anti-nutritional effects when animals consume high concentrations of biologically active forms [156]. However, tannins possess various biological activities including antimicrobial, anti-parasitic, anti-viral, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulation [157]. Therefore, they have drawn attention from many research groups. Fresh and dry Aloe arborescens extracts prepared using various solvents (pure ethanol, ethanol-dichloromethane binary mixture, and ethanol-dichloromethane-acetone ternary mixture) containing water-soluble tannins show that tannins had a strong effect on the number of eggs laid and larval hatching rate of R. microplus [158]. Trials with CTs are more common. Four tannin-rich plant extracts (Acacia pennatula, Piscidia piscipula, Leucaena leucocephala, and Lysiloma latisiliquum) showed acaricidal effects against larvae of R. microplus (54.8%, 88.14%, 66.79%, and 56.0%, respectively), but no effect on adults or egg-laying [84]. Ethanolic extracts prepared from the leaves of Schinopsis brasiliensis (CTs 0.36%), Piptadenia viridifora (CTs 1.01%), Ximenia americana (CTs 0.35%), and Serjania lethalis (CTs 3.37%) at 25 to 150 mg/mL were tested for A. nitens control [158,159]. Extracts of X. americana and P. viridifora showed effective inhibition of tick reproductive parameters (LC90 78.9 and 78.9 mg/mL, respectively), even though these plant species have low CT concentrations. This indicated that components other than CTs (e.g., flavonoids) were involved in A. nitens control.
More recently, six medicinal plants (Vernonia amygdalina, Calpurnia aurea, Schinus molle, Ricinus communis, Croton macrostachyus, and Nicotiana tabacum) were used against R. decoloratus and R. pulchellus in an in vitro adult immersion test with five crude extract concentrations (6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, or 100 mg/mL) with diazinon (0.1%) as a positive control. Two of the concentrations (50 and 100 mg/mL) showed a comparable and strong acaricidal effect on both tick species compared with the positive control after a 24 h period [144].
Even though plant extracts are promising for tick control, many secondary compounds may be responsible for the acaricidal effect of these extracts (i.e., terpenes, stilbenes, coumarins, acids, alcohols, sulfide compounds, tannins, and aldehydes) [160]. More studies are necessary to isolate and test specific compounds in bioassays with ticks in the larval and adult stages to determine their safety to humans and other animals.

4.2. Plant Essential Oils

Essential oils are obtained from plant extracts and are separated from the aqueous phase through conventional methods such as distillation, hydrodiffusion, and solvent extraction [161]. Several essential oils have been tested in different formulations and against different tick species. Treatment with essential oils from some plants can affect tick mortality, fecundity, and egg hatching rate [122]. Recent studies examined the potential use of essential oils of Laurus nobilis (laurel) [162], Ocotea odorifera (canela sassafras) [163], Chrysopogon zizanioides [164], and Schinus molle [165] with levels of control between 7.59% to 99%, depending on the concentration of essential oil, tick life stage, and species. The combination of essential oils appears to enhance the effect of individual oils [166,167]. A promising blend of essential oils is Cinnamomum verum (cinnamon), Cuminum cyminum (cumin), and Pimenta diocia (allspice), which achieved acaricidal activity from 90% to 100% [165]. Essential oils can also be used as repellents on clothing and on companion animals for tick species such as I. ricinus [168,169], highlighting the potential of plant-derived compounds to be used in multiple ways to aid in the control of ticks of veterinary and public health importance.
Nonetheless, due to the variations in essential oil extracts, scientists are now interested in identifying the specific component(s) with acaricidal properties in these plant extracts. Ferreira et al. [170] identified eugenol as the main constituent of clove’s essential oil. Both clove essential oil and eugenol resulted in significantly reduced egg production index (EPI) and hatching. The acaricidal effect of eugenol on R. sanguineus unfed larvae, unfed nymphs, fed larvae, and fed nymphs was demonstrated by a later study [171]. More significant mortalities were achieved when eugenol and thymol were combined. Furthermore, this formulation reduced application costs to $3.96/L [171].
Many studies have examined the efficacy of non-seed oil plant extracts as acaricides, particularly those with demonstrated insecticidal or antiparasitic effects, or those with a traditional history of medicinal usage. Summaries of these studies are reviewed in Benelli et al. [115] and Rosado-Aguilar et al. [172].

4.3. Mode of Action

The mode of action of many plant-derived compounds used for tick control is not completely understood. Some essential oils cause neurotoxic effects, such as inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE), antagonism with the receptors of the octopamine neurotransmitter, or closure of the chloride channels by gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) [173]. Likewise, the exact mode of action of many plant essential oils has not been elucidated, and few studies have been conducted to understand how these naturally occurring compounds act on ticks. Gross et al. [174] developed an in vitro assay, using hamster cell lines (CHO cells) expressing the R. microplus Tyramine receptor RmTAR1e, to screen components from essential oils that interact with this receptor. Using this assay, they identified a Tyramine receptor as the potential target for pulegone, carvacrol, isoeugenol, 1,4-cineole, and piperonyl alcohol. However, how other components and essential oils affect tick biology remains unexplored and warrants further investigation.

5. From the Bench to the Market: A Long Rough Road of Scaling up Natural Products for Tick Pest Control

Acaricides are pesticides designed specifically for mites and ticks. Natural compounds of botanical origin are increasingly being investigated to develop novel biopesticides for agriculture [122,175]. The growth of biopesticides is projected to outpace the synthetic pesticides, with annual growth rates of between 10% and 20% [176].
The identification of active ingredients in natural products with acaricidal and repellent properties is currently a prominent area of investigation [114]. There are two approaches used to identify plant-derived natural products for tick pest control and prevention. The first method is based on traditional ethnobotanical knowledge and the familiarity with regional sources, such as crude plant extracts that contain a blend of different plant metabolites, which can be used against ticks [116,177]. In this approach, scientific validation should be conducted to expand the applicability of “homemade” recipes. Further, these recipes should be disseminated to the public by rural extension services, as this method may be more applicable to smallholder farmers in developing countries. The second approach includes commercially manufactured products. In the past, these products were usually produced by small companies of local importance [178]. Nowadays, large agrochemical companies have become more involved through the in-licensing of technology and products, joint ventures, and acquisitions [176]. Although numerous products are in the market today, they are usually developed based on active substances obtained only from a few plant species [178]. The current challenges are to identify and produce these compounds on a large scale to meet the growing demand.
Regulatory approval remains the final and often most difficult barrier to overcome in commercializing a pesticide. Some plant-based formulations are on the ‘‘Generally Recognized as Safe’’ (GRAS) list of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [122]. Minimum Risk Exemption regulations in 40 CFR 152.25 exempted a list of active ingredients, including, among others, geraniol, eugenol, and citronella, from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) [179]. Fewer biopesticide-active substances are registered in the European Union (EU) than in the United States, India, Brazil, or China, due to long and complex registration processes in the EU and other countries, which follow the model for the registration for conventional pesticides [173,180]. In these cases, the approval is based on a review of data on product chemistry, environmental fate, and toxicology to laboratory animals and non-target organisms, including fish, wildlife, and pollinators, while efficacy data is required for some agencies [181].
In the United States, regulatory requirements imposed by the responsible agencies have slowed the introduction of new biopesticides [164]. Moreover, there has been confusion regarding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jurisdiction over natural organic acaricides. The EPA regulates biotechnology-based pesticides, while the FDA regulates the safety of human and animal foods. To modernize the regulatory framework for biotechnology products, the EPA recently released “The Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation” in coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the FDA, which provides information about actions the federal government is taking to oversee development of agricultural biotechnology products [182].
Other important general issues that can affect the development of commercial natural organic biopesticides are (a) scarcity of the natural resource, (b) the need for chemical standardization and quality control, and (c) other challenges including long-term stability, storage, and transportation [173]. Additionally, product efficacy is inherently a customer expectation. The reduction of efficiency of plant extracts, when tested on animals, is undoubtedly a constraint to the development of alternative acaricides [183]. Many factors can affect the acaricidal activity of an extract including solvent, extraction time, extract concentration, extracted plant age, tick species, and exposure time [177].
Additionally, many promising plant-derived compounds for tick control and repellence are from aromatic plants [184,185]. The distinct odors may cause different reactions depending on the animal species [186]. Livestock and some wild animals are more sensible to odors than humans due to the mechanisms for odor perception [187,188]. In the case of negative response of animals to specific plant components, it may be necessary to restrain their movement to apply the product. Thus, these products will be more applicable to livestock than wild animals.
Nanoparticle and nanoemulsion formulations can enhance the activity and efficacy of biopesticides [181]. Green synthesized nanoparticles using plant extracts are easy to prepare, eco-friendly, cost-effective, and promising in the control of ticks [181,189]. Encapsulation into nanosystems helps overcome some hurdles related to physicochemical properties (e.g., limited stability and handling), enhancing the overall efficacy. Among different nanosystems, micro- and nanoemulsions are easy-to-use systems in terms of preparation and industrial scale-up [190,191].

Organic Compounds Already in the Market

Some organic compounds are already in the market and their effect on ticks has been widely studied. Here, we will summarize some of the studies that have been done in two constituents from essential oils available in the market: nootkatone and carvacrol. The potential of nootkatone and carvacrol as alternative options to chemical control of ticks was reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [192].
Products containing nootkatone, such as NootkaShield [193], are already commercially available. The acaricidal effect of nootkatone has been tested in several tick species [194]. R. sanguineus, I. scapularis, D. variabilis, and A. americanum were all susceptible to nootkatone during bioassays, although A. americanum has a higher LC90 of 0.485 μg/cm2. This organic compound also has 100% repellency to I. scapularis adults and over 89% to A. americanum through three days and seven days, respectively, when applied to coveralls [195]. An encapsulated formulation of nootkatone was developed by Behle et al. [196] to overcome problems with volatilization and phytotoxicity in emulsified formulations. Although both formulations resulted in leaf damage, this was significantly reduced in the encapsulated formulation. Further, the encapsulated nootkatone resulted in higher I. scapularis nymph mortality than the emulsified formulation [196]. Plot trials in areas with I. scapularis showed that nootkatone can significantly diminish host-seeking ticks for up to 16 days when applied in an emulsifiable formulation [197]. An aqueous application resulted in 100% control of I. scapularis and A. americanum for up to 21 days after two applications [198]. The encapsulated formulation showed 100% control up to 27 days post-application. However, tick numbers were not significantly different in the following season between treated and untreated trials, granting the need for additional studies.
Several essential oils are commercialized as repellents for pets and humans. However, few have applicability in the field. Carvacrol is a monoterpene purified from essential oils with acaricidal properties. It decreases egg hatching in R. microplus ticks [199], probably by negatively affecting oogenesis [200]. Defects in oocyte development were also observed after sublethal treatment of R. sanguineus with acetylcarvacrol. Oocytes presented fragmented yolk granules, low protein content, chorion detachment, and vacuolation around the nucleus [201]. A field application of carvacrol resulted in 93% control of I. scapularis for 35 days after two applications, but control was reduced to 78% by day 42 [198]. A control level of 62% was achieved for A. americanum, but unlike nootkatone, carvacrol is not a good repellent for A. americanum, with less than 68% repellency [195]. Nevertheless, this lower repellency may be due to the formulation. Lima et al. [202] demonstrated that encapsulated carvacrol provided control with RC50 of 0.05 mg/cm2 for R. microplus at 6 h post-treatment versus 0.27 mg/cm2 for the non-encapsulated carvacrol.

6. Final Remarks

Undoubtedly, natural plant-derived compounds are promising tools for an IPM program due to the acaricidal and repellency effects on ticks. The proven efficacy of several compounds and reduced risks for humans and the environment, as well as the industry interest, make this field of research highly necessary. With advances in research, several commercial products based on phytocompounds have been marketed. However, beyond regulatory challenges, standardized methods of organic compound extraction and tick assays are still lacking. More investment and funding are necessary to cover the complexity of field tests involving livestock–wildlife interactions. Chemical standardization needs to be established. Studies evaluating toxicity to non-target organisms and synergistic/antagonistic effects of botanical compounds are necessary.
Although many tick-borne diseases do not pose serious threats to wildlife populations, wildlife can be important to the maintenance and propagation of ticks (infected ticks), which may jeopardize livestock and human health. Tick control in wildlife populations is rarely attempted and presents numerous challenges. When compared to livestock, which are handled and individually treated, treatment of wildlife is more problematic. Many tick vectors utilize a wide range of wildlife as hosts, and these hosts are often spread across broad geographic regions. Therefore, it is often not practical to treat for ticks on this scale. Methods employed for the treatment of wildlife have included the feeding of medicated feedstuffs and topical applications of acaricides [203,204,205,206,207,208]. These methods have been applied with mixed success and all could have broad-reaching unintentional ecological implications. Target treatment is often intractable and some drawbacks to these methods include exposure of non-target species, environmental contamination, and possible human exposure through residues contaminating tissues consumed by hunters.
A potential avenue for the control of ticks in livestock and wild populations is supplementing feed with plant-derived compounds. Although the effect of adding plant-derived compounds to animal feed for tick control is not well tested yet, many plant extracts have shown antiparasitic effects. These compounds can control endoparasites and ectoparasites. One well-known example is avermectins, which affect reproduction, feeding, and motility in parasitic nematodes and hematophagous arthropods [209]. Supplementing animal feed with plant extracts can control endoparasitic infestations. Redberry juniper significantly reduced the number of eggs of the nematode Haemonchus spp. during 28 days of feeding and complemented the effect of Ivermectin from days 32 to 42 [209,210]. Juniperus pinchotii, J. ashei, J. monosperma, and J. virginiana have been used as fiber ingredients in lamb diets [211,212]. Supplementing feed with plant extracts or plants to control internal parasites, such as helminths in sheep, goats, and deer is also well documented [210,213]. This antiparasitic effect may also include external parasites like ticks. The acaricidal effect of Juniper spp. is suspected to be connected to terpenes [127]. In vitro studies suggest that terpenoids from Ocotea aciphylla inhibit acetylcholinesterase [121,127]. Several compounds and essential oils purified from several Juniperus spp. have shown acaricidal and repellent properties [126,214,215,216]. Whether enough concentration of the compounds with acaricidal properties makes it to the bloodstream and whether ticks could be controlled by feeding Juniper to livestock and wildlife is unknown. Nevertheless, it is tempting to speculate that animal feeds may have a synergistic effect with other acaricides in the market and could enhance tick control, facilitating delivery to wild tick reservoirs. Such a result was achieved in the control of helminths when redberry juniper was complemented with ivermectin [210].
Although generally considered safe for mammals, some plant-derived products have been shown to exert negative health and welfare effects in humans and other animals [210,217]. Therefore, regulations requiring ecotoxicity studies, possible collateral effects, and education about how to use these compounds and the risks that they impose may minimize the possible negative impacts.
As tick distribution and the spread of tick-borne disease increases, the development of alternative methods and products to control tick populations should become a priority for funding agencies and the industry. Likewise, field tests that evaluate the efficacy of existing products for their ability to control tick populations in livestock and wild-animal populations are imperative. By increasing the arsenal of products that can be safely used in livestock and wild animals, we can reduce the concerns regarding acaricide impact on human health, the development of acaricide resistance, and may even be able to reduce the impact of tick-borne diseases worldwide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.L.J., T.R.W., D.G.Q. and A.S.O.C.; writing—review and editing, T.L.J., T.R.W., D.G.Q., J.D.O. and A.S.O.C.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project #205866 to T.R.W., Hatch Project #1019784 to T.L.J. and Hatch-MultiState Project #TEX0-1-7714 to A.S.O.C.

Acknowledgments

We thank Donald Thomas at USDA ARS for his help reviewing and editing this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Group, T.-B.D.W. Report to Congress. Available online: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/tbdwg-report-to-congress-2018.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  2. Eisen, R.J.; Eisen, L. The Blacklegged Tick, Ixodes scapularis: An Increasing Public Health Concern. Trends Parasitol. 2018, 34, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ogden, N.H.; Lindsay, L.R. Effects of Climate and Climate Change on Vectors and Vector-Borne Diseases: Ticks Are Different. Trends Parasitol. 2016, 32, 646–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Nah, K.; Bede-Fazekas, A.; Trajer, A.J.; Wu, J. The potential impact of climate change on the transmission risk of tick-borne encephalitis in Hungary. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Tokarevich, N.K.; Tronin, A.A.; Blinova, O.V.; Buzinov, R.V.; Boltenkov, V.P.; Yurasova, E.D.; Nurse, J. The impact of climate change on the expansion of Ixodes persulcatus habitat and the incidence of tick-borne encephalitis in the north of European Russia. Glob. Health Action 2011, 4, 8448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Goolsby, J.A.; Singh, N.K.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I.; Miller, R.J.; De León, A.A.P. Comparative efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes against multi-acaricide resistant strain of cattle fever tick, Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Southwest. Entomol. 2019, 44, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Singh, N.; Goolsby, J.; Shapiro Ilan, D.I.; Miller, R.; Thomas, D.B.; Klafke, G.; Tidwell, J.P.; Racelis, A.; Grewal, P.; Perez De Leon, A.A. Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae and Steinernematidae) against engorged females of the cattle fever tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Southwest. Entomol. 2018, 43, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aw, K.M.S.; Hue, S.M. Mode of Infection of Metarhizium spp. Fungus and Their Potential as Biological Control Agents. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Fernandes, E.K.; Bittencourt, V.R. Entomopathogenic fungi against South American tick species. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2008, 46, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fernandes, E.K.; Bittencourt, V.R.; Roberts, D.W. Perspectives on the potential of entomopathogenic fungi in biological control of ticks. Exp. Parasitol. 2012, 130, 300–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Samish, M.; Ginsberg, H.; Glazer, I. Biological control of ticks. Parasitology 2004, 129, S389–S403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barker, S.C.; Walker, A.R. Ticks of Australia. The species that infest domestic animals and humans. Zootaxa 2014, 18, 1–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Nicholson, W.L.; Sonenshine, D.E.; Noden, B.H.; Brown, R.N. Ticks (Ixodida). In Medical and Veterinary Entomology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 603–672. [Google Scholar]
  14. Scoles, G.A.; Hutcheson, H.J.; Schlater, J.L.; Hennager, S.G.; Pelzel, A.M.; Knowles, D.P. Equine piroplasmosis associated with Amblyomma cajennense Ticks, Texas, USA. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 1903–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Scoles, G.A.; Ueti, M.W. Amblyomma cajennense is an intrastadial biological vector of Theileria equi. Parasit. Vectors 2013, 6, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Szabó, M.P.; Pinter, A.; Labruna, M.B. Ecology, biology and distribution of spotted-fever tick vectors in Brazil. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2013, 3, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Labruna, M.B.; Krawczak, F.S.; Gerardi, M.; Binder, L.C.; Barbieri, A.R.M.; Paz, G.F.; Rodrigues, D.S.; Araújo, R.N.; Bernardes, M.L.; Leite, R.C. Isolation of Rickettsia rickettsii from the tick Amblyomma sculptum from a Brazilian spotted fever-endemic area in the Pampulha Lake region, southeastern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2017, 8, 82–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Esemu, S.N.; Besong, W.O.; Ndip, R.N.; Ndip, L.M. Prevalence of Ehrlichia ruminantium in adult Amblyomma variegatum collected from cattle in Cameroon. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2013, 59, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eremeeva, M.E.; Dasch, G.A. Challenges posed by tick-borne rickettsiae: Eco-epidemiology and public health implications. Front. Public Health 2015, 3, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Noguchi, H. Cultivation Of Rickettsia-Like Microorganisms From The Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Tick, Dermacentor Andersoni. J. Exp. Med. 1926, 43, 515–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kocan, K.M.; Hair, J.A.; Ewing, S.A.; Stratton, L.G. Transmission of Anaplasma marginale Theiler by Dermacentor andersoni Stiles and Dermacentor variabilis (Say). Am. J. Vet. Res. 1981, 42, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lewis, B.D.; Penzhorn, B.L.; Lopez-Rebollar, L.M.; De Waal, D.T. Isolation of a South African vector-specific strain of Babesia canis. Vet. Parasitol. 1996, 63, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Guan, G.; Ma, M.; Moreau, E.; Liu, J.; Lu, B.; Bai, Q.; Luo, J.; Jorgensen, W.; Chauvin, A.; Yin, H. A new ovine Babesia species transmitted by Hyalomma anatolicum anatolicum. Exp. Parasitol. 2009, 122, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Moltmann, U.G.; Mehlhorn, H.; Schein, E.; Voigt, W.P.; Friedhoff, K.T. Ultrastructural study on the development of Babesia equi (Coccidia: Piroplasmia) in the salivary glands of its vector ticks. J. Protozool. 1983, 30, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zeb, J.; Szekeres, S.; Takács, N.; Kontschán, J.; Shams, S.; Ayaz, S.; Hornok, S. Genetic diversity, piroplasms and trypanosomes in Rhipicephalus microplus and Hyalomma anatolicum collected from cattle in northern Pakistan. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019, 79, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Mourya, D.T.; Yadav, P.D.; Shete, A.M.; Gurav, Y.K.; Raut, C.G.; Jadi, R.S.; Pawar, S.D.; Nichol, S.T.; Mishra, A.C. Detection, isolation and confirmation of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus in human, ticks and animals in Ahmadabad, India, 2010–2011. PLoS Neglect. Trop. Dis. 2012, 6, e1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kasi, K.K.; von Arnim, F.; Schulz, A.; Rehman, A.; Chudhary, A.; Oneeb, M.; Sas, M.A.; Jamil, T.; Maksimov, P.; Sauter-Louis, C.; et al. Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus in ticks collected from livestock in Balochistan, Pakistan. Transbound Emerg. Dis. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mancuso, E.; Toma, L.; Polci, A.; d’Alessio, S.G.; Di Luca, M.; Orsini, M.; Di Domenico, M.; Marcacci, M.; Mancini, G.; Spina, F.; et al. Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Genome in Tick from Migratory Bird, Italy. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2019, 25, 1418–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Mathieu, A.; Pastor, A.R.; Berkvens, C.N.; Gara-Boivin, C.; Hébert, M.; Léveillé, A.N.; Barta, J.R.; Smith, D.A. Babesia odocoilei as a cause of mortality in captive cervids in Canada. Can. Vet. J. 2018, 59, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hess, W.R.; Endris, R.G.; Haslett, T.M.; Monahan, M.J.; McCoy, J.P. Potential arthropod vectors of African swine fever virus in North America and the Caribbean basin. Vet. Parasitol. 1987, 26, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Biguezoton, A.; Noel, V.; Adehan, S.; Adakal, H.; Dayo, G.K.; Zoungrana, S.; Farougou, S.; Chevillon, C. Ehrlichia ruminantium infects Rhipicephalus microplus in West Africa. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Corrier, D.E.; Kuttler, K.L.; Terry, M.K. Observations on anaplasmosis following field exposure to heavy and light infestations with Boophilus microplus. Vet. Parasitol. 1983, 13, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Miller, R.S.; Farnsworth, M.L.; Malmberg, J.L. Diseases at the livestock-wildlife interface: Status, challenges, and opportunities in the United States. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 110, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Pollet, T.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Allain, E.; Bonnet, S.I.; Moutailler, S. Handling the Microbial Complexity Associated to Ticks. In Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens; Abubakar, M., Ed.; Intech Open: London, UK, 2018; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  35. Craft, M.E. Infectious disease transmission and contact networks in wildlife and livestock. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2015, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lew-Tabor, A.E.; Rodriguez Valle, M. A review of reverse vaccinology approaches for the development of vaccines against ticks and tick borne diseases. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016, 7, 573–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gashaw, B.A.; Mersha, C.K. Pathology of tick bite lesions in naturally infested skin and hides of ruminants: A review. Acta Parasitol. Globalis 2013, 4, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  38. Reck, J.; Marks, F.S.; Rodrigues, R.O.; Souza, U.A.; Webster, A.; Leite, R.C.; Gonzales, J.C.; Klafke, G.M.; Martins, J.R. Does Rhipicephalus microplus tick infestation increase the risk for myiasis caused by Cochliomyia hominivorax in cattle? Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 113, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hurtado, O.J.B.; Giraldo-Ríos, C. Economic and health impact of the ticks in production animals. In Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens; Abubakar, M., Perera, P.K., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chaudhry, I.Z.; Saiddain, A.; Sabir, N.; Malik, A.N.; Azeem, S.; Sajid, A. Prevalence of pathological condition causing skin damage and consequently reducing its market value in domestic ruminants of Punjab, Pakistan. Vet. Sci. Dev. 2011, 1, e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lima, T.S.; Oliveira Filho, R.B.; Sousa, M.S.; Santos, N.T.A.; Sampaio, R.A.G.; Lcena, R.B. Cytological, histopathological, histochemical, and immunohistochemical findings of multiple cutaneous nodules in a bovine. Semin.-Cien. Agrar. 2019, 40, 3781–3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Galay, R.L.; Umemiya-Shirafuji, R.; Bacolod, E.T.; Maeda, H.; Kusakisako, K.; Koyama, J.; Tsuji, N.; Mochizuki, M.; Fujisaki, K.; Tanaka, T. Two kinds of ferritin protect ixodid ticks from iron overload and consequent oxidative stress. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e90661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Molyneux, D.H. Vectors. In Modern Parasitology: A Textbook of Parasitology, 2nd ed.; Cox, F.E.G., Ed.; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 1993; pp. 53–74. [Google Scholar]
  44. Eskezia, B.G.; Desta, A.H. Review on the impact of ticks on livestock health and productivity. J. Biol. Agric. Healthcare 2016, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jonsson, N.N.; Mayer, D.G.; Matschoss, A.L.; Green, P.E.; Ansell, J. Production effects of cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) infestation of high yielding dairy cows. Vet. Parasitol. 1998, 78, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Narladkar, B.W. Projected economic losses due to vector and vector-borne parasitic diseases in livestock of India and its significance in implementing the concept of integrated practices for vector management. Vet. World 2018, 11, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Rocha, J.F.; Martínez, R.; López-Villalobos, N.; Morris, S.T. Tick burden in Bos taurus cattle and its relationship with heat stress in three agroecological zones in the tropics of Colombia. Parasit. Vectors 2019, 12, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Nuttall, P.A. Tick saliva and its role in pathogen transmission. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2019, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Diaz, J.H. A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Tick Paralysis in the United States and Australia. Clin. Toxicol. (Phila) 2015, 53, 874–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Kwak, M.L.; Madden, C. The first record of infestation by a native tick (Acari: Ixodidae) on the Australian emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) and a review of tick paralysis in Australian birds. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2017, 73, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Pienaar, R.; Neitz, A.W.H.; Mans, B.J. Tick Paralysis: Solving an Enigma. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Burrow, H.M.; Mans, B.J.; Cardoso, F.F.; Birkett, M.A.; Kotze, A.C.; Hayes, B.J.; Mapholi, N.; Dzama, K.; Marufu, M.C.; Githaka, N.F. Towards a new phenotype for tick resistance in beef and dairy cattle: A review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2019, 59, 1401–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. De la Fuente, J.; Kopáček, P.; Lew-Tabor, A.; Maritz-Olivier, C. Strategies for new and improved vaccines against ticks and tick-borne diseases. Parasite Immunol. 2016, 38, 754–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ghosh, S.; Azhahianambi, P.; Yadav, M.P. Upcoming and future strategies of tick control: A review. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2007, 44, 79–89. [Google Scholar]
  55. Goodenough, A.E.; Harrell, A.N.; Keating, R.L.; Rolfe, R.N.; Stubbs, H.; MacTavish, L.; Hart, A.G. Managing grassland for wildlife: The effects of rotational burning on tick presence and abundance in African savannah habitat. Wildl. Biol. 2017, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Hofmeester, T.R.; Jansen, P.A.; Wijnen, H.J.; Coipan, E.C.; Fonville, M.; Prins, H.H.T.; Sprong, H.; van Wieren, S.E. Cascading effects of predator activity on tick-borne disease risk. Proc. Biol. 2017, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Hüe, T.; Fontfreyde, C. Development of a new approach of pasture management to control Rhipicephalus microplus infestation. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 1989–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jongejan, F.; Uilenberg, G. The global importance of ticks. Parasitology 2004, 129, S3–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Jonsson, N.N. The productivity effects of cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) infestation on cattle, with particular reference to Bos indicus cattle and their crosses. Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 137, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mondal, D.B.; Sarma, K.; Saravanan, M. Upcoming of the integrated tick control program of ruminants with special emphasis on livestock farming system in India. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rego, R.O.M.; Trentelman, J.J.A.; Anguita, J.; Nijhof, A.M.; Sprong, H.; Klempa, B.; Hajdusek, O.; Tomás-Cortázar, J.; Azagi, T.; Strnad, M.; et al. Counterattacking the tick bite: Towards a rational design of anti-tick vaccines targeting pathogen transmission. Parasit. Vectors 2019, 12, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. George, J.E.; Pond, J.M.; Davey, R.B. Acaricides for controlling ticks on cattle and the problem of acaricide resistance. In Ticks: Biology, Disease and Control; Bowman, A.S., Nuttall, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 408–423. [Google Scholar]
  63. George, J.E.; Pound, J.M.; Davey, R.B. Chemical control of ticks on cattle and the resistance of these parasites to acaricides. Parasitology 2004, 129, S353–S366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rajput, Z.I.; Hu, S.H.; Chen, W.J.; Arijo, A.G.; Xiao, C.W. Importance of ticks and their chemical and immunological control in livestock. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B 2006, 7, 912–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vudriko, P.; Okwee-Acai, J.; Byaruhanga, J.; Tayebwa, D.S.; Omara, R.; Muhindo, J.B.; Lagu, C.; Umemiya-Shirafuji, R.; Xuan, X.; Suzuki, H. Evidence-based tick acaricide resistance intervention strategy in Uganda: Concept and feedback of farmers and stakeholders. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018, 9, 254–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Markets, M.A. Acaricides Market by Type (Organochlorine, Organophosphorus, Natural Sources, and others), by Application (Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Industrial, and Others), by Mode of Action (spray, Dipping Vat, Hand Dressing and Others) & geography—Trends & forecasts to 2019. Available online: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/acaricides-market-196650767.html (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  67. Abbas, R.Z.; Zaman, M.A.; Colwell, D.D.; Gilleard, J.; Iqbal, Z. Acaricide resistance in cattle ticks and approaches to its management: The state of play. Vet. Parasitol. 2014, 203, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Foil, L.D.; Coleman, P.; Eisler, M.; Fragoso-Sanchez, H.; Garcia-Vazquez, Z.; Guerrero, F.D.; Jonsson, N.N.; Langstaff, I.G.; Li, A.Y.; Machila, N.; et al. Factors that influence the prevalence of acaricide resistance and tick-borne diseases. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 125, 163–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Nolan, J. Mechanisms of resistance to chemicals in arthropod parasites of veterinary importance. Vet. Parasitol. 1985, 18, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Uganda, N. Tick-Borne Diseases Kill Hundreds of Cows in Kiruhura District; Uganda, N., Ed.; NTV Uganda: Kampala, Uganda, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  71. Thomas, D.B.; Klafke, G.; Busch, J.D.; Olafson, P.U.; Miller, R.A.; Mosqueda, J.; Stone, N.E.; Scoles, G.; Wagner, D.M.; Perez-De-Leon, A. Tracking the Increase of Acaricide Resistance in an Invasive Population of Cattle Fever Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and Implementation of Real-Time PCR Assays to Rapidly Genotype Resistance Mutations. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2020, 113, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Freitas Ede, P.; Zapata, M.T.; Fernandes Fde, F. Monitoring of resistance or susceptibility of adults and larvae of Amblyomma cajennense (Acari: Ixodidae) to synthetic acaricides in Goias, Brazil. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2011, 53, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Higa, L.O.S.; Barradas Pina, F.T.; Rodrigues, V.D.S.; Garcia, M.V.; Salas, D.R.; Miller, R.J.; de Leon, A.P.; Barros, J.C.; Andreotti, R. Evidence of acaricide resistance in different life stages of Amblyomma mixtum and Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) collected from the same farm in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020, 174, 104837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Alonso-Diaz, M.A.; Fernandez-Salas, A.; Martinez-Ibanez, F.; Osorio-Miranda, J. Amblyomma cajennense (Acari: Ixodidae) tick populations susceptible or resistant to acaricides in the Mexican Tropics. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 197, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gaur, R.S.; Sangwan, A.K.; Sangwan, N.; Kumar, S. Acaricide resistance in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus and Hyalomma anatolicum collected from Haryana and Rajasthan states of India. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2016, 69, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. El-Ashram, S.; Aboelhadid, S.M.; Kamel, A.A.; Mahrous, L.N.; Fahmy, M.M. First Report of Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus in Egypt Resistant to Ivermectin. Insects 2019, 10, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Ziapour, S.P.; Kheiri, S.; Fazeli-Dinan, M.; Sahraei-Rostami, F.; Mohammadpour, R.A.; Aarabi, M.; Nikookar, S.H.; Sarafrazi, M.; Asgarian, F.; Enayati, A.; et al. Pyrethroid resistance in Iranian field populations of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2017, 136, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vudriko, P.; Okwee-Acai, J.; Tayebwa, D.S.; Byaruhanga, J.; Kakooza, S.; Wampande, E.; Omara, R.; Muhindo, J.B.; Tweyongyere, R.; Owiny, D.O.; et al. Emergence of multi-acaricide resistant Rhipicephalus ticks and its implication on chemical tick control in Uganda. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Enayati, A.A.; Asgarian, F.; Sharif, M.; Boujhmehrani, H.; Amouei, A.; Vahedi, N.; Boudaghi, B.; Piazak, N.; Hemingway, J. Propetamphos resistance in Rhipicephalus bursa (Acari, Ixodidae). Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 162, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Reck, J.; Klafke, G.M.; Webster, A.; Dall’Agnol, B.; Scheffer, R.; Souza, U.A.; Corassini, V.B.; Vargas, R.; dos Santos, J.S.; Martins, J.R. First report of fluazuron resistance in Rhipicephalus microplus: A field tick population resistant to six classes of acaricides. Vet. Parasitol. 2014, 201, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Corley, S.W.; Jonsson, N.N.; Piper, E.K.; Cutullé, C.; Stear, M.J.; Seddon, J.M. Mutation in the RmβAOR gene is associated with amitraz resistance in the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 16772–16777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Sungirai, M.; Baron, S.; Moyo, D.Z.; De Clercq, P.; Maritz-Olivier, C.; Madder, M. Genotyping acaricide resistance profiles of Rhipicephalus microplus tick populations from communal land areas of Zimbabwe. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018, 9, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Chaparro-Gutierrez, J.J.; Villar, D.; Schaeffer, D.J. Interpretation of the larval immersion test with ivermectin in populations of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus from Colombian farms. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2020, 11, 101323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Fernandez-Salas, A.; Alonso-Diaz, M.A.; Acosta-Rodriguez, R.; Torres-Acosta, J.F.; Sandoval-Castro, C.A.; Rodriguez-Vivas, R.I. In vitro acaricidal effect of tannin-rich plants against the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 175, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Guerrero, F.D.; Lovis, L.; Martins, J.R. Acaricide resistance mechanisms in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2012, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Klafke, G.; Webster, A.; Dall Agnol, B.; Pradel, E.; Silva, J.; de La Canal, L.H.; Becker, M.; Osório, M.F.; Mansson, M.; Barreto, R.; et al. Multiple resistance to acaricides in field populations of Rhipicephalus microplus from Rio Grande do Sul state, Southern Brazil. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017, 8, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Faza, A.P.; Pinto, I.S.; Fonseca, I.; Antunes, G.R.; Monteiro, C.M.; Daemon, E.; Muniz Mde, S.; Martins, M.F.; Furlong, J.; Prata, M.C. A new approach to characterization of the resistance of populations of Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) to organophosphate and pyrethroid in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Exp. Parasitol. 2013, 134, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Godara, R.; Katoch, R.; Rafiqi, S.I.; Yadav, A.; Nazim, K.; Sharma, R.; Singh, N.K.; Katoch, M. Synthetic pyrethroid resistance in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus ticks from north-western Himalayas, India. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 1203–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kumar, R.; Sharma, A.K.; Ghosh, S. Menace of acaricide resistance in cattle tick, Rhipicephalus microplus in India: Status and possible mitigation strategies. Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 278, 108993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Lovis, L.; Reggi, J.; Berggoetz, M.; Betschart, B.; Sager, H. Determination of acaricide resistance in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) field populations of Argentina, South Africa, and Australia with the Larval Tarsal Test. J. Med. Entomol. 2013, 50, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Mendes, M.C.; Lima, C.K.; Nogueira, A.H.; Yoshihara, E.; Chiebao, D.P.; Gabriel, F.H.; Ueno, T.E.; Namindome, A.; Klafke, G.M. Resistance to cypermethrin, deltamethrin and chlorpyriphos in populations of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) from small farms of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 178, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Petermann, J.; Cauquil, L.; Hurlin, J.C.; Gaia, H.; Hue, T. Survey of cattle tick, Riphicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, resistance to amitraz and deltamethrin in New Caledonia. Vet. Parasitol. 2016, 217, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Stone, N.E.; Olafson, P.U.; Davey, R.B.; Buckmeier, G.; Bodine, D.; Sidak-Loftis, L.C.; Giles, J.R.; Duhaime, R.; Miller, R.J.; Mosqueda, J.; et al. Multiple mutations in the para-sodium channel gene are associated with pyrethroid resistance in Rhipicephalus microplus from the United States and Mexico. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 456. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Villar, D.; Klafke, G.M.; Rodriguez-Duran, A.; Bossio, F.; Miller, R.; Perez de Leon, A.A.; Cortes-Vecino, J.A.; Chaparro-Gutierrez, J.J. Resistance profile and molecular characterization of pyrethroid resistance in a Rhipicephalus microplus strain from Colombia. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2020, 34, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Zikankuba, V.L.; Mwanyika, G.; Ntwenya, J.E.; James, A. Pesticide regulations and their malpractice implications on food and environment safety. Cogent. Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1601544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Fernández-Salas, A.; Rodríguez-Vivas, R.I.; Alonso-Díaz, M.A. First report of a Rhipicephalus microplus tick population multi-resistant to acaricides and ivermectin in the Mexican tropics. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 183, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Janadaree Bandara, K.M.U.; Parakrama Karunaratne, S.H.P. Mechanisms of acaricide resistance in the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus in Sri Lanka. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2017, 139, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Miller, R.J.; Davey, R.B.; George, J.E. First report of organophosphate-resistant Boophilus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) within the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 2005, 42, 912–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Nagar, G.; Sharma, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Saravanan, B.C.; Kumar, R.; Gupta, S.; Kumar, S.; Ghosh, S. Molecular mechanism of synthetic pyrethroid and organophosphate resistance in field isolates of Rhipicephalus microplus tick collected from a northern state of India. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2018, 75, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Castro Janer, E.; Klafke, G.M.; Capurro, M.L.; Schumaker, T.T. Cross-resistance between fipronil and lindane in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 210, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Miller, R.J.; Almazan, C.; Ortiz-Estrada, M.; Davey, R.B.; George, J.E.; De Leon, A.P. First report of fipronil resistance in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus of Mexico. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 191, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Rodriguez-Vivas, R.I.; Ojeda-Chi, M.M.; Trinidad-Martinez, I.; Bolio-Gonzalez, M.E. First report of amitraz and cypermethrin resistance in Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato infesting dogs in Mexico. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2017, 31, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Becker, S.; Webster, A.; Doyle, R.L.; Martins, J.R.; Reck, J.; Klafke, G.M. Resistance to deltamethrin, fipronil and ivermectin in the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu stricto, Latreille (Acari: Ixodidae). Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019, 10, 1046–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Eiden, A.L.; Kaufman, P.E.; Oi, F.M.; Allan, S.A.; Miller, R.J. Detection of Permethrin Resistance and Fipronil Tolerance in Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 2015, 52, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Miller, R.J.; George, J.E.; Guerrero, F.; Carpenter, L.; Welch, J.B. Characterization of acaricide resistance in Rhipicephalus sanguineus (latreille) (Acari: Ixodidae) collected from the Corozal Army Veterinary Quarantine Center, Panama. J. Med. Entomol. 2001, 38, 298–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Welsh, J.A.; Braun, H.; Brown, N.; Um, C.; Ehret, K.; Figueroa, J.; Boyd Barr, D. Production-related contaminants (pesticides, antibiotics and hormones) in organic and conventionally produced milk samples sold in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 2972–2980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. De Meneghi, D.; Stachurski, F.; Adakal, H. Experiences in Tick Control by Acaricide in the Traditional Cattle Sector in Zambia and Burkina Faso: Possible Environmental and Public Health Implications. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Laing, G.; Aragrande, M.; Canali, M.; Savic, S.; De Meneghi, D. Control of Cattle Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases by Acaricide in Southern Province of Zambia: A Retrospective Evaluation of Animal Health Measures According to Current One Health Concepts. Front. Public Health 2018, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Kunz, S.E.; Kemp, D.H. Insecticides and acaricides: Resistance and environmental impact. Rev. Sci. Tech. (OIE) 1994, 13, 1249–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Wanzala, W. Potential of Traditional Knowledge of Plants in the Management of Arthropods in Livestock Industry with Focus on (Acari) Ticks. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2017, 2017, 8647919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Jones, D. Organic agriculture, sustainability and policy. In Organic Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies; Cabi Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2003; pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  112. Willer, H.; Lernoud, J.; Kemper, L. Organic in Europe: Recent Developments. In The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends; Willer, H., Lernoud, J., Eds.; FiBL/IFOAM: Frick, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 36–128. [Google Scholar]
  113. USDA/ERS, U.S.D.o.A.E.R.S. Organic Market Overview. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview/ (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  114. Benelli, G.; Pavela, R. Repellence of essential oils and selected compounds against ticks-A systematic review. Acta. Trop. 2018, 179, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Benelli, G.; Pavela, R.; Canale, A.; Mehlhorn, H. Tick repellents and acaricides of botanical origin: A green roadmap to control tick-borne diseases? Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 2545–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Adenubi, O.T.; Fasina, F.; McGaw, L.; Eloff, J.; Naidoo, V. Plant extracts to control ticks of veterinary and medical importance: A review. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2016, 105, 178–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gomes, G.A.; Monteiro, C.M.; Senra Tde, O.; Zeringota, V.; Calmon, F.; Matos Rda, S.; Daemon, E.; Gois, R.W.; Santiago, G.M.; de Carvalho, M.G. Chemical composition and acaricidal activity of essential oil from Lippia sidoides on larvae of Dermacentor nitens (Acari: Ixodidae) and larvae and engorged females of Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol. Res. 2012, 111, 2423–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Dolan, M.C.; Jordan, R.A.; Schulze, T.L.; Schulze, C.J.; Manning, M.C.; Ruffolo, D.; Schmidt, J.P.; Piesman, J.; Karchesy, J.J. Ability of two natural products, nootkatone and carvacrol, to suppress Ixodes scapularis and Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) in a Lyme disease endemic area of New Jersey. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 2316–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Costa-Júnior, L.M.; Miller, R.J.; Alves, P.B.; Blank, A.F.; Li, A.Y.; Pérez de León, A.A. Acaricidal efficacies of Lippia gracilis essential oil and its phytochemicals against organophosphate-resistant and susceptible strains of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Vet. Parasitol. 2016, 228, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Cruz, P.B.; Barbosa, A.F.; Zeringota, V.; Melo, D.; Novato, T.; Fidelis, Q.C.; Fabri, R.L.; de Carvalho, M.G.; Oliveira Sabaa-Srur, A.U.; Daemon, E.; et al. Acaricidal activity of methanol extract of Acmella oleracea L. (Asteraceae) and spilanthol on Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) and Dermacentor nitens (Acari: Ixodidae). Vet. Parasitol. 2016, 228, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Souza Conceição, R.; de, A.C.M.M.; Alves Reis, I.M.; Branco, A.; Curcino Vieira, I.J.; Braz-Filho, R.; Borges Botura, M. In vitro acaricide activity of Ocotea aciphylla (Nees) Mez. (Lauraceae) extracts and identification of the compounds from the active fractions. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017, 8, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ellse, L.; Wall, R. The use of essential oils in veterinary ectoparasite control: A review. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2014, 28, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Singh, N.K.; Jyoti Vemu, B.; Prerna, M.; Singh, H.; Dumka, V.K.; Sharma, S.K. Acaricidal activity of leaf extracts of Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. (Fabaceae) against synthetic pyrethroid resistant Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Res. Vet. Sci. 2016, 106, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Olubukola Tolulope, A.; Ahmed, A.S.; Fasina, F.O.; McGaw, L.J.; Eloff, J.N.; Naidoo, V. Pesticidal plants as a possible alternative to synthetic acaricides in tick control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 123, 779–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Annan, K.; Dickson, R.; Mensah, A.; Fleischer, T.C. Acaricidal Effect of Plumbago zeylanica L. Against Amblyomma variegatum. PHCOG J. 2009, 1, 190–194. [Google Scholar]
  126. Carroll, J.F.; Tabanca, N.; Kramer, M.; Elejalde, N.M.; Wedge, D.E.; Bernier, U.R.; Coy, M.; Becnel, J.J.; Demirci, B.; Baser, K.H.; et al. Essential oils of Cupressus funebris, Juniperus communis, and J. chinensis (Cupressaceae) as repellents against ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and as toxicants against mosquitoes. J. Vector Ecol. 2011, 36, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. El-Mustapha, L.; Abderrafea, E.; Ayoub, K.; Abdelaziz, A.; El Hassan, E.M. Toxicity of essential oils obtained from Juniperus thurifera var. africana and Mentha suaveolens subsp. Timija chemotypes against pre-adult stages of Hyalomma aegyptium tick (Acari: Ixodidae). Nat. Prod. Res. 2019, 17, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  128. Pfister, K.; Armstrong, R. Systemically and cutaneously distributed ectoparasiticides: A review of the efficacy against ticks and fleas on dogs. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Brima, E.I. Toxic Elements in Different Medicinal Plants and the Impact on Human Health. Int J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Martínez, G.J.; Luján, M.C. Medicinal plants used for traditional veterinary in the Sierras de Córdoba (Argentina): An ethnobotanical comparison with human medicinal uses. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2011, 7, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Abo-El-Sooud, K. Ethnoveterinary perspectives and promising future. Int J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2018, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. James, L.F.; Panter, K.E.; Gaffield, W.; Molyneux, R.J. Biomedical applications of poisonous plant research. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 3211–3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Benítez, G.; González-Tejero, M.R.; Molero-Mesa, J. Knowledge of ethnoveterinary medicine in the Province of Granada, Andalusia, Spain. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2012, 139, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Viegi, L.; Vangelisti, R. Toxic plants used in ethnoveterinary medicine in Italy. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2011, 6, 999–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Botha, C.J.; Penrith, M.L. Poisonous plants of veterinary and human importance in southern Africa. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 119, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Panter, K.E.; Welch, K.D.; Gardner, D.R.; Lee, S.T.; Green, B.T.; Pfister, J.A.; Cook, D.; Davis, T.Z.; Stegelmeie, B.L. Poisonous plants of the United States. In Veterinary Toxicology; Gupta, R.C., Ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 1029–1079. [Google Scholar]
  137. Azwanida, N. A Review on the Extraction Methods Use in Medicinal Plants, Principle, Strength and Limitation. J. Med. Aromat. Plants 2015, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  138. Castro, K.N.; Lima, D.F.; Vasconcelos, L.C.; Leite, J.R.; Santos, R.C.; Paz Neto, A.A.; Costa-Junior, L.M. Acaricide activity in vitro of Acmella oleracea against Rhipicephalus microplus. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 3697–3701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  139. Marchesini, P.; Barbosa, A.F.; Franco, C.; Novato, T.; Sanches, M.N.G.; de Carvalho, M.G.; Fabri, R.L.; Daemon, E.; Monteiro, C.M.O. Activity of the extract of Acmella oleracea on immature stages of Amblyomma sculptum (Acari: Ixodidae). Vet. Parasitol. 2018, 254, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Chungsamarnyart, N. Larvicidal Effect of Plant Crude-Extracts on the Tropical Cattle Tick (Boophilus Microplus). Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci. Suppl.) 1991, 25, 80–89. [Google Scholar]
  141. Veeramani, V.; Sakthivelkumar, S.; Tamilarasan, K.; Aisha, S.O.; Janarthanan, S. Acaricidal activity of Ocimum basilicum and Spilanthes acmella against the ectoparasitic tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Arachinida: Ixodidae). Trop. Biomed. 2014, 31, 414–421. [Google Scholar]
  142. Broglio-Micheletti, S.M.; Valente, E.C.; de Souza, L.A.; Dias Nda, S.; de Araujo, A.M. Plant extracts in control of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Canestrini, 1887) (Acari: Ixodidae) in laboratory. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2009, 18, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Madhumitha, G.; Rajakumar, G.; Roopan, S.M.; Rahuman, A.A.; Priya, K.M.; Saral, A.M.; Khan, F.R.; Khanna, V.G.; Velayutham, K.; Jayaseelan, C.; et al. Acaricidal, insecticidal, and larvicidal efficacy of fruit peel aqueous extract of Annona squamosa and its compounds against blood-feeding parasites. Parasitol. Res. 2012, 111, 2189–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kemal, J.; Zerihun, T.; Alemu, S.; Sali, K.; Nasir, M.; Abraha, A.; Feyera, T. In Vitro Acaricidal Activity of Selected Medicinal Plants Traditionally Used against Ticks in Eastern Ethiopia. J. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 2020, 7834026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Schorderet Weber, S.; Kaminski, K.P.; Perret, J.L.; Leroy, P.; Mazurov, A.; Peitsch, M.C.; Ivanov, N.V.; Hoeng, J. Antiparasitic properties of leaf extracts derived from selected Nicotiana species and Nicotiana tabacum varieties. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019, 132, 110660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Castelblanco, S.; Sanabria, R.; Cruz, C.; Rodríguez, M. Preliminary report of the ixodicidal effect of some plant extracts on ticks Boophilus microplus. Rev. Cubana Plant. Med. 2013, 18, 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  147. Boeke, S.J.; Boersma, M.G.; Alink, G.M.; van Loon, J.J.; van Huis, A.; Dicke, M.; Rietjens, I.M. Safety evaluation of neem (Azadirachta indica) derived pesticides. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2004, 94, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Suraj, R.A.; Rambarran, R.; Ali, K.; Harbajan, D.; Charles, R.; Sant, C.; Georges, K.; Suepaul, S. A comparison of the efficacy of two commercial acaricides (fipronil and amitraz) with Azadirachta indica (neem) on the brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus) from canines in Trinidad. Transbound Emerg. Dis. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Denardi, S.E.; Bechara, G.H.; Oliveira, P.R.; Camargo-Mathias, M.I. Azadirachta indica A. Juss (neem) induced morphological changes on oocytes of Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Latreille, 1806) (Acari: Ixodidae) tick females. Exp. Parasitol. 2010, 126, 462–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Remedio, R.N.; Nunes, P.H.; Anholeto, L.A.; Oliveira, P.R.; Camargo-Mathias, M.I. Morphological effects of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) seed oil with known azadirachtin concentrations on the oocytes of semi-engorged Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Lima de Souza, J.R.; Remedio, R.N.; Arnosti, A.; de Abreu, R.M.M.; Camargo-Mathias, M.I. The effects of neem oil (Azadirachta indica A. JUSS) enriched with different concentrations of azadirachtin on the integument of semi-engorged Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato (Acari: Ixodidae) females. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2017, 80, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Chaube, S.K.; Shrivastav, T.G.; Tiwari, M.; Prasad, S.; Tripathi, A.; Pandey, A.K. Neem (Azadirachta indica L.) leaf extract deteriorates oocyte quality by inducing ROS-mediated apoptosis in mammals. Springerplus 2014, 3, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  153. Tripathi, A.; Shrivastav, T.G.; Chaube, S.K. An increase of granulosa cell apoptosis mediates aqueous neem (Azadirachta indica) leaf extract-induced oocyte apoptosis in rat. Int. J. Appl. Basic Med. Res. 2013, 3, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Barbehenn, R.V.; Peter Constabel, C. Tannins in plant-herbivore interactions. Phytochemistry 2011, 72, 1551–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Salminen, J.P.; Karonen, M. Chemical ecology of tannins and other phenolics: We need a change in approach. Func. Ecol. 2011, 25, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Naumann, H.D.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Zeller, W.; Huntley, N.F. The role of condensed tannins in ruminant animal production: Advances, limitation and future directions. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2017, 46, 929–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Huang, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhao, G.; Hu, T.; Wang, Y. Potential and challenges of tannins as an alternative to in-feed antibiotics for farm animal production. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Matos, A.C.; Ribeiro, C.M.; Scarminio, I.S.; Afonso, S.; Vidotto, O. Phytochemical analysis and acaricidal activity of Aloe arborescens Mill. extracts against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2017, 38, 3113–3121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Vasconcelos, V.O.; Costa, E.G.L.; Moreira, V.R.; Morais-Costa, F.; Duarte, E.R. Efficacy of plants extracts from the Cerrado against adult female of Dermacentor nitens (Acari: Ixodidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2018, 75, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. González-López, G.; Ojeda-Chi, M.M.; Casanova-Lugo, F.; Oros-Ortega, I.; Hernández-Chávez, L.I.; Piñeiro-Vázquez, A.T.; Rodríguez-Vivas, R.I. In vitro acaricide activity of extracts from three Leucaena spp. genotypes versus Rhipicephalus microplus. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2019, 10, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Aziz, Z.A.A.; Ahmad, A.; Setapar, S.H.M.; Karakucuk, A.; Azim, M.M.; Lokhat, D.; Rafatullah, M.; Ganash, M.; Kamal, M.A.; Ashraf, G.M. Essential Oils: Extraction Techniques, Pharmaceutical And Therapeutic Potential—A Review. Curr. Drug Metab. 2018, 19, 1100–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Fernandez, C.M.M.; da Rosa, M.F.; Fernandez, A.; Bortolucci, W.C.; Ferreira, F.B.P.; Linde, G.A.; Colauto, N.B.; Simoes, M.R.; Lobo, V.D.S.; Gazim, Z.C. Essential oil and fractions isolated of Laurel to control adults and larvae of cattle ticks. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 34, 731–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Figueiredo, A.; Nascimento, L.M.; Lopes, L.G.; Giglioti, R.; Albuquerque, R.; Santos, M.G.; Falcao, D.Q.; Nogueira, J.A.P.; Rocha, L.; Chagas, A.C.S. First report of the effect of Ocotea elegans essential oil on Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Vet. Parasitol. 2018, 252, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Campos, R.N.; Nascimento Lima, C.B.; Passos Oliveira, A.; Albano Araujo, A.P.; Fitzgerald Blank, A.; Barreto Alves, P.; Nascimento Lima, R.; Albano Araujo, V.; Santana, A.S.; Bacci, L. Acaricidal properties of vetiver essential oil from Chrysopogon zizanioides (Poaceae) against the tick species Amblyomma cajennense and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 212, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Rey-Valeiron, C.; Perez, K.; Guzman, L.; Lopez-Vargas, J.; Valarezo, E. Acaricidal effect of Schinus molle (Anacardiaceae) essential oil on unengorged larvae and engorged adult females of Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2018, 76, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Jyoti Singh, N.K.; Singh, H.; Mehta, N.; Rath, S.S. In vitro assessment of synergistic combinations of essential oils against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Exp. Parasitol. 2019, 201, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
  167. Lazcano Diaz, E.; Padilla Camberos, E.; Castillo Herrera, G.A.; Estarron Espinosa, M.; Espinosa Andrews, H.; Paniagua Buelnas, N.A.; Gutierrez Ortega, A.; Martinez Velazquez, M. Development of essential oil-based phyto-formulations to control the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus using a mixture design approach. Exp. Parasitol. 2019, 201, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Goode, P.; Ellse, L.; Wall, R. Preventing tick attachment to dogs using essential oils. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018, 9, 921–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Soutar, O.; Cohen, F.; Wall, R. Essential oils as tick repellents on clothing. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019, 79, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Ferreira, F.M.; Delmonte, C.C.; Novato, T.L.P.; Monteiro, C.M.O.; Daemon, E.; Vilela, F.M.P.; Amaral, M.P.H. Acaricidal activity of essential oil of Syzygium aromaticum, hydrolate and eugenol formulated or free on larvae and engorged females of Rhipicephalus microplus. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2018, 32, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Coelho, L.; de Paula, L.G.F.; Alves, S.; Sampaio, A.L.N.; Bezerra, G.P.; Vilela, F.M.P.; Matos, R.D.S.; Zeringota, V.; Borges, L.M.F.; Monteiro, C. Combination of thymol and eugenol for the control of Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato: Evaluation of synergism on immature stages and formulation development. Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 277, 108989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Rosado-Aguilar, J.A.; Arjona-Cambranes, K.; Torres-Acosta, J.F.J.; Rodriguez-Vivas, R.I.; Bolio-Gonzalez, M.E.; Ortega-Pacheco, A.; Alzina-Lopez, A.; Gutierrez-Ruiz, E.J.; Gutierrez-Blanco, E.; Aguilar-Caballero, A.J. Plant products and secondary metabolites with acaricide activity against ticks. Vet. Parasitol. 2017, 238, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Camilo, C.J.; Nonato, C.F.A.; Galvão-Rodrigues, F.F.; Costa, W.D.; Clemente, G.G.; Macedo, M.A.C.S.; Rodrigues, F.F.G.; Costa, J.G.M. Acaricidal activity of essential oils: A review. Trends Phytochem. Res. 2017, 1, 183–198. [Google Scholar]
  174. Gross, A.D.; Temeyer, K.B.; Day, T.A.; Perez de Leon, A.A.; Kimber, M.J.; Coats, J.R. Interaction of plant essential oil terpenoids with the southern cattle tick tyramine receptor: A potential biopesticide target. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2017, 263, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  175. Ntalli, N.; Koliopoulos, G.; Giatropoulos, A.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U. Plant secondary metabolites against arthropods of medical importance. Phytochem. Rev. 2019, 18, 1255–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Marrone, P.G. Pesticidal natural products—status and future potential. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2325–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Habeeb, S.M. Ethno-veterinary and medical knowledge of crude plant extracts and its methods of application (traditional and modern) for tick control. World Appl. Sci. J. 2010, 11, 1047–1054. [Google Scholar]
  178. Pavela, R. History, presence and perspective of using plant extracts as commercial botanical insecticides and farm products for protection against insects—A review. Plant. Prot. Sci. 2016, 52, 229–241. [Google Scholar]
  179. Regulations, e.-C.E.C.o.F. Title 40: Protection of Environment, Part 152-Pesticide Registration and Classification Procedures, Subpart B-Exemptions. Available online: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=69440ce5a203b1b965485809036fa4d0&n=sp40.24.152.b&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML (accessed on 10 March 2020).
  180. Balog, A.; Hartel, T.; Loxdale, H.D.; Wilson, K. Differences in the progress of the biopesticide revolution between the EU and other major crop-growing regions. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 2203–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Isman, M.B. Botanical Insecticides in the Twenty-First Century-Fulfilling Their Promise? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020, 65, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. USDA/FDA/EPA. The Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation. Available online: https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/biotechnologygov/home/ (accessed on 10 March 2020).
  183. Borges, L.M.; Sousa, L.A.; Barbosa Cda, S. Perspectives for the use of plant extracts to control the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2011, 20, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. El-Seedi, H.R.; Azeem, M.; Khalil, N.S.; Sakr, H.H.; Khalifa, S.A.M.; Awang, K.; Saeed, A.; Farag, M.A.; AlAjmi, M.F.; Pålsson, K.; et al. Essential oils of aromatic Egyptian plants repel nymphs of the tick Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2017, 73, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  185. Pirali-Kheirabadi, K.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A. Lavandula angustifolia essential oil as a novel and promising natural candidate for tick (Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus) control. Exp. Parasitol. 2010, 126, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Lans, C.; Harper, T.; Georges, K.; Bridgewater, E. Medicinal and ethnoveterinary remedies of hunters in Trinidad. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2001, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  187. Nielsen, B.L.; Jezierski, T.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Amo, L.; Rosell, F.; Oostindjer, M.; Christensen, J.W.; McKeegan, D.; Wells, D.L.; Hepper, P. Olfaction: An Overlooked Sensory Modality in Applied Ethology and Animal Welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 2015, 2, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  188. Tronson, D. The Odour, the Animal and the Plant. Molecules 2001, 6, 104–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Banumathi, B.; Vaseeharan, B.; Rajasekar, P.; Prabhu, N.M.; Ramasamy, P.; Murugan, K.; Canale, A.; Benelli, G. Exploitation of chemical, herbal and nanoformulated acaricides to control the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus—A review. Vet. Parasitol. 2017, 244, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Pavoni, L.; Pavela, R.; Cespi, M.; Bonacucina, G.; Maggi, F.; Zeni, V.; Canale, A.; Lucchi, A.; Bruschi, F.; Benelli, G. Green Micro- and Nanoemulsions for Managing Parasites, Vectors and Pests. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Pavoni, L.; Perinelli, D.R.; Bonacucina, G.; Cespi, M.; Palmieri, G.F. An Overview of Micro- and Nanoemulsions as Vehicles for Essential Oils: Formulation, Preparation and Stability. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Panella, N.A.; Dolan, M.C.; Karchesy, J.J.; Xiong, Y.; Peralta-Cruz, J.; Khasawneh, M.; Montenieri, J.A.; Maupin, G.O. Use of novel compounds for pest control: Insecticidal and acaricidal activity of essential oil components from heartwood of Alaska yellow cedar. J. Med. Entomol. 2005, 42, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Evolva. NootkaShield. Available online: https://evolva.com/nootkashield/ (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  194. Flor-Weiler, L.B.; Behle, R.W.; Stafford, K.C., 3rd. Susceptibility of four tick species, Amblyomma americanum, Dermacentor variabilis, Ixodes scapularis, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae), to nootkatone from essential oil of grapefruit. J. Med. Entomol. 2011, 48, 322–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Jordan, R.A.; Schulze, T.L.; Dolan, M.C. Efficacy of plant-derived and synthetic compounds on clothing as repellents against Ixodes scapularis and Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Behle, R.W.; Flor-Weiler, L.B.; Bharadwaj, A.; Stafford, K.C., 3rd. A formulation to encapsulate nootkatone for tick control. J. Med. Entomol. 2011, 48, 1120–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Bharadwaj, A.; Stafford, K.C., 3rd; Behle, R.W. Efficacy and environmental persistence of nootkatone for the control of the blacklegged tick (Acari: Ixodidae) in residential landscapes. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 1035–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Jordan, R.A.; Dolan, M.C.; Piesman, J.; Schulze, T.L. Suppression of host-seeking Ixodes scapularis and Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs after dual applications of plant-derived acaricides in New Jersey. J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Pereira Junior, A.M.; Camargo-Mathias, M.I.; Daemon, E.; Peconick, A.P.; Lima-Souza, J.R.; Oliveira, P.R.; Braga, A.S.; Lara, L.J.; Remedio, R.N. Efficacy of carvacrol on Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus engorged female ticks (Canestrini, 1887) (Acari: Ixodidae): Effects on mortality and reproduction. Nat. Prod. Res. 2019, 14, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Konig, I.F.M.; Goncalves, R.R.P.; Oliveira, M.V.S.; Silva, C.M.; Thomasi, S.S.; Peconick, A.P.; Remedio, R.N. Sublethal concentrations of acetylcarvacrol strongly impact oocyte development of engorged female cattle ticks Rhipicephalus microplus (Canestrini, 1888) (Acari: Ixodidae). Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019, 10, 766–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Konig, I.F.M.; Oliveira, M.V.S.; Goncalves, R.R.P.; Peconick, A.P.; Thomasi, S.S.; Anholeto, L.A.; Lima-de-Souza, J.R.; Camargo-Mathias, M.I.; Remedio, R.N. Low concentrations of acetylcarvacrol induce drastic morphological damages in ovaries of surviving Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). Micron 2020, 129, 102780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Lima, A.D.S.; Landulfo, G.A.; Costa-Junior, L.M. Repellent Effects of Encapsulated Carvacrol on the Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2019, 56, 881–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Pound, J.M.; George, J.E.; Kammlah, D.M.; Lohmeyer, K.H.; Davey, R.B. Evidence for role of white-tailed deer (Artiodactyla: Cervidae) in epizootiology of cattle ticks and southern cattle ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in reinfestations along the Texas/Mexico border in south Texas: A review and update. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Pound, J.M.; Miller, J.A.; George, J.E.; Lemeilleur, C.A. The ‘4-poster’ passive topical treatment device to apply acaricide for controlling ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) feeding on white-tailed deer. J. Med. Entomol. 2000, 37, 588–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Schulze, T.L.; Jordan, R.A.; Hung, R.W.; Schulze, C.J. Effectiveness of the 4-Poster passive topical treatment device in the control of Ixodes scapularis and Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) in New Jersey. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009, 9, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Sonenshine, D.E.; Allan, S.A.; Norval, R.A.; Burridge, M.J. A self-medicating applicator for control of ticks on deer. Med. Vet. Entomol. 1996, 10, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Stafford, K.C., 3rd. Third-year evaluation of host-targeted permethrin for the control of Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) in southeastern Connecticut. J. Med. Entomol. 1992, 29, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Stafford, K.C., 3rd; Denicola, A.J.; Pound, J.M.; Miller, J.A.; George, J.E. Topical treatment of white-tailed deer with an acaricide for the control of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) in a Connecticut Lyme borreliosis hyperendemic Community. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009, 9, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  209. Laing, R.; Gillan, V.; Devaney, E. Ivermectin—Old Drug, New Tricks? Trends Parasitol. 2017, 33, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  210. Whitney, T.R.; Wildeus, S.; Zajac, A.M. The use of redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii) to reduce Haemonchus contortus fecal egg counts and increase ivermectin efficacy. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 197, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Whitney, T.R. Ground Juniperus pinchotii and urea in supplements fed to Rambouillet ewe lambs: I. Feedlot growth traits, blood serum parameters, and fecal characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 3676–3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. Whitney, T.R.; Lupton, C.J.; Muir, J.P.; Adams, R.P.; Stewart, W.C. Effects of using ground redberry juniper and dried distillers grains with solubles in lamb feedlot diets: Growth, blood serum, fecal, and wool characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 1119–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  213. Hoste, H.; Jackson, F.; Athanasiadou, S.; Thamsborg, S.M.; Hoskin, S.O. The effects of tannin-rich plants on parasitic nematodes in ruminants. Trends Parasitol. 2006, 22, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Eller, F.J.; Vander Meer, R.K.; Behle, R.W.; Flor-Weiler, L.B.; Palmquist, D.E. Bioactivity of cedarwood oil and cedrol against arthropod pests. Environ. Entomol. 2014, 43, 762–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Panella, N.A.; Karchesy, J.; Maupin, G.O.; Malan, J.C.; Piesman, J. Susceptibility of immature Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae) to plant-derived acaricides. J. Med. Entomol. 1997, 34, 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Pazinato, R.; Volpato, A.; Baldissera, M.D.; Santos, R.C.; Baretta, D.; Vaucher, R.A.; Giongo, J.L.; Boligon, A.A.; Stefani, L.M.; Da Silva, A.S. In vitro effect of seven essential oils on the reproduction of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. J. Adv. Res. 2016, 7, 1029–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  217. George, D.R.; Finn, R.D.; Graham, K.M.; Sparagano, O.A. Present and future potential of plant-derived products to control arthropods of veterinary and medical significance. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Representative ticks and associated tick-borne diseases of human, livestock, and wildlife, and their causative agents and hosts.
Table 1. Representative ticks and associated tick-borne diseases of human, livestock, and wildlife, and their causative agents and hosts.
Primary Tick VectorDiseaseCausative AgentHost(s)Reference
Amblyomma americanumEhrlichiosisEhrlichia chaffeensis, E. ewingiiHumans, dogs[13]
A. mixtum *Equine PiroplasmosisTheileria equi (intrastadial)Horses[13,14,15]
A. cajennenseBrazilian spotted fever (BSF)Rickettsia rickettsiiHumans, capybaras[16]
A. sculptumBrazilian spotted fever (BSF)Rickettsia rickettsiiHumans, capybaras[17]
A. variegatumHeartwaterEhrlichia ruminantiumDomestic and wild ruminants[18]
Argas persicusAvian spirochetosisBorrelia anserineTurkeys, chickens, birds[13]
Dermacentor andersoniTick paralysisTick proteinsSheep, cattle, goats, other mammals, chickens[13]
Rocky mountain spotted feverRickettsia rickettsiiWild-rodents, rabbits, humans [19,20]
Bovine anaplasmosisA. marginaleCattle, buffalo, large ruminants[21]
D. variabilisBovine anaplasmosisA. marginaleCattle, buffalo, large ruminants[21]
Rocky mountain spotted feverRickettsia rickettsiiWild-rodents, Opossums, humans [19,20]
Haemaphysalis longicornisTheileriosisTheileria orientalisCattle, buffalo[13]
Ha. leachiCanine babesiosisBabesia canisDogs[22]
Ha. spinigeraTropical theileriosisTheirleria annulataCattle, buffalo[13]
Hyalomma anatolicumOvine babesiosisBabesia spp.Sheep[22,23]
Equine babesiosisBabesia equiHorses[24]
Tropical theileriosisTheirleria annulataCattle, buffalo[25]
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic heverCrimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever virusHumans, goat, sheep, cattle[26]
Hy. marginatumSweating sicknessTick proteinsCattle, sheep, other ruminants, dogs[13]
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic feverCrimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever virusHumans, goat, sheep, cattle[27]
Hy. rufipesCrimean-Congo hemorrhagic feverCrimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever virusHumans, goat, sheep, cattle[28]
I. ricinusTick-borne encephalitisFlavivirusHumans, rodents, insectivores[13]
Babesiosis (human babesiosis and redwater fever)Babesia microti, Babesia divergensHumans, cattle[13]
I. scapularissLyme borreliosisBorrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto, B. mayoniiHumans, dogs, cats, rodents[13]
AnaplasmosisAnaplasma phagocytophilumHumans, rodents, cervids[13]
BabesiosisBabesia microti,
B. odocoilei		Humans, rodents, cervids[13,29]
Powassan virus lineage II (deer tick virus)FlavivirusHumans, rodents, insectivores[13]
Ornithodoros coriaceusAfrican swine feverIridovirusDomestic and wild pigs, warthogs[30]
O. lahorensisTick toxicosisTick proteinsCattle, sheep, birds[13]
African swine feverIridovirusDomestic and wild pigs, warthogs[13]
O. porcinusAfrican swine feverIridovirusDomestic and wild pigs, warthogs[13]
Rhipicephalus appendiculatusEast coast feverTheileria parvaCattle, buffalo[13]
R. (Boophilus) microplusBovine babesiosisBabesia bovis, B. bigeminaCattle, water buffalo[13]
HeartwaterE. ruminantiumDomestic and wild ruminants[31]
Bovine anaplasmosisA. marginaleCattle, buffalo, large ruminants[32]
R. sanguineusBoutonneuse fever/Mediterranean spotted feverRickettsia conoriiSmall mammals, hedgehogs, dogs, humans[13]
Rocky mountain spotted feverRickettsia rickettsiiDogs, humans [19,20]
* Previously identified as Amblyomma cajennense.
Table
Table 2. Tick resistance to synthetic acaricides.
Table 2. Tick resistance to synthetic acaricides.
Tick SpeciesAcaricide ClassCountry ReportedReference
Amblyomma cajennensePyrethroidsBrazil[72]
Amblyomma mixtum *PyrethroidsMexico[73]
OrganophosphateMexico[73,74]
Hyalomma anatolicumPyrethroidsIndia[75]
OrganophosphateIndia[75]
Rhipicephalus annulatusMacrocyclic lactonesEgypt[76]
PyrethroidsIran[77]
Rhipicephalus appendiculatusPyrethroidsUganda[78]
OrganophosphateUganda[78]
Rhipicephalus bursaOrganophosphateIran[79]
Rhipicephalus decoloratusPyrethroidsUganda[78]
OrganophosphateUganda[78]
Rhipicephalus microplusBenzoylphenyl ureasBrazil[80]
FormamidinesAustralia, Zimbabwe[81,82]
Macrocyclic lactonesMexico, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt[76,82,83,84,85,86]
PyrethroidsMexico, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, US, Australia, India, New Caledonia (France territory), South Africa[76,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95]
OrganophosphateMexico, Argentina, Brazil, USA, Sri Lanka, India, Australia[85,87,91,96,97,98,99]
OrganochlorineBrazil[86,100]
PhenylpyrazoleMexico, Brazil[101]
Rhipicephalus sanguineusMacrocyclic lactonesMexico[102]
PyrethroidsBrazil, Mexico, Panama, USA[102,103,104]
OrganophosphatePanama[105]
PhenylpyrazoleBrazil[103,105]
* Previously identified as Amblyomma cajennense.
Table
Table 3. Plant-derived compounds with potential for tick control and prevention.
Table 3. Plant-derived compounds with potential for tick control and prevention.
Class of CompoundCompoundFormulaSourceEffectSpecies of Tick
Monoterpeneα-pineneC10H16Plectranthus barbatus
Rosmarinus officinalis
Satureja myrtifolia		acaricideR. microplus
β-pineneC10H16Lindera melissifolia
Stylosanthes humilis
Cleome monophylla
Clausena anisata
Cannabis sativa		repellentA. americanum
R. appendiculatus
β-citronellolC10H20OPelargonium graveolens
Dianthus caryophyllus		acaricide,
repellent		A. americanum
I. ricinus
BorneolC10H18OLavandula angustifolia
Artemisia abrotanum
Cunila spinate
Origanum minutiflorum		repellentH. marginatum
I. ricinus
R. turanicus
CarvacrolC10H14OChamaecyparis nootkatensis
Gynandropsis gynandra
Origanum minutiflorum
Satureja thymbra
Lippia gracilis		acaricideH. marginatum
I. Scapularis
R. appendiculatus
CitronellalC10H18OCymbopogon nardus
Corymbia citriodora
Citrus hystrix		acaricideA. cajennens
D. nitens
I. ricinus
R. microplus
ElemolC15H26OMaclura pomiferarepellentA. americanum
I. scapularis
Eucalyptol (1,8-cineole)C10H18OEupatorium adenophorum
Lippia javanica
Ocimum species		acaricideH. longicornis
H. marginatum
R. microplus
GeraniolC10H18OPelargonium species
Cymbopogon species
Dianthus caryophyllus		acaricide,
repellent		A. americanum
A. cajennense
I. ricinus
R. microplus
LimoneneC10H16Citrus species
Copaifera reticulata
Hesperozygis ringens
Tetradenia riparia		acaricideR. microplus
LinaloolC10H18OTagetes erecta
Hesperozygis ringens
Ocimum basilicum
Origanum onites
Cymbopogon martini		acaricideH. bispinosa
R. microplus
R.turanicus
MyrceneC10H16Origanum minutiflorum
Lippia javanica
Salvia nilotica		acaricideH. marginatum
R.turanicus
PulegoneC10H16OMentha suaveolensacaricideH. aegyptium
TagetoneC10H16OTagetes speciesacaricideH. bispinosa
H. marginatum
R. sanguineus
ThymolC10H14OThymus vulgaris
Lippia sidoides
Lippia gracilis
Origanum minutiflorum		acaricideA. cajennense
R. sanguineus
R. turanicus
DiterpeneCallicarpenalC16H26OCallicarpa americanaacaricide, repellentA. cajennense
Fatty acid amideSpilantholC14H23NOAcmella OleraceaacaricideR. microplus,
D. nitens
Sesquiterpeneα-humuleneC15H24Lindera melissifolia
Stylosanthes humilis
Cleome monophyla		repellentR. appendiculatus
β-caryophylleneC15H24Syzygium aromaticum
Cannabis sativa		 I. ricinus
R. microplus
NootkatoneC15H22OChamaecyparis nootkatensis
Chrysopogon zizanioides
Citrus grandis		acaricideI. scapularis
TetranotriterpenoidAzadirachtinC35H14016Azadirachta indica
Melia azedarach		acaricideA. cajennense
R. microplus
NaphthoquinonePlumbaginC11H8O3Plumbago zeylanicaacaricideA. variegatum
OrganosulfurAllicinC6H10OS2Allium sativumacaricide, repellent H. marginatum
R. microplus
PhenylpropanoidEugenolC10H12O2Ocimum species
Artemisia species
Plectranthus barbatus		acaricideH. anatolicum
I. ricinus
R. appendiculatus
R. microplus
R. sanguineus
PyrethrinPyrethrin IC21H28O3Chrysanthemum speciesacaricideD. reticulatus
D. variabilis
I. scapularis
R. sanguineus
ResinOleoresinC18H27NO3Copaifera reticulataacaricideR. microplus
Steroidal glycosideDigitoxinC41H64O13Calotropis procera
Digitalis purpurea		acaricideH. dromedarii
R. microplus
Source: Adapted from [114], complemented by [120,125,126,127,128].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Quadros, D.G.; Johnson, T.L.; Whitney, T.R.; Oliver, J.D.; Oliva Chávez, A.S. Plant-Derived Natural Compounds for Tick Pest Control in Livestock and Wildlife: Pragmatism or Utopia? Insects 2020, 11, 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11080490

AMA Style

Quadros DG, Johnson TL, Whitney TR, Oliver JD, Oliva Chávez AS. Plant-Derived Natural Compounds for Tick Pest Control in Livestock and Wildlife: Pragmatism or Utopia? Insects. 2020; 11(8):490. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11080490

Chicago/Turabian Style

Quadros, Danilo G., Tammi L. Johnson, Travis R. Whitney, Jonathan D. Oliver, and Adela S. Oliva Chávez. 2020. "Plant-Derived Natural Compounds for Tick Pest Control in Livestock and Wildlife: Pragmatism or Utopia?" Insects 11, no. 8: 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11080490

APA Style

Quadros, D. G., Johnson, T. L., Whitney, T. R., Oliver, J. D., & Oliva Chávez, A. S. (2020). Plant-Derived Natural Compounds for Tick Pest Control in Livestock and Wildlife: Pragmatism or Utopia? Insects, 11(8), 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11080490

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop