Skip to main content
Download PDF

Spatial and temporal activity patterns of Amblyomma americanum

Parasites & Vectors volume 18, Article number: 12 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Estimates of tick abundance and distribution are used to determine the risk of tick-host contact. Tick surveys provide estimates of distributions and relative abundance for species that remain stationary and wait for passing hosts (i.e. questing), but measures of tick populations may be less reliable for species that actively move in search of a host, such as Amblyomma americanum, the lone star tick (LST). Risk estimates for contact with adult LST require knowledge of the tick's spatial and temporal activity. Understanding the movement and the temporal patterns of host-seeking behavior will enhance risk assessment for LST.

Methods

Using CO2-baited traps over a 2-year period, we collected wild adult LST in Oklahoma. We used mark-recapture techniques to determine the distance ticks will travel, the proportion of the tick population that is detectable over time, and the relationship between tick abundance and the number of ticks detected in the field. Using video tracking software, we measured the distance traveled and activity time in the laboratory.

Results

In 24 h, LST travel up to 9 (mean = 3.2, SD = 3.6) m in the field and 36 (mean = 70.4, SD = 81.0) m in the laboratory. Marked LST were detectable in the environment for up to 14 days after release. We found that the number of recaptured ticks significantly increased with the relative abundance of ticks released, and at a minimum abundance (N = 1 tick released) LST were detectable 33.3% of the time. Across all experiments, fewer than half of marked ticks were recovered and at most 28.4% of ticks were detected with CO2-baited traps at any given time.

Conclusions

Our results show that LST actively move through the environment and pose a risk for host contact at distances of tens of meters. Ticks are detectable for several weeks, but only a fraction of them are detectable at any time. Larger numbers of ticks are detected as their population size increases, but even at very low numbers, LST are recovered with CO2 baiting. These spatial and temporal aspects of LST behavior should be considered when building predictive risk models of LST-host contact.

Graphical Abstract

Background

In recent decades, reported tick-borne pathogen infections in the USA have increased [1, 2] with the number of cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention more than doubling from 2004 to 2017 [1]. Prevention of tick-borne infections relies, in part, on estimates of tick densities, distributions, and activity patterns, because these variables affect tick-host contact [3,4,5]. For example, exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, is strongly correlated with the density of host-seeking Ixodes spp. nymphs [4], the location of nymphs along trail edges where people may encounter them [3], and the phenology of host-seeking behavior [6]. The distributions and activity patterns of ticks reflect responses to environmental conditions and behavioral mechanisms that promote host contact [5,6,7,8], and the models that best predict tick-borne pathogen risk include environmental variables that affect tick behavior and abundance [5, 7, 8].

Most tick-associated diseases are attributed to hard ticks (Ixodidae) [9] that spend most of the life cycle off the host in the open environment [10]. Tick-host contact is influenced by tick movement in the environment and the timing of host-seeking activity [11,12,13,14]. Two generic types of tick host-seeking behavior are “questing” and “hunting” [15,16,17]. Questing behavior involves the tick climbing vegetation and waiting for contact from a passing host [17, 18]. In contrast, hunting behavior involves active movement across the ground as the tick tracks and orients to host-emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) and other cues [15, 16]. Tick sampling methodologies rely on these two foraging strategies when estimating risk of tick-host contact. Dragging or flagging, which involves passing fabric over vegetation, collects questing ticks but misses active hunters which are absent from vegetation [19, 20]. In contrast, CO2-baited traps attract ticks from the area surrounding the trap which may or may not have been questing prior to detecting host cues [21]. Although these behaviors may be presented as fixed traits [12, 22, 23], they are representative of two ends of a spectrum with many ticks demonstrating some degree of both behaviors [14, 18, 24,25,26]. For example, Ixodes spp. tend to adopt the questing strategy but will crawl toward stationary hosts that are close by (≤ 50 cm) [14, 27]. In contrast, some ticks in the genus Amblyomma hunt their hosts [16, 21, 28] and prefer walking on the ground to climbing vertical structures [29], though they can be found questing on vegetation [24, 25, 30]. Studies of lone star ticks (LST; Amblyomma americanum) illustrate the potential for Amblyomma spp. to move in the environment. In the wild, LST have been reported moving 5–12 m over a 24-h period [21, 28] and up to 23 m over a 72-h period [31].

Recently, tick range expansion has become a concern regarding the spread of tick-borne pathogens [32,33,34]. The range of LST has expanded considerably since the 1890s, spreading from the southern US into the Midwest, mid-Atlantic, and southern New England [35,36,37]. The LST can directly harm livestock [38] and transmit pathogens to people, pets, and livestock. Pathogens transmitted by LST include the causative agents of Rocky Mountain spotted fever [39], Heartland virus disease [40], Bourbon virus disease [41], tularemia [42], and human monocytotropic ehrlichiosis [43], among others. In addition, LST bites are associated with alpha-gal syndrome, an induced allergy to mammalian meat that is occurring in an increasing number of people in the US [44, 45]. Given the health importance of LST and the expansion of the tick’s geographic distribution, it is important to understand the factors that affect the probability of human and animal contact with LST.

Although LST exhibits active hunting behavior [21, 28], the distance the tick can travel in the environment, the amount of time LST remains active in a location, and whether LST density affects the probability of tick contact over time are unclear from earlier studies. These knowledge gaps limit our ability to estimate the risk of LST contact and mitigate tick-borne disease. Predictive models of LST-host contact, activity, and risk for LST-borne pathogen transmission neglect horizontal tick movement [46,47,48,49]. Given that LST are highly mobile, current models likely underestimate risk of LST contact. We used a mark-recapture experimental design to determine the spatial range of LST movement toward a host cue in the field. We monitored LST re-captures over time to determine temporal activity patterns of host-seeking ticks. In addition, we determined the effect of tick abundance on the number of ticks encountered (recaptured). Lastly, we observed wild LST movement under laboratory conditions to quantify movement patterns (total distance moved and time spent moving) among individual ticks. These data provide baseline information about the movement capabilities of LST that can be used in future modeling efforts to quantify tick-host contact. We discuss the results in the context of risks for LST-borne pathogen transmission in tick habitat and risk models.

Methods

Field site location

Tick collection and mark-recapture experiments were performed at Lake McMurtry recreational area, 13 km northwest of Stillwater, Oklahoma (36.18227, -97.17741). Ticks were collected from a hardwood forest and tallgrass prairie habitat with no recent burn history (previous burns were more than 5 years prior). Mark-recapture experiments took place in hardwood forest of predominantly blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica) and post oak (Quercus stellata) (see Additional file 1_v2 for maps of the field site and mark-recapture locations).

Tick collection

Wild adult LST were collected using CO2-baited stations from May through July 2023 and March through May 2024. The stations were constructed from 9-quart (8.5-l), 33 × 23 × 20-cm, insulated coolers (Igloo Products Corp., Katy, TX) containing approximately 2.7 kg dry ice. Eight holes (0.635 cm diameter) were drilled through the sides (three holes on long sides and one hole per short side) of each cooler through which CO2 sublimed (see Additional file 1_v2 for an image of the tick trap). The stations were placed on the ground in forested areas of Lake McMurtry, and ticks that were attracted to the CO2 climbed onto the surfaces of the coolers. Collection sites were selected in areas where ticks had been previously encountered. After 24 h, adult LST were collected from surfaces of the coolers. Host-seeking adult ticks were also collected opportunistically from the surrounding vegetation and our clothing. We visually confirmed that coolers retained dry ice at the end of the 24-h sampling period. Collected ticks were stored at 10 °C ± 2 °C, 90% ± 5% relative humidity, and 14:10 light:dark day length in the laboratory until they could be marked and released or used in laboratory observations. We chose to keep ticks in a cold environment to minimize physiological aging (and any behavioral changes that may accompany it) prior to experimental tests [50]. Ticks were kept for 2–79 days before mark and release (= retention time). To avoid confounding experimental treatments with the time elapsed since tick capture, ticks from multiple retention times were used in each experiment and treatment level.

Tick marking

Adult LST were randomly selected and restrained using the method described by White et al. [51]. Briefly, painter’s tape was placed on a laboratory counter with the adhesive side facing up. Ticks were placed onto the tape ventral side down. Using POSCA paint markers (Uni Mitsubishi Pencil, Tokyo, Japan) or SmartWater fluorescent taggant (DeterTech, Telford, UK), a small mark was placed in the center of each tick’s dorsal surface so that it did not occlude the eyes or interfere with spiracular plate function. For the distance and time experiments, we first used SmartWater (three experimental cohorts) and subsequently switched to POSCA paint markers (17 experimental cohorts) because it was easier and faster to apply, and it allowed us to apply different color marks. In the abundance experiment, all ticks were marked with POSCA paint markers. We applied different colors to cohorts of ticks to ensure that ticks tested in adjacent plots could be differentiated (see Additional file 1: Figure S1 for an example of a unique marking combination).

To test whether paint marks caused mortality, we painted control ticks in two batches: (1) those collected in 2023 and (2) those collected in 2024. For the 2023 collections (distance, time, and laboratory experiments), N = 20 ticks were painted with POSCA, N = 20 were painted with SmartWater, and N = 23 were unmarked. Ticks were placed into chambers held at 10 °C ± 2 °C and 90% ± 5% relative humidity. A 14:10 light:dark cycle was maintained in all chambers. All ticks were checked daily for mortality for 1 week (the duration of the time recapture experiment). For 2024 collections (abundance experiment), N = 106 ticks were painted with POSCA and placed into chambers kept at 10 °C ± 2 °C and 90% ± 5% relative humidity with a 14:10 light:dark cycle. Mortality was checked at the end of the abundance experiment.

Distance recapture experiment

To measure distances moved by LST, we placed CO2 stations at different distances from the release point of marked ticks. Plots were located in hardwood forest habitat at Lake McMurtry, and we separated plots by a distance of at least 20 m. Prior to releasing ticks, we placed CO2 stations at one of seven distances away from the tick release point: 0, 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, or 10 m. Not all distances were tested equally, because our objective was to determine the maximum distance LST travel in a 24-h period. Thus, test distances were adjusted over the experiment relative to the furthest distance traveled in previous replicates. A 0-m control plot was included with every test distance. The 0 m distance was used as a control to confirm that the released ticks were viable and would crawl onto a station.

Movement distances were tested in separate plots, and only one distance was tested per plot. For example, one plot contained stations at the 3 m distance only, whereas a separate plot contained stations at the 9 m distance only. For distances of 1 to 10 m, we placed four CO2 stations at cardinal directions away from the tick release point. In the 0 m control plot, we placed one station 0.5 m adjacent to the location of tick release. We expected that one station placed at this distance was sufficient to verify recapture efficacy.

In each replicate plot, we released 30 marked ticks by tipping ticks out of a vial onto a single location of the ground. In each trial, the CO2 stations were left in place for 24 h to allow ticks to move towards the stations. After 24 h, ticks were collected from stations. A tick check was performed by field personnel prior to exiting the plot to ensure marked ticks were not transported out of their respective plots. The number of recaptured marked ticks was recorded for each station in a plot. Each plot was sampled a single time, except for 0 m control plots (see time recapture experiment below). Tests of LST movement were conducted from May through July 2023. We obtained daily weather data for all field experiments from the Stillwater Airport Mesonet station located approximately 8 km southeast of our field site [52, 53].

Time recapture experiment

To evaluate tick recapture over time, we re-deployed CO2 stations at multiple timepoints after tick release. For these tests, we used the 0-m control plots from the distance experiments (see previous section), where we placed a single CO2 station adjacent to the location of tick release. The 0-m control plots were used to avoid drawing ticks away and confounding effects of spatial dispersal with time. We re-deployed stations at the 0-m location in six plots from May through July 2023, and plots were sampled at 0, 3, and 7 days after marked tick release, except for one plot, which was sampled at 0 and 3 days after release. We recorded the number of marked ticks captured at each sampling timepoint.

Abundance effect experiment

To test whether recaptures were affected by the abundance of ticks, marked ticks were released in six plots at least 30 m apart at 14, 7, and 3 days prior to collection so that each plot contained groups of ticks released at the three separate timepoints. We released ticks at four relative abundance levels (60, 30, 10, and 1 tick) in each plot. We used a full factorial design such that the relative abundance levels were replicated at each release timepoint (see Additional file 2: Table S1). Thus, each plot contained 103 marked ticks that reflected a mixture of time periods between release and recapture (N = 618 total across all plots). Ticks were uniquely marked to distinguish the plot and treatment group (relative abundance + release timepoint). Fourteen days after the release of the first tick groups, a single CO2 station was placed in every plot 0.5 m from the location of tick release. Thus, all plots were sampled at the same time, and three time intervals (release to recapture) were represented in each plot. Stations were left in place for 24 h. When releasing marked ticks and deploying CO2 stations, personnel wore picaridin insect repellent and self-checked for ticks so that marked ticks were not removed from plots prematurely. Tests of abundance on LST recapture took place during June 2024.

Laboratory observation experiment

To characterize LST travel distances and activity times in the absence of environmental heterogeneity, we observed wild ticks in laboratory arenas. Wild-caught LST were stored in laboratory incubators held at conditions described in the tick collection section above. Ticks were collected from the field 13 April–1 July 2023. Time intervals between capture and laboratory recording ranged from 0 days to 5 months, and ticks were selected such that similar time intervals (i.e. retention times) were represented for each test. Ticks were placed into observation chambers (glass petri dishes), and behavior was recorded using a digital camera (Canon EOS Rebel T100, Canon Inc., Ōta, Japan) interfaced with a desktop computer. We used petri dishes with bases that nested inside a larger lid to prevent ticks from escaping. Petri dishes were placed on top of an aquarium turned on its side. A ring light with a Mylar filter was placed inside the aquarium to provide bright, diffuse illumination from below the petri dishes. The camera was placed above the petri dishes so that ticks were illuminated from below. This prevented glare from interfering with the tracking software (see Additional file 1: Figure S2 for a photo of the recording apparatus). Care was taken to ensure the focus and field of view were consistent across recordings. We recorded behavior for 24 h in a dark room with no sources of host stimuli held at approximately 24 °C and 60% relative humidity. We recorded ticks for 24 h, uninterrupted, to capture any effects of tick circadian rhythm on behavior and to limit effects of tick handling and set-up. For each trial, we quickly placed a tick into the center of each petri dish using featherweight forceps and then covered the dish with the lid. We treated walking on the petri dish lid the same as walking on the base. Chambers were cleaned prior to each observation using hot water and dish soap and then rinsed with 75% ethyl alcohol. Video recordings were analyzed with EthoVision software (Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands), and we calculated the total distance moved and time spent moving by each tick.

Statistical analyses

We used Poisson family logistic generalized linear mixed effects models to analyze the number of recaptured ticks at tested distances and abundances. For the distance experiment, we modeled the number of marked ticks recaptured as a function of distance from LST release point, with date of initial tick capture, experiment date, and plot location as random factors: Numbermarked ~ Distance + (1|Datecollection) + (1|Dateexperiment) + (1|Plot). For the abundance experiment, we modeled the number of recaptured ticks as a function of marked tick relative abundance, time since release, and the interaction of relative abundance and time; date of initial tick capture and plot location were treated as random factors: Numbermarked ~ Relative Abundance + Time + Relative Abundance * Time + (1|Datecollection) + (1|Plot). A binomial family generalized linear mixed effect model was used to analyze the recaptured proportion of ticks at days 0, 3, and 7 after release for the time experiment. For the recaptures over time, we calculated the proportion of marked ticks recaptured on day X relative to the number of uncaptured ticks in a plot on day X: Recaptured Proportion day X = number of ticks recaptured on day X / (30 – number of ticks recaptured on preceding days). We modeled the proportion recaptured as a function of time (Days = days from LST release); date of initial tick capture, experiment date, and plot location were treated as random factors: Recaptured Proportion day X ~ Days + (1|Datecollection) + (1|Dateexperiment) + (1| Plot). We used a chi-squared test to compare the numbers of ticks caught at stations in the four cardinal directions of the distance plots. Statistical analyses were carried out in R [54] using the lme4 (v. 1.1–29) [55] and rstatix (v. 0.7.2) [56] packages.

Results

Tick marking

The marking procedure had no effect on tick survival in the mark-recapture experiments. No marked or unmarked ticks died over the duration of observation (7 days), and no difference in survival was observed between ticks marked with POSCA paint, those marked with SmartWater, and unmarked ticks.

Distance recapture experiment

A total of 600 marked A. americanum were released across 20 test plots. Ninety (15%) marked ticks were recaptured across all distances (Table 1). The number of marked ticks collected declined with increasing distance from the point of release, with the most ticks recaptured at the release point, distance zero (z = -4.904, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 1) (model outputs are provided in Additional file 2: Table S2_v2). Over the 24-h test period, the median (range) number of ticks recovered across all test distances (1, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 m) was 3 (0–14) ticks. The greatest distance at which ticks were recovered was 9 m. We collected six marked ticks at two neighboring plots 30 m from their release points between 2 and 19 days after their release. The neighboring plots, which were in use for the time recapture experiment, were sampled two to four times during that period. We infer that ticks were drawn towards neighboring plots during sampling days when CO2 stations were present. Based on the linear distances from the original release points to the points of capture in neighboring plots, we estimated the distances traveled by these ticks over 24 h after their release [= (total distance traveled/total hours between release and capture) × 24 h]. The mean (range) estimated distance traveled by these ticks was 10.4 m (7.5 − 15.0 m) (Fig. 1; red asterisks). The ambient field conditions over the course of the distance experiments ranged from 8.86 − 35.24 °C and 30.49 − 99.50% relative humidity. Our model accounted for daily weather conditions by including the experiment date as a random effect (weather data are included in Additional file 3_v2). Ticks that were recaptured at distances > 0 m from the release point were not evenly distributed among the four cardinal direction traps. No plots recaptured ticks in all four traps and 42.9% of plots recaptured ticks in one or two traps. The numbers of ticks recaptured among the four cardinal directions were not statistically different (X2 = 12.988, df = 18, P = 0.6032), indicating that there was not a uniform directional bias in recaptures among all plots.

Table 1 Released and recaptured ticks at experimental distances. The greatest distance at which ticks were recaptured was 9 m. A total of 15% of marked ticks were recaptured across all distances
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The number of Amblyomma americanum adults recaptured decreased with distance from release point. We sampled marked ticks at 0, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 m distant from their release point. Black dots represent the number of marked ticks collected in 24 h. Red asterisks represent estimated distances traveled in 24 h from ticks that were collected outside of their plots. Two distances (7.5 m and 15 m) were not sampled in the field but were calculated as distances travelled within 24 h. No ticks were captured at 10 m, but two ticks were calculated to have travelled that distance within 24 h

Full size image

Time recapture experiment

Among the six plots resampled over time at the 0 m distance (point of release), 77 marked ticks (42.8%) were recaptured between days 0 and 7 (Fig. 2). There was a significant negative relationship between the proportion of marked ticks recaptured and time since release (z = -2.418, P = 0.0156). The median (range) numbers of ticks caught on days 0, 3, and 7, were 11 (1 − 14), 4 (1 − 6), and 2 (0 − 3) ticks, respectively. The mean (range) adjusted proportions of ticks recaptured on days 0, 3, and 7 were 0.29 (0.03 − 0.47), 0.17 (0.06 − 0.38), and 0.12 (0 − 0.19), respectively. Ambient field conditions ranged from 8.86 − 35.24 °C and 30.49 − 99.50% relative humidity over the course of the time recapture experiment.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The adjusted proportion of Amblyomma americanum adults recaptured through time. Adjusted proportion is the proportion of marked ticks captured of those available at the time of sampling (i.e. the proportion captured out of the number of ticks released minus those captured on previous sampling days). We sampled plots at 0, 3, and 7 days after the release of marked ticks

Full size image

Abundance effect experiment

We recaptured 170 (27.6%) ticks released in the relative abundance experiment. The total numbers of marked ticks captured from relative abundance groups of 60 (N = 360 ticks), 30 (N = 180 ticks), 10 (N = 60 ticks), and 1 (N = 18 ticks) tick(s) were 103 (28.7%), 41 (22.9%), 20 (33.3%), and 6 (33.3%), respectively. There was a significant positive relationship between the number of recaptured ticks and relative abundance of the released ticks (z = 6.651, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 3). The total numbers of marked ticks recaptured from release-time treatment groups (N = 206 ticks/group) of 14, 7, and 3 days were 54 (26.2%), 58 (28.4%), and 58 (28.2%) ticks, respectively. There was no significant effect of time since release on the number of ticks recaptured (z = 0.827, P = 0.408). Ambient field conditions ranged from 13.65−36.19 °C and 30.08−99.67% relative humidity during the 2 weeks marked ticks were in the field. A total of 1.2 cm of rain fell over 4 days between the 14- and 7-day tick releases. On two occasions, marked ticks (N = 2) were found on the author’s clothing after having released marked ticks into plots. The time and location of their release were identified, and the number of ticks in those plots was reduced accordingly.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The number of marked Amblyomma americanum adults captured across four relative abundances (N = 1, 10, 30, and 60 ticks). Points are jittered to better visualize their distribution

Full size image

Laboratory observation experiment

We observed 72 (N = 43 female, N = 29 male) wild-caught LST under laboratory conditions (Additional file 2: Table S3). Durations of time between capture and observation ranged from 0 days to 5 months. Ticks moved a maximum of 359.9 m and a mean (SD) distance of 70.4 (81.0) m (Fig. 4) and spent a mean (SD) time moving of 542.6 (336.6) min (37.7% of the observation period) (Fig. 5). Not all LST were active in this experiment. We found that 11.1% of observed ticks did not move during the 24-h observation window.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Counts of distances traveled by wild-caught Amblyomma americanum in laboratory observations for 24 h

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Counts of time spent moving by wild-caught Amblyomma americanum in laboratory observations for 24 h

Full size image

Discussion

Movement and activity patterns of hard ticks affect their distributions in the environment and the probability of host contact [5,6,7,8, 12,13,14]. We conducted a mark-release-recapture experiment with wild adult LST, A. americanum, to estimate the distances LST move, the proportion of the tick population that is detectable over time, and the proportion of the tick population that is detectable at different abundances. In addition, we measured wild LST movement in the laboratory to characterize movement parameters (distance traveled and time spent moving) in a uniform environment. We found that LST were able to move up to 9 m in the field over 24 h, and ticks moved 30 m over a period of 19 days. Spatial complexity in the field likely limited the range of LST movement. In laboratory arenas with no structural complexity, LST were observed to move 40 times farther than what we observed in the field.

Our results align with older studies of LST movement that have shown LST travel 5–21 m in a 1–3 day period after release [57] [28] [21]. This degree of movement is substantially greater than observed with non-Amblyomma tick species that travel < 1–2 m over a period of days to weeks [14, 26, 58, 59]. Our recoveries of LST also mirror previous studies that recaptured 4–26% of ticks within 24 h of release [21, 28, 57, 60]. We did not observe a consistent relationship between time post-release and recapture within the timeframe of our experiments. Our data illustrate that only a subset of the total number of ticks in an area were detected by CO2 trapping at any given time. Marked ticks that were never recaptured may have crawled out of the sampling plots, attached to hosts, entered quiescence and remained inactive at the site of release, or died. A subset (11.1%) of LST observed in our laboratory assays was inactive, indicating that at least some portion of unrecovered ticks in the wild were simply inactive at or near the site of release.

Numerous ecological and physiological factors are expected to affect tick movement and activity. These include abiotic conditions (e.g. temperature and humidity) [5, 61, 62], habitat structure (e.g. litter density) [26, 31, 46], and tick condition (e.g. age) [59, 63]. Weather conditions varied widely over the course of our experiments. We controlled for abiotic effects by including experiment date as a random effect in statistical models. This captured the multiple interacting abiotic conditions at the time of LST trapping. Experiment date affected the variation in tick recapture over time but had little effect on the distance of tick movement in the field. This suggests that weather may affect the proportion of the tick population that is detectable, but abiotic conditions may not strongly affect LST horizontal movement. Horizontal movement may be strongly affected by habitat structure (e.g. vegetation type and litter depth). Curtis et al. [14] observed that relative complexity of the vegetation and forest litter influenced movement of Ixodes scapularis over short distances (< 1 m). It was not feasible to accurately characterize micro-habitat structure in our experiments, given the range of LST movement covered up to 254 m2 of forest. Instead, we chose to include plot as a random factor in statistical models to capture variation in habitat complexity among replicates. We consistently observed that plot affected a large amount of variation in the distance LST moved and the proportion of LST recovered. This suggests that habitat complexity is an important determinant of LST movement and detection which warrants future examination.

We were not able to determine the ages of the ticks used in our studies, but it is likely that ages varied by months to over a year. Previous research has shown that many LST adults survive up to 2 years in the field [64], and we captured marked LST in 2024 that were released in 2023 (data not shown). Given the wide variation in timing of development and the long survival periods of adults, wild populations of adult LST likely represent a heterogeneous mix of ages [65]. In our experiments, we included date of initial tick collection as a random factor in statistical models to account for effects of tick age. We observed that date of collection was associated with a large degree of variance in tick movement and recovery (detection), suggesting that conditions of the ticks affected their behavior.

Host movement affects the spatial distribution of ticks [66,67,68,69] and provides the basis of host exclusion as a means of tick control [70]. In contrast, horizontal tick movement has been largely neglected in modeling approaches thus far, despite observations indicating this type of movement is involved with host acquisition and dispersal by several important tick species [14, 26, 28, 67]. Based on the marked ticks we captured in adjacent plots, we suspect that LST is drawn over long distances (tens of meters) towards host cues, which could impact the frequency at which LST contact their hosts. Inclusion of host movement and host-contact parameters have proven useful for predictive models of Ixodes spp. and Amblyomma spp. [11, 71,72,73] as have measures of intrinsic factors such as physiological age [63, 74] and water balance [11, 73]. Integration of tick movement and activity parameters such as we have presented here may improve precision of LST risk models and help focus mitigation efforts on the areas with the most impact.

Our results illustrate that LST are highly mobile and may control their spatial distributions independent of where they drop from previous hosts. The high mobility of adult LST makes them relatively fluid in the landscape and may affect the reliability of static point estimates for LST abundance. By including movement parameters, ecological models could more accurately predict distributions and densities of LST. Further exploration of the horizontal movement capabilities of medically important tick species and life stages is warranted for inclusion in population estimates and activity models. Importantly, we observed that approximately 30% of the adult LST population is detectable by CO2 trapping at any time, and undetected ticks can be recovered at later dates in the same geographic location. This suggests that undetected ticks are not absent but periodically inactive. The causes of this pattern remain to be determined, but the pattern is potentially useful for efforts to estimate LST abundance from surveillance with CO2 trapping. Our data reflect only activity and movement of adult LST. Juvenile life stages should be evaluated to better estimate entire tick populations as they may exhibit different behaviors than adults. Finally, additional information is needed on how adult LST navigates in different habitats and specifically how movement is impacted as a function of microhabitat complexity and climatic variables. Climate and habitat complexity could change LST movement and detectability. Thus, it will be important to explore effects of these factors in greater detail in the future. Further work is needed to address these knowledge gaps and should include field studies and modeling approaches.

Conclusions

Understanding dispersal and detectability is important to our assessment of risk for contacting ticks and exposure to tick-borne pathogens [75]. We observed A. americanum ticks move up to 9 m across the forest floor in 24 h and can move up to 30 m after 72 h. Approximately 30% of the tick population was detected at any given time, and ticks remained detectable in locations for up to up to 14 days after release. This implies that a subset of the tick population is actively host seeking at any given time, and further study may provide investigators the ability to improve tick surveys and better estimate tick abundance. Given that risk models for tick contact are built around point estimates of tick activity in space and time, our data suggest that current models applied to LST may only be accurate for brief periods without accounting for tick spatial activity. The movement and activity patterns of LST should be incorporated into future modeling approaches for improved accuracy in estimating tick-host contact for this species.

Availability of data and materials

All raw data are provided in the Additional file 3_v2.

Abbreviations

LST:

Lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum

References

  1. Beard CB, Visser SN, Petersen LR. The need for a national strategy to address vector-borne disease threats in the United States. J Med Entomol. 2019;56:1199–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenberg R, Lindsey NP, Fischer M, Gregory CJ, Hinckley AF, Mead PS, et al. Vital signs: trends in reported vectorborne disease cases — United States and Territories 2004–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1558/mmwr.mm6717e1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Gestel M, Heylen D, Verheyen K, Fonville M, Sprong H, Matthysen E. Recreational hazard: vegetation and host habitat use correlate with changes in tick-borne disease hazard at infrastructure within forest stands. Sci Total Environ. 2024;919:170749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Falco RC, McKenna DF, Daniels TJ, Nadelman RB, Nowakowski J, Fish D, et al. Temporal relation between Ixodes scapularis abundance and risk for Lyme disease associated with erythema migrans. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:771–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cat J, Beugnet F, Hoch T, Jongejan F, Prangé A, Chalvet-Monfray K. Influence of the spatial heterogeneity in tick abundance in the modeling of the seasonal activity of Ixodes ricinus nymphs in Western Europe. Exp Appl Acarol. 2017;71:115–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salkeld DJ, Castro MB, Bonilla D, Kjemtrup A, Kramer VL, Lane RS, et al. Seasonal activity patterns of the western black-legged tick, Ixodes pacificus, in relation to onset of human Lyme disease in northwestern California. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:790–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zając Z, Kulisz J, Woźniak A, Bartosik K, Foucault-Simonin A, Moutailler S, et al. Tick activity, host range, and tick-borne pathogen prevalence in mountain habitats of the western Carpathians. Poland Pathogens. 2023;12:1186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schulz M, Mahling M, Pfister K. Abundance and seasonal activity of questing Ixodes ricinus ticks in their natural habitats in southern Germany in 2011. J Vector Ecol. 2014;39:56–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jongejan F, Uilenberg G. The global importance of ticks. Parasitology. 2004;129:S3-14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Needham GR, Teel PD. Off-host physiological ecology of ixodid ticks. Annu Rev Entomol. 1991;36:659–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Barnard DR. Mechanisms of host-tick contact with special reference to Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) in beef cattle forage areas. J Med Entomol. 1991;28:557–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Randolph SE, Storey K. Impact of microclimate on immature tick-rodent host interactions (Acari: Ixodidae): implications for parasite transmission. J Med Entomol. 1999;36:741–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Arsnoe IM, Hickling GJ, Ginsberg HS, McElreath R, Tsao JI. Different populations of blacklegged tick nymphs exhibit differences in questing behavior that have implications for human Lyme disease risk. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0127450.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Curtis TR, Shi M, Qiao X. Patience is not always a virtue: effects of terrain complexity on the host-seeking behaviour of adult blacklegged ticks, Ixodes scapularis, in the presence of a stationary host. Med Vet Entomol. 2020;34:309–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Waladde SM, Rice MJ. The sensory basis of tick feeding behaviour. In: Obenchain FD, Galun R, editors. Physiology of Ticks. Oxford: Pergamon; 1982. p. 71–118.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Hair JA, Howell DE. Lone star ticks: Their biology and control in Ozark recreation areas. Oklahoma State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin. 1970;B.

  17. Parola P, Raoult D. Ticks and tickborne bacterial diseases in humans: an emerging infectious threat. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32:897–928.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hair JA, Bowman JL. Behavioral ecology of Amblyomma americanum. In: Sauer JR, Hair JA, editors. Morphology, physiology, and behavioral biology of ticks. New York: Halsted Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kinzer DR, Presley SM, Hair JA. Comparative efficiency of flagging and carbon dioxide-baited sticky traps for collecting the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (Acarina: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol. 1990;27:750–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salomon J, Hamer SA, Swei A. A beginner’s guide to collecting questing hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae): a standardized tick dragging protocol. J Insect Sci. 2020;20:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson JG, Kinzer DR, Sauer JR, Hair JA. Chemo-attraction in the lone star tick (Acarina: Ixodidae): I Response of different developmental stages to carbon dioxide administered via traps. J Med Entomol. 1972;9:245–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonenshine DE, Stout IJ. Use of old-field habitats by the American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1968;61:679–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Randolph SE, Steele GM. An experimental evaluation of conventional control measures against the sheep tick Ixodes ricinus (L) (Acari: Ixodidae). II. The dynamics of the tick-host interaction. Bull Entom Res. 1985;75:501–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Semtner PJ, Hair JA. The ecology and behavior of the lone star tick (Acarina: Ixodidae) .IV. The daily and seasonal activity patterns of adults in different habitat types. J Med Entomol. 1973;10:337–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Richardson EA, Buttrick DJ, Shablin SA, Jabot B, Taylor CE, Martin EM, et al. Exploring the effects of pathogen infection on tick behaviour from individuals to populations. Anim Behav. 2022;186:85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carroll JF, Schmidtmann ET. Dispersal of blacklegged tick (Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs and adults at the woods–pasture interface. J Med Entomol. 1996;33:554–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goddard J. Ecological studies of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) in central Mississippi: lateral movement of adult ticks. J Med Entomol. 1993;30:824–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kensinger BJ, Allan BF. Efficacy of dry ice-baited traps for sampling Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) varies with life stage but not habitat. J Med Entomol. 2011;48:708–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Otálora-Luna F, Dickens JC, Brinkerhoff J, Li AY. Geotropic, hydrokinetic and random walking differ between sympatric tick species: the deer tick Ixodes scapularis and the lone star tick Ambylomma americanum. J Ethol. 2022;40:133–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ramos V, do N, Osava CF, Piovezan U, Szabó MPJ. Ambush behavior of the tick Amblyomma sculptum (Amblyomma cajennense complex) (Acari: Ixodidae) in the Brazilian Pantanal. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017;8:506–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Smittle BJ, Hill SO, Philips FM. Migration and dispersal patterns of Fe59-labeled lone star ticks. J Econ Entomol. 1967;60:1029–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu J, Han X-Y, Ye R-Z, Xu Q, Wang X-Y, Li Z-H, et al. An integrated data analysis reveals distribution, hosts, and pathogen diversity of Haemaphysalis concinna. Parasit Vectors. 2024;17:92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Namgyal J, Couloigner I, Lysyk TJ, Dergousoff SJ, Cork SC. Comparison of habitat suitability models for Haemaphysalis longicornis Neumann in North America to determine its potential geographic range. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:8285.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Sonenshine DE. Range expansion of tick disease vectors in North America: implications for spread of tick-borne disease. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:478.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Raghavan RK, Peterson AT, Cobos ME, Ganta R, Foley D. Current and future distribution of the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (L.) (Acari: Ixodidae) in North America. PLOS ONE. 2019. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1371/journal.pone.0209082.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Springer YP, Eisen L, Beati L, James AM, Eisen RJ. Spatial distribution of counties in the continental United States with records of occurrence of Amblyomma americanum (Ixodida: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol. 2014;51:342–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stafford KC III, Molaei G, Little EAH, Paddock CD, Karpathy SE, Labonte AM. Distribution and establishment of the lone star tick in Connecticut and implications for range expansion and public health. J Med Entomol. 2018;55:1561–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Barnard DR. Injury thresholds and production loss functions for the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae), on pastured, preweaner beef cattle. Bos taurus J Econ Entomol. 1985;78:852–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Levin ML, Zemtsova GE, Killmaster LF, Snellgrove A, Schumacher LBM. Vector competence of Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) for Rickettsia rickettsii. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017;8:615–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Savage HM, Godsey MS, Lambert A, Panella NA, Burkhalter KL, Harmon JR, et al. 2013. First detection of Heartland virus Bunyaviridae Phlebovirus from field collected arthropods. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 89 445–52

  41. Savage HM, Burkhalter KL, Godsey MS, Panella NA, Ashley DC, Nicholson WL, et al. 2017. Bourbon virus in field-collected ticks Missouri USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 23: 2017–22

  42. Hopla CE. The transmission of tularemia organisms by ticks in the southern States. South Med J. 1960;53:92–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mixson TR, Ginsberg HS, Campbell SR, Sumner JW, Paddock CD. Detection of Ehrlichia chaffeensis in adult and nymphal Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) ticks from Long Island. New York J Med Entomol. 2004;41:1104–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Commins SP, James HR, Kelly LA, Pochan SL, Workman LJ, Perzanowski MS, et al. The relevance of tick bites to the production of IgE antibodies to the mammalian oligosaccharide galactose-α-1,3-galactose. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127:1286-1293.e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Thompson J, Carpenter A, Kersh G, Wachs T, Commins S, Salzer J. Geographic distribution of suspected alpha-gal syndrome cases — United States, January 2017–December 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:815–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaizer AM, Foré SA, Kim H-J, York EC. Modeling the biotic and abiotic factors that describe the number of active off-host Amblyomma americanum larvae. J Vector Ecol. 2015;40:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mangan MJ, Foré SA, Kim H-J. Ecological modeling over seven years to describe the number of host-seeking Amblyomma americanum in each life stage in northeast Missouri. J Vector Ecol. 2018;43:271–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mount GA, Haile DG, Barnard DR, Daniels E. New version of LSTSIM for computer simulation of Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) population dynamics. J Med Entomol. 1993;30:843–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang H-H, Grant WE, Teel PD. Simulation of climate–host–parasite–landscape interactions: A spatially explicit model for ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). Ecol Model. 2012;243:42–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Levin ML, Schumacher LBM. Manual for maintenance of multi-host ixodid ticks in the laboratory. Exp Appl Acarol. 2016;70:343–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. White A, Minch R, Bidder L, Gaff H. A simple, inexpensive method for mark-recapture of ixodid ticks. J Insect Sci. 2020;20:9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Brock FV, Crawford KC, Elliott RL, Cuperus GW, Stadler SJ, Johnson HL, et al. The Oklahoma Mesonet: a technical overview. J Atmos Ocean Technol. 1995;12:5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. McPherson RA, Fiebrich CA, Crawford KC, Kilby JR, Grimsley DL, Martinez JE, et al. Statewide monitoring of the mesoscale environment: a technical update on the Oklahoma Mesonet. J Atmos Ocean Technol. 2007;24:301–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2023. https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 8 Feb 2024.

  55. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67:1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kassambara A. rstatix: pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests. 2023. https://rpkgs.datanovia.com/rstatix/. Accessed 8 Feb 2024.

  57. Koch HG, McNew RW. Sampling of lone star ticks (Acari: Ixodidae): dry ice quantity and capture success. An Entomol Soc. 1982;75:579–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Buczek A, Zając Z, Woźniak A, Kulina D, Bartosik K. Locomotor activity of adult Dermacentor reticulatus ticks (Ixodida: Ixodidae) in natural conditions. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2017;24:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Crooks E, Randolph SE. Walking by Ixodes ricinus ticks: intrinsic and extrinsic factors determine the attraction of moisture or host odour. J Exp Biol. 2006;209:2138–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Goddard J, Goddard J II, Wang X. Proportion of adult lone star ticks (Amblyomma americanum) questing in a tick population. J Miss Acad Sci. 2009;54:206–10.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kiewra D, Kryza M, Szymanowski M. Influence of selected meteorological variables on the questing activity of Ixodes ricinus ticks in Lower Silesia. SW Poland J Vector Ecol. 2014;39:138–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. MacDonald AJ, O’Neill C, Yoshimizu MH, Padgett KA, Larsen AE. Tracking seasonal activity of the western blacklegged tick across California. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:2562–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mangan MJ, Foré SA, Kim H-J. Seasonal changes in questing efficiency of wild Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2022;13:101988.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Semtner PJ, Hair JA. The ecology and behavior of the lone star tick (Acarina Ixodidae): X. Adult overwintering and survival in woodlots. J Med Entomol. 1976. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/jmedent/13.2.216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mangan MJ, Foré SA, Kim H-J. Using haem concentration as a metric of physiological age to infer demographic structure in natural field and forest populations of host-seeking Amblyomma americanum adults. Int J Acarology. 2020;46:258–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Busch JD, Stone NE, Nottingham R, Araya-Anchetta A, Lewis J, Hochhalter C, et al. Widespread movement of invasive cattle fever ticks (Rhipicephalus microplus) in southern Texas leads to shared local infestations on cattle and deer. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Hoch T, Monnet Y, Agoulon A. Influence of host migration between woodland and pasture on the population dynamics of the tick Ixodes ricinus: a modelling approach. Ecol Model. 2010;221:1798–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Qviller L, Viljugrein H, Loe LE, Meisingset EL, Mysterud A. The influence of red deer space use on the distribution of Ixodes ricinus ticks in the landscape. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:545.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Ruiz-Fons F, Gilbert L. The role of deer as vehicles to move ticks, Ixodes ricinus, between contrasting habitats. Int J Parasitol. 2010;40:1013–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Stafford KC III, Williams SC, Molaei G. Integrated pest management in controlling ticks and tick-associated diseases. J Integr Pest Manag. 2017;8:28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Dobson ADM. History and complexity in tick-host dynamics: discrepancies between ‘real’ and ‘visible’ tick populations. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:231.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Halsey SJ, Miller JR. A spatial agent-based model of the disease vector Ixodes scapularis to explore host-tick associations. Ecol Model. 2018;387:96–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. McClure M, Diuk-Wasser MA. Climate impacts on blacklegged tick host-seeking behavior. Int J Parasitol. 2019;49:37–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Bouzek DC, Foré SA, Bevell JG, Kim H-J. A conceptual model of the Amblyomma americanum life cycle in northeast Missouri. J Vector Ecol. 2013;38:74–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Bowler DE, Benton TG. Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev. 2005;80:205–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lake McMurtry Friends for use of their facilities for tick collection and field experiments. The authors thank Oklahoma State University College of Veterinary Medicine for use of their facilities. The authors thank our two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and criticisms.

Funding

This work received financial support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-SBIR Phase II # 2021–39412-35662). KCP was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service (Project #2090–32000-040–000-D). Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, Washington State University, 100 Dairy Road, Pullman, WA, USA

    Daniel S. Marshall & Jeb P. Owen

  2. Animal Disease Research Unit, USDA ARS, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 4015 ADBF, USA

    Karen C. Poh

  3. Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, 250 McElroy Hall, Stillwater, OK, USA

    Mason V. Reichard & Lindsay A. Starkey

Authors
  1. Daniel S. Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen C. Poh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mason V. Reichard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lindsay A. Starkey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeb P. Owen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DSM and JPO designed the experiments and drafted the original draft of the manuscript. DSM and KCP performed data collection. DSM and KCP conducted data analysis. DSM, KCP, MVR, LAS, and JPO provided substantial feedback on the analysis and draft. All authors approve the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel S. Marshall.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

13071_2025_6661_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Supplementary material 1 Figure S1. Demonstration of marking combinations used for the abundance mark-recapture experiment. Figure S2. Image of laboratory behavior recording apparatus. Figure S3. Image of the dry ice traps used to recapture marked ticks. Figure S4. Map of central Oklahoma, USA. Figure S5. Map of Lake McMurtry, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. Figure S6. Map of mark-recapture sites at Lake McMurtry East Recreation Area, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.

13071_2025_6661_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

Supplementary material 2 Table S1. The number of marked ticks released at timepoints prior to collection of the relative abundance experiment. Additional file 2_v2: Table S2. Model outputs for distance, time, and relative abundance experiments. Additional file 2_v2: Table S3. Distances and activity times of male and female Amblyomma americanum in the laboratory.

13071_2025_6661_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx

Supplementary material 3 Datasets of Amblyomma americanum mark-recapture distances and times, cardinal direction points, 30-m recaptures, relative abundances, and laboratory observations of distances traveled and activity times.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marshall, D.S., Poh, K.C., Reichard, M.V. et al. Spatial and temporal activity patterns of Amblyomma americanum. Parasites Vectors 18, 12 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13071-025-06661-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13071-025-06661-x

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us