During the study, 188 birds of 43 species were examined for ectoparasites. Of these, 71 birds (37.7%) of 21 species were migrant and 117 birds (62.2%) of 22 species were resident. A total of 631 lice, four ticks and four flies were collected from 88 birds of 27 species, which corresponds to 46.8% of all birds examined. These birds were infested with at least one ectoparasite with a mean intensity of 8.3, 1.3 and 1.0 per bird for louse, tick and fly species, respectively.
Species-wise, 41 louse species, three tick species and two ked fly species were identified, with the louse species being more prevalent (40.4%) than the fly (2.1%) and tick (2.1%) species. The voucher specimens of lice, ticks and flies were deposited at the Department of Parasitology, Bursa Uludag University, Turkey.
The species of the ectoparasite identified in this study according to parasite orders were presented in Table 1 to 3. Among the lice species,
Ciconiphilus quadripustulatus had the highest mean intensity (62.0). Table 1 shows the ecto parasite-free birds together with infested birds.
\Although some of the samples found in the study are similar to those previously made in the area, the new geographic records of lice samples were
Fulicoffula gallinula,
Ciconiphilus decimfasciatus,
Ardeicola ixobrychae and
Saemundssonia clayae. The new geographic record for the ked fly sample was
Ornithophila metallica. In addition, there are new host records for Turkey: the louse species
Pseudomenapon pilosum on common moorhens; the tick species
Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato,
Haemaphysalis punctata and
Ixodes ricinus on white storks, rooks and little owls, respectively and the ked fly species
Ornithophilus metallica on Eurasian magpies.
Individually considering the migration status of infested birds, the ectoparasite infestation rate was higher in the residents (52/88; 59.09%) than in the migrants (36/88; 40.90%).
Several researchers throughout the world have studied ectoparasitic infestations in wild birds
(Ilieva, 2005;
Lyakhova and Kotti, 2011); however, most of these studies from Turkey were on lice
(Girisgin et al., 2013; Dik et al., 2017). One of the reasons for this is that lice infestation is common on birds than other ectoparasitic infestation
(Bush and Clayton, 2018). In contrast to previous studies, the present study includes all ectoparasites (except feather mites) obtained from both migratory and resident wild birds in Bursa and surroundings, Turkey.
Rehabilitation of wild birds, especially in endangered species requires expertise and special care
(Debnath et al., 2018; Aslan et al., 2018). Ectoparasites are great menace to poultry production causing threat to growth, reproduction, behavior, or long-term survival
(Clayton and Walther, 1997;
Bush and Clayton, 2018). The dynamics of ectoparasite infestations on birds are complicated due to migration or residence, combined with other factors, such as seasonal influences and contact with each other. However, migratory birds may also face additional risks due to perilous journey. In our study, a higher ectoparasite infestation rate was determined on resident birds (59.09%). A previous study in Turkey showed a higher infestation rate on migratory birds
(Girisgin et al., 2013). Variation in rate of infestation in different type of birds could be difference in sample size, behaviors, or local conditions of birds
(Bush and Clayton, 2018).
Although the ked fly infestation rate was low (2.1%), ked flies (Hippoboscidae) can feed on the host’s blood and cause anemia
(Hutson, 1984). Most of the fly species found in this study were similar to those recorded on domestic pigeons in Turkey
(Erdem et al., 2019; reviewed in
Tezcan, 2020). In addition to the wild pigeons, a less common ked fly species (
O.
metallica) was detected on a Eurasian magpie, which is the first geographic record in Turkey.
Similar to ked infestation, low tick infestation rate (2.1%) was detected in the present study, which is consistent with that of the other studies conducted in Turkey ranging from 0.5% to 4.36%
(Leblebicioglu et al., 2014; Keskin and Erciyas-Yavuz, 2019). Nevertheless, our low numbers of ticks can, all or partially, be from accidental infestation. In addition, most of the detected ticks were larvae and nymphs, similar to those seen in previous studies in Turkey.