Ticks are among the most consequential parasites in sub-Saharan Africa, transmitting pathogens that devastate livestock herds and threaten human health across the continent. Yet despite their importance, comprehensive data on which tick species live where, and in what numbers, remain surprisingly scarce for many countries. A new study of Zambia offers one of the most detailed snapshots to date, and its findings suggest that the country’s tick communities may be changing in ways that could reshape the risk of tick-borne disease for farmers, veterinarians, and rural communities alike.

An international research team led by Dagmara Wężyk of the University of Warsaw, working with colleagues from the University of Zambia, Poznań University of Life Sciences, and institutions in Germany, set out to compare tick communities collected in two fundamentally different ways: by dragging flags through vegetation, which captures free-living ticks questing for hosts, and by examining domestic animals directly, which captures ticks attached to their hosts. This dual approach matters because the two methods sample different parts of the tick life cycle and can reveal different aspects of tick ecology. Most earlier Zambian studies had focused exclusively on livestock-associated ticks, leaving a gap in knowledge about the free-living stages that lurk in pastures, bushland, and wildlife habitats.

Between February and March 2025, the team surveyed 25 sites across three provinces: Lusaka, Eastern, and Southern. These regions were deliberately chosen to represent both wildlife-associated systems, such as areas near national parks, and agricultural systems dominated by livestock farming. The researchers collected a total of 2,270 ticks, which they identified first by morphological examination under the microscope and then, for a subset of specimens, by molecular confirmation using two genetic markers: the 16S ribosomal RNA gene and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene, known as cox1. This combination of classical taxonomy and DNA barcoding is considered the gold standard for tick identification, because morphological features can be subtle and easily misread, particularly in damaged or immature specimens.

The results, published in the open-access journal Parasites & Vectors, revealed twelve tick species across the sampled sites. One species stood out dramatically: Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, the brown ear tick, accounted for 56.2 percent of all specimens collected and was found in every region surveyed. This species is notorious as the primary vector of East Coast fever, a protozoan disease caused by Theileria parva that kills cattle across eastern, central, and southern Africa and imposes enormous economic losses on smallholder farmers. The tick reached its highest densities in wildlife-associated habitats, climbing to as much as 41.4 ticks per 100 square meters of dragged vegetation, a figure that underscores how abundant questing ticks can become in landscapes where wild ungulates serve as hosts.

Three additional species each made up between 10 and 18 percent of the total collection: Amblyomma variegatum, the tropical bont tick; Rhipicephalus microplus, the Asian blue tick; and Rhipicephalus sculptus. The presence of R. microplus is particularly noteworthy. This invasive species, originally from Asia, has been spreading across Africa for decades and is a highly efficient vector of Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina, the agents of bovine babesiosis, or redwater. It is also notorious for developing resistance to the acaricides on which many farmers depend, making its prominence in Zambian livestock systems a matter of practical concern for animal health authorities.

Observed species richness varied sharply by region. Eastern Province yielded ten species under the present sampling effort, Lusaka Province yielded five, and Southern Province yielded only one, R. appendiculatus. The authors are careful to frame these figures as observed richness rather than definitive inventories, noting that they must be interpreted in the context of the sampling design, which was not equally intensive across all sites. Nevertheless, the pattern is striking. Eleven of the twelve species were recorded in agricultural areas, while only four were found in wildlife-associated habitats, a difference that likely reflects both genuine ecological patterns and the practical realities of where and how the team could sample.

The comparison between vegetation-derived and host-derived collections proved especially revealing. Six species were collected from both vegetation and animals, four exclusively from vegetation, and two exclusively from hosts. Vegetation-derived collections were overwhelmingly dominated by just two species, R. appendiculatus and R. sculptus, which together made up 97.5 percent of the free-living ticks. Host-derived collections told a different story, dominated by A. variegatum, R. microplus, and Rhipicephalus linnaei, which accounted for 86.1 percent of the ticks removed from animals. This divergence makes biological sense: different tick species have different host-seeking strategies and host preferences, so the ticks you find questing on grass stems are not necessarily the same ones you find attached to a cow’s ear or udder. For surveillance programs, the implication is clear. Sampling only livestock would give a distorted picture of the tick species actually circulating in the environment, and vice versa.

Statistical analysis using general linear models confirmed that tick relative abundance was significantly associated with both region and habitat type, with P values below 0.001. In other words, the differences the team observed were unlikely to be chance artifacts of sampling. Geography and land use matter. A farm in Eastern Province operates within a different tick community than a ranch in Southern Province, and a wildlife edge habitat supports different tick densities than a cultivated pasture. This kind of spatial structure has direct implications for disease control, because interventions such as acaricide treatment, pasture management, or vaccination against East Coast fever can be targeted more efficiently when the local tick fauna is known.

Perhaps the most provocative element of the study is the comparison with historical records. The authors note that the current tick assemblages differ from those documented in earlier Zambian surveys, and they highlight this discrepancy as a reason for concern. Tick distributions are not static. Changes in land use, livestock movement, climate patterns, and wildlife populations can all drive shifts in which species thrive where. The substantial representation of R. microplus and A. variegatum in agricultural systems, together with the dominance of R. appendiculatus in vegetation collections from wildlife habitats, may signal that Zambia’s tick fauna is in flux. Without longitudinal monitoring, it is impossible to say whether these differences reflect genuine long-term change or differences in methodology between studies, which is precisely why the authors call for sustained surveillance.

The practical stakes are considerable. Ticks and tick-borne diseases impose billions of dollars in losses on African agriculture each year, and smallholder farmers, who form the backbone of livestock production in countries like Zambia, often lack the resources to implement intensive control programs. A better map of tick diversity and density is the foundation of any rational control strategy. It tells veterinarians which diseases to expect where, tells farmers which pastures carry the highest risk, and tells policymakers where surveillance and intervention resources should be concentrated. The study, funded by the National Science Centre of Poland under its OPUS program and conducted with ethics approval from the University of Zambia and permits from the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, demonstrates that relatively modest field campaigns combining vegetation dragging with host examination can generate actionable ecological data. As land use intensifies and climates shift across the region, the tick communities documented in this snapshot of 2025 may look very different a decade from now. Establishing the baseline today is the first step toward detecting and responding to those changes tomorrow, and the Zambian-Polish team has provided a template that other countries in the region could readily follow.

Subject of Research: Tick diversity and distribution across vegetation and domestic animal habitats in Zambia

Article Title: Diversity and distribution of ticks collected from vegetation and domestic animals in Zambia

Article References: Wężyk, D., Phiri, B. S. J., Zulu, V. C., Behnke-Borowczyk, J., Mwansa, D. K., Alsarraf, M., Dwużnik-Szarek, D., Chitimia-Dobler, L., & Bajer, A. (2026). Diversity and distribution of ticks collected from vegetation and domestic animals in Zambia. Parasites & Vectors. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-026-07729-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s13071-026-07729-y

Keywords: ticks, Zambia, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, tick-borne disease, livestock, East Coast fever, Rhipicephalus microplus, Amblyomma variegatum, vector surveillance, parasitology, wildlife habitats, agricultural systems