PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Jordan T. Mandli
AU  - Sydney E. Ring
AU  - Susan M. Paskewitz
TI  - Influence of Nesting Material Composition on Tick Tube Use by <em>Peromyscus leucopus</em>
AID  - 10.1101/2022.01.07.475426
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - bioRxiv
PG  - 2022.01.07.475426
4099  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/09/2022.01.07.475426.short
4100  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/09/2022.01.07.475426.full
AB  - Host-targeted acaricides are a valuable tool for the reduction of ticks and tick-borne disease. Tick tubes (also known as tick control tubes) are commercially available products containing permethrin-treated nesting materials. Through superficial acaricide application to Peromyscus mice, tick tubes reduce populations of the blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis Say. Results of prior field trials have varied, suggesting that mouse behavior as well as the scale of the intervention and the composition of the local host community are important determinants of efficacy. Here we evaluated behaviors related to nest material collection by P. leucopus. Two forms of nest materials used in commercial tick tube products (cotton batting and balls) were assessed through side-by-side comparisons over a four-week period. We quantified cotton uptake by monitoring weekly changes in material weight and used video surveillance to categorize and assess mouse behaviors. The odds of cotton batting being taken from tubes was 2.14 times greater than cotton balls but the process was less efficient; mice removed 0.35 g less cotton batting for each removal event and required 2.17 times longer to complete the removal. While cotton balls were readily carried in the jaws of mice, batting required separating smaller fragments from the mass before placement in the oral cavity. Video surveillance suggested that a small number of mice were super users and responsible for 22% of the 119 visits in which material was removed. Combined, material weight loss and video-captured removal events improve our understanding of host usage of nest materials but also raise questions about dissemination of the material in nests of the local mouse community.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.