Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 5, Number 1—February 1999

Research

Long-Term Hantavirus Persistence in Rodent Populations in Central Arizona

Ken D. Abbott*Comments to Author , Thomas G. Ksiazek†, and James N. Mills†
Author affiliations: *Yavapai College, Prescott, Arizona, USA;; †Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Main Article

Table 1

Sin Nombre virus–antibody-positive mice and hantavirus prevalence at three mark-recapture webs, December 1995–November 1997a

Trapping webs
Species S-1 S-2 C-1b Totals
Peromyscus boylii 76/286/109 74/516/178 3/56/22 153/858/309
(Brush mouse) (26.6%) (14.3%) (5.4%) (17.8%)
Peromyscus truei 3/165/67 5/133/55 0/15/8 8/313/130
(Pinyon mouse) (2.0%) (3.8%) (0.0%) (2.6%)
Tamias dorsalis 0/73/40 0/83/29 0/19/9 0/175/78
(Cliff chipmunk) (0.0%)
Dipodomys ordii 0/3/2 0/33/13 0/7/3 0/43/18
(Ord's kangaroo rat) (0.0%)
Onychomys leucogaster 0 0/10/3 0 0/10/3
(Northern grasshopper mouse) (0.0%)
Neotoma stephensi 0/3/1 0/2/2 0/3/2 0/8/5
(Stephen's woodrat) (0.0%)
Neotoma albigula 0/1/4 0/4/1 0/2/1 0/7/6
(White-throated wood rat) (0.0%)
Reithrodontomys megalotis 0 0/4/4 0 0/4/4
(Western harvest mouse) (0.0%)
All species 79/531/223 79/785/285 3/102/45 161/1,418/553

aPositive samples/number of samples tested/number individuals tested. Values in parentheses are hantavirus antibody prevalences for 35 months based on the number of samples tested.
bC-1 was initially a control web; serologic sampling began in October 1996.

Main Article

TOP