Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate

Jason R. Rohr, David J. Civitello, Fletcher W. Halliday, Peter J. Hudson, Kevin D. Lafferty, Chelsea L. Wood, Erin A. Mordecai

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The disease ecology community has struggled to come to consensus on whether biodiversity reduces or increases infectious disease risk, a question that directly affects policy decisions for biodiversity conservation and public health. Here, we summarize the primary points of contention regarding biodiversity–disease relationships and suggest that vector-borne, generalist wildlife and zoonotic pathogens are the types of parasites most likely to be affected by changes to biodiversity. One synthesis on this topic revealed a positive correlation between biodiversity and human disease burden across countries, but as biodiversity changed over time within these countries, this correlation became weaker and more variable. Another synthesis—a meta-analysis of generally smaller-scale experimental and field studies—revealed a negative correlation between biodiversity and infectious diseases (a dilution effect) in various host taxa. These results raise the question of whether biodiversity–disease relationships are more negative at smaller spatial scales. If so, biodiversity conservation at the appropriate scales might prevent wildlife and zoonotic diseases from increasing in prevalence or becoming problematic (general proactive approaches). Further, protecting natural areas from human incursion should reduce zoonotic disease spillover. By contrast, for some infectious diseases, managing particular species or habitats and targeted biomedical approaches (targeted reactive approaches) might outperform biodiversity conservation as a tool for disease control. Importantly, biodiversity conservation and management need to be considered alongside other disease management options. These suggested guiding principles should provide common ground that can enhance scientific and policy clarity for those interested in simultaneously improving wildlife and human health.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)24-33
Number of pages10
JournalNature Ecology and Evolution
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2020

Fingerprint

biodiversity
infectious disease
infectious diseases
zoonoses
wildlife
disease control
wildlife diseases
burden of disease
community ecology
meta-analysis
human diseases
generalist
human health
public health
parasite
dilution
pathogen
parasites
synthesis
pathogens

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology

Cite this

Rohr, J. R., Civitello, D. J., Halliday, F. W., Hudson, P. J., Lafferty, K. D., Wood, C. L., & Mordecai, E. A. (2020). Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 4(1), 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6
Rohr, Jason R. ; Civitello, David J. ; Halliday, Fletcher W. ; Hudson, Peter J. ; Lafferty, Kevin D. ; Wood, Chelsea L. ; Mordecai, Erin A. / Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate. In: Nature Ecology and Evolution. 2020 ; Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 24-33.
@article{aa2c45cf9975493dbf9507512f83ddb4,
title = "Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate",
abstract = "The disease ecology community has struggled to come to consensus on whether biodiversity reduces or increases infectious disease risk, a question that directly affects policy decisions for biodiversity conservation and public health. Here, we summarize the primary points of contention regarding biodiversity–disease relationships and suggest that vector-borne, generalist wildlife and zoonotic pathogens are the types of parasites most likely to be affected by changes to biodiversity. One synthesis on this topic revealed a positive correlation between biodiversity and human disease burden across countries, but as biodiversity changed over time within these countries, this correlation became weaker and more variable. Another synthesis—a meta-analysis of generally smaller-scale experimental and field studies—revealed a negative correlation between biodiversity and infectious diseases (a dilution effect) in various host taxa. These results raise the question of whether biodiversity–disease relationships are more negative at smaller spatial scales. If so, biodiversity conservation at the appropriate scales might prevent wildlife and zoonotic diseases from increasing in prevalence or becoming problematic (general proactive approaches). Further, protecting natural areas from human incursion should reduce zoonotic disease spillover. By contrast, for some infectious diseases, managing particular species or habitats and targeted biomedical approaches (targeted reactive approaches) might outperform biodiversity conservation as a tool for disease control. Importantly, biodiversity conservation and management need to be considered alongside other disease management options. These suggested guiding principles should provide common ground that can enhance scientific and policy clarity for those interested in simultaneously improving wildlife and human health.",
author = "Rohr, {Jason R.} and Civitello, {David J.} and Halliday, {Fletcher W.} and Hudson, {Peter J.} and Lafferty, {Kevin D.} and Wood, {Chelsea L.} and Mordecai, {Erin A.}",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "24--33",
journal = "Nature Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "2397-334X",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

Rohr, JR, Civitello, DJ, Halliday, FW, Hudson, PJ, Lafferty, KD, Wood, CL & Mordecai, EA 2020, 'Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate', Nature Ecology and Evolution, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6

Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate. / Rohr, Jason R.; Civitello, David J.; Halliday, Fletcher W.; Hudson, Peter J.; Lafferty, Kevin D.; Wood, Chelsea L.; Mordecai, Erin A.

In: Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 4, No. 1, 01.01.2020, p. 24-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate

AU - Rohr, Jason R.

AU - Civitello, David J.

AU - Halliday, Fletcher W.

AU - Hudson, Peter J.

AU - Lafferty, Kevin D.

AU - Wood, Chelsea L.

AU - Mordecai, Erin A.

PY - 2020/1/1

Y1 - 2020/1/1

N2 - The disease ecology community has struggled to come to consensus on whether biodiversity reduces or increases infectious disease risk, a question that directly affects policy decisions for biodiversity conservation and public health. Here, we summarize the primary points of contention regarding biodiversity–disease relationships and suggest that vector-borne, generalist wildlife and zoonotic pathogens are the types of parasites most likely to be affected by changes to biodiversity. One synthesis on this topic revealed a positive correlation between biodiversity and human disease burden across countries, but as biodiversity changed over time within these countries, this correlation became weaker and more variable. Another synthesis—a meta-analysis of generally smaller-scale experimental and field studies—revealed a negative correlation between biodiversity and infectious diseases (a dilution effect) in various host taxa. These results raise the question of whether biodiversity–disease relationships are more negative at smaller spatial scales. If so, biodiversity conservation at the appropriate scales might prevent wildlife and zoonotic diseases from increasing in prevalence or becoming problematic (general proactive approaches). Further, protecting natural areas from human incursion should reduce zoonotic disease spillover. By contrast, for some infectious diseases, managing particular species or habitats and targeted biomedical approaches (targeted reactive approaches) might outperform biodiversity conservation as a tool for disease control. Importantly, biodiversity conservation and management need to be considered alongside other disease management options. These suggested guiding principles should provide common ground that can enhance scientific and policy clarity for those interested in simultaneously improving wildlife and human health.

AB - The disease ecology community has struggled to come to consensus on whether biodiversity reduces or increases infectious disease risk, a question that directly affects policy decisions for biodiversity conservation and public health. Here, we summarize the primary points of contention regarding biodiversity–disease relationships and suggest that vector-borne, generalist wildlife and zoonotic pathogens are the types of parasites most likely to be affected by changes to biodiversity. One synthesis on this topic revealed a positive correlation between biodiversity and human disease burden across countries, but as biodiversity changed over time within these countries, this correlation became weaker and more variable. Another synthesis—a meta-analysis of generally smaller-scale experimental and field studies—revealed a negative correlation between biodiversity and infectious diseases (a dilution effect) in various host taxa. These results raise the question of whether biodiversity–disease relationships are more negative at smaller spatial scales. If so, biodiversity conservation at the appropriate scales might prevent wildlife and zoonotic diseases from increasing in prevalence or becoming problematic (general proactive approaches). Further, protecting natural areas from human incursion should reduce zoonotic disease spillover. By contrast, for some infectious diseases, managing particular species or habitats and targeted biomedical approaches (targeted reactive approaches) might outperform biodiversity conservation as a tool for disease control. Importantly, biodiversity conservation and management need to be considered alongside other disease management options. These suggested guiding principles should provide common ground that can enhance scientific and policy clarity for those interested in simultaneously improving wildlife and human health.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076538980&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076538980&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6

DO - 10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6

M3 - Review article

C2 - 31819238

AN - SCOPUS:85076538980

VL - 4

SP - 24

EP - 33

JO - Nature Ecology and Evolution

JF - Nature Ecology and Evolution

SN - 2397-334X

IS - 1

ER -