Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Jason R. Rohr, University of Notre Dame; David Civitello, Emory University; Fletcher W. Halliday, University of Zurich; Peter J. Hudson, Pennsylvania State University; Kevin D. Lafferty, University of California, Santa Barbara; Chelsea L. Wood, University of Washington; Erin A. Mordecai, Stanford University
• Language: English
• Date: 2020-01-01
• Publisher: Springer Nature Ltd.
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2019.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Nature Ecology and Evolution
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 1
• Start Page: 24
• End Page: 33
• Grant/Funding Information: This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (EF-1241889), National Institutes of Health (R01GM109499, R01TW010286), US Department of Agriculture (NRI 2006-01370, 2009-35102-0543), and US Environmental Protection Agency (CAREER 83518801) to J.R.R., by a grant from the National Science Foundation (OCE-1829509), an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Sloan Research Fellowship, a University of Washington Innovation Award, and a University of Washington Royalty Research Fund award to C.L.W., and by grants from the National Science Foundation (DEB-1518681), the Stanford University Woods Institute for the Environment, and the Hellman Faculty Scholars fund to E.A.M.
• Keywords: Biodiversity; Animals, Wild; Ecosystem; Animals; Risk; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Communicable Diseases; Zoonoses; Humans
• Research Categories: Environmental Sciences; Biology, Zoology; Biology, Ecology; Biogeochemistry

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.