4.5 Review

Towards common ground in the biodiversity-disease debate

期刊

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 24-33

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-1518681, EF-1241889, OCE-1829509]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01GM109499, R01TW010286]
  3. US Department of Agriculture [NRI 2006-01370, 2009-35102-0543]
  4. US Environmental Protection Agency [CAREER 83518801]
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Sloan Research Fellowship
  6. University of Washington Innovation Award
  7. University of Washington Royalty Research Fund
  8. Stanford University Woods Institute for the Environment
  9. Hellman Faculty Scholars fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been intense debate as to whether biodiversity increases or reduces the risk of infectious disease. This Review is the result of researchers from both sides of the debate attempting to reach a consensus. 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据