Cited by 270Zoonotic diseases and public healthParasite Biology and Host InteractionsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate

Open access
Rohr, Jason R., Civitello, David J., Halliday, Fletcher W., Hudson, Peter J., Lafferty, Kevin D., Wood, Chelsea L., Mordecai, Erin A.·2019·Nature Ecology & Evolution

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The more general idea that biodiversity can reduce human disease risk has been controversial, largely because biodiversity was thought to be a source of new zoonotic pathogens via spillover.

    “Despite abundant evidence for the dilution effect, the more general idea that biodiversity can reduce human disease risk has been controversial (47, 59), in large part because biodiversity was thought to be a source of new zoonotic pathogens via spillover (in the sense of Fig. 1A) (5, 8, 17, 47).”

    From Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases (2021) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Main section describes intense debate over whether biodiversity reduces infectious disease risk. ‘Extrapolations beyond collected data’ discusses a proposed link between high vertebrate diversity and zoonotic disease establishment and transmission in humans, but says not all steps have strong support. It does not say that concern about spillover was a major reason for the controversy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [51]Ostfeld, R. S., Thomas, M. B. & Keesing, F. in Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Well-Being: An Ecological and Economic Perspective (eds Naeem, S. et al.) 209–216 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rohr, J. R., Civitello, D. J., Halliday, F. W., Hudson, P. J., Lafferty, K. D., Wood, C. L., & Mordecai, E. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Rohr, Jason R.
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Published
2019-12-09
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
24-33
ISSN
2397-334X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2993294584
Cited by
270
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (R01GM109499, 1241889, 1829509, CAREER, 1518681)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (CAREER 83518801, 83518801)
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRI 2006-01370, 2006-01370, R01GM109499, 2009-35102-0543, EF-1241889, NRI 2006-01370, 2009-35102-0543)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • University of Washington
  • National Institutes of Health (EF-1241889)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM109499)
  • Fogarty International Center (R01TW010286)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Zoonotic diseases and public health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Parasite Biology and Host Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
infectious disease risk, dilution effect, zoonoses, vector-borne diseases, wildlife pathogens, biodiversity conservation, disease management, spatial scale, disease burden
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Wild, Communicable Diseases, Humans, Risk, Zoonoses, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Ecosystem, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review