Cited by 272Zoonotic diseases and public healthParasite Biology and Host InteractionsLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Does biodiversity protect humans against infectious disease?

Open access
Wood, Chelsea L., Lafferty, Kevin D., DeLeo, Giulio, Young, Hillary S., Hudson, Peter J., Kuris, Armand M.·2014·Ecology

Abstract

Control of human infectious disease has been promoted as a valuable ecosystem service arising from the conservation of biodiversity. There are two commonly discussed mechanisms by which biodiversity loss could increase rates of infectious disease in a landscape. First, loss of competitors or predators could facilitate an increase in the abundance of competent reservoir hosts. Second, biodiversity loss could disproportionately affect non‐competent, or less competent reservoir hosts, which would otherwise interfere with pathogen transmission to human populations by, for example, wasting the bites of infected vectors. A negative association between biodiversity and disease risk, sometimes called the “dilution effect hypothesis,” has been supported for a few disease agents, suggests an exciting win–win outcome for the environment and society, and has become a pervasive topic in the disease ecology literature. Case studies have been assembled to argue that the dilution effect is general across disease agents. Less touted are examples in which elevated biodiversity does not affect or increases infectious disease risk for pathogens of public health concern. In order to assess the likely generality of the dilution effect, we review the association between biodiversity and public health across a broad variety of human disease agents. Overall, we hypothesize that conditions for the dilution effect are unlikely to be met for most important diseases of humans. Biodiversity probably has little net effect on most human infectious diseases but, when it does have an effect, observation and basic logic suggest that biodiversity will be more likely to increase than to decrease infectious disease risk.

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 · 10.1890/13-1041.1

Cites

95 of 95 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?

  • Defaunation's effects on disease are not straightforward.

    “However, the impacts of defaunation on disease are far from straightforward (71)”

    From Defaunation in the Anthropocene (2014) · cites this paper as [71]

  • It appears that few major human pathogens meet the conditions for such a pervasive relationship.

    “and few major human pathogens seem to fit the criteria that would make such a relationship pervasive (71).”

    From Defaunation in the Anthropocene (2014) · cites this paper as [71]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Esterre, P., J. P. Chippaux, J. F. Lefait, and J. P. Dedet. 1986. Evaluation d'un programme de lutte contre la leishmaniose cutanee dans un village forestier de Guyane franqaise. Bulletin de l'Organization Mondiale de la Sante 64:559-565.
  2. Llanos-Cuentas, A., and M. Campos. 1987. Identification and quantification of risk factors associated with New World cutaneous leishmaniasis. Pages 252-260 in B. C. Walton, P. Wijeyaratne, and R. Modabber, editors. Research on control strategies for the leishmaniases: Proceedings of an Interna- tional Workshop held in Ottawa, Canada, 1-4 June 1987. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Can- ada.
  3. Young, H. S., R. H. Griffin, C. L. Wood, and C. L. Nunn. 2013. Does habitat disturbance increase infectious disease risk for primates? Ecology Letters 16:656-663.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wood, C. L., Lafferty, K. D., DeLeo, G., Young, H. S., Hudson, P. J., & Kuris, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • Smithsonian Institution (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Wood, Chelsea L.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04
Volume
95
Issue
4
Pages
817-832
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2043188267
Cited by
268
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 9
FWCI
24.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1115965)
  • National Institutes of Health (OCE-1115965)
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 › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
biodiversity, infectious disease risk, ecosystem services, reservoir hosts, vector competence, pathogen transmission, biodiversity loss, disease ecology
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Biological, Animals, Communicable Diseases, Disease Vectors, Humans, Zoonoses, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Biodiversity, Host-Pathogen Interactions

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