Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-ff9ft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-03T18:57:44.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary on ‘A Candide response to Panglossian accusations by Randolph and Dobson: biodiversity buffers disease’ by Dr R. Ostfeld (Parasitology 2013, in press)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2013

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We are disappointed with Ostfeld's parochial commentary (Ostfeld, 2013) because we hoped we had addressed the dilution theory debate from a wider perspective, taking into account studies beyond those originating in New York State (Randolph & Dobson, 2012). We emphasized the inherent variability in the effects of biodiversity on the risk of zoonotic disease, noting explicitly that Ostfeld's own work allowed for positive, neutral and negative outcomes depending on the precise circumstances and biological interactions. The wider the range of studies, the greater the evidence for neutral and positive outcomes (i.e. biodiversity may have no effect or exacerbate infection risk) as the literature bias is gradually overcome. Publication bias, however, may still persist and be identified by appropriate meta-analyses (Salkeld et al., 2013).

Information

Type
Commentary
Information
Parasitology , Volume 140 , Issue 10 , September 2013 , pp. 1199 - 1200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., Kinzig, A. P., Daily, G. C., Loreau, M., Grace, J. B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D. S. and Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keesing, F., Brunner, J., Duerr, S., Killilea, M., LoGiudice, K., Schmidt, K., Vuong, H. and Ostfeld, R. S. (2009). Hosts as ecological traps for the vector of Lyme disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276, 3911–3919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keesing, F., Belden, L. K., Daszak, P., Dobson, A., Harvell, C. D., Holt, R. D., Hudson, P., Jolles, A., Jones, K. E., Mitchell, C. E., Myers, S. S., Bogich, T. and Ostfeld, R. S. (2010). Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature 468, 647–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LoGiudice, K., Ostfeld, R. S., Schmidt, K. A. and Keesing, F. (2003). The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 567–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostfeld, R. S. (2013). A Candide response to Panglossian accusations by Randolph and Dobson: biodiversity buffers disease. Parasitology 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostfeld, R. S., Canham, C. D., Oggenfuss, K., Winchcombe, R. J. and Keesing, F. (2006). Climate, deer, rodents, and acorns as determinants of variation in Lyme-disease risk. PLoS Biology 4, e145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostfeld, R. S. and Keesing, F. (2012). Effects of host diversity on infectious disease. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 43, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randolph, S. E. and Dobson, A. D. M. (2012). Pangloss revisited: a critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-buffers-disease paradigm. Parasitology 139, 847–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salkeld, D. J., Padgett, K. A. and Jones, J. H. (2013). A meta-analysis suggesting that the relationship between biodiversity and risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission is idiosyncratic. Ecology Letters 2013, doi: 10.1111/ele.12101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed