Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 13;6(3):181577.
doi: 10.1098/rsos.181577. eCollection 2019 Mar.

Emerging infectious diseases and biological invasions: a call for a One Health collaboration in science and management

Nick H Ogden  1   2 , John R U Wilson  3   4 , David M Richardson  3 , Cang Hui  5   6 , Sarah J Davies  3 , Sabrina Kumschick  3   4 , Johannes J Le Roux  3   7 , John Measey  3 , Wolf-Christian Saul  3   5 , Juliet R C Pulliam  2
Affiliations

Emerging infectious diseases and biological invasions: a call for a One Health collaboration in science and management

Nick H Ogden et al. R Soc Open Sci. .

Abstract

The study and management of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and of biological invasions both address the ecology of human-associated biological phenomena in a rapidly changing world. However, the two fields work mostly in parallel rather than in concert. This review explores how the general phenomenon of an organism rapidly increasing in range or abundance is caused, highlights the similarities and differences between research on EIDs and invasions, and discusses shared management insights and approaches. EIDs can arise by: (i) crossing geographical barriers due to human-mediated dispersal, (ii) crossing compatibility barriers due to evolution, and (iii) lifting of environmental barriers due to environmental change. All these processes can be implicated in biological invasions, but only the first defines them. Research on EIDs is embedded within the One Health concept-the notion that human, animal and ecosystem health are interrelated and that holistic approaches encompassing all three components are needed to respond to threats to human well-being. We argue that for sustainable development, biological invasions should be explicitly considered within One Health. Management goals for the fields are the same, and direct collaborations between invasion scientists, disease ecologists and epidemiologists on modelling, risk assessment, monitoring and management would be mutually beneficial.

Keywords: One Health; biological invasion; emerging infectious disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Biological invasions and EIDs as components of One Health. The schematic combines an adaptation of the IPBES Conceptual Framework [29] with a schematic of the One Health concept. The IPBES Conceptual Framework illustrates the interplay between anthropogenic and natural drivers of change in nature (biodiversity and ecosystems) (black boxes and arrows) and how this connects ecosystem services to human well-being (+ve effects, blue box and arrows). We also identify connections to ecosystem disservices, such as those caused by EIDs and invasive species (−ve effects, red box and arrows). For simplicity, positive effects of invasive species are not shown. The One Health concept (green circle) encompasses the IPBES Conceptual Framework, with its interacting human, animal and environment components.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
An example of indirect effects of invasive species on human health. Here, the indirect impact is water availability, which in South Africa is imperilled by invasive plants that are ‘thirsty’ (i.e. take up water at rates that significantly reduce water flows), climate change-induced drought and the competing requirements of drinking water for human populations, livestock production and other agricultural enterprises. How this issue is central to the One Health concept is illustrated by the interacting human, animal and environment components of the water availability problem as indicated by dashed circles. These circles indicate the main impacts of humans (the anthropogenic impacts), animals (the consumption of water by livestock and the consequent need to drill boreholes) and the environment (rainfall and plant communities).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
A conceptual diagram of the barriers to biological invasions and EIDs and how they limit species invasions and disease emergence. Processes whereby barriers may be breached are shown in the central box, and an example of these (from the introduction of West Nile virus (WNV) to North America) is shown in the box to the right. Note the only prerequisite for biological invasions is that there is dispersal across a geographical barrier (evolution and environmental change are not required if conditions are already suitable). By contrast, an EID can arise either through evolution leading to the breakdown in a compatibility barrier or environmental change breaking an environmental barrier without there being dispersal over a geographical barrier (cf. table 1). Moreover, the order of the barriers crossed can vary. For example, in the emergence of HIV, a compatibility barrier was first crossed (non-human primate to human) before the global spread of the pandemic. The insect collage used under ‘species that are introduced’ in Figure 3 was sourced from Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA 3.0; see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Insect_collage.png). We acknowledge the original author of the work: ‘BugBoy52.40’.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
A One Health approach to the management of EIDs and biological invasions. The continuum of possible invasion/EID management functions, their policy or programme objectives, and the research activities that support their development are shown. The rows of boxes represent the different fields involved in responding to EIDs and biological invasions: management programmes, policy development and scientific research. The columns represent different stages of response to EIDs and invasions and how, as indicated by numbered red arrows, emphasis may change from general research into risks of EIDs and invasions, to focus on: (1) particular potential threats; (2) species/EIDs detected as invading; and (3) ongoing management of EIDs and invasive species.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Tatem AJ, Hay SI, Rogers DJ. 2006. Global traffic and disease vector dispersal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 6242–6247. (10.1073/pnas.0508391103) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hulme PE, et al. 2008. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 403–414. (10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01442.x) - DOI
    1. Wilson JRU, Dormontt EE, Prentis PJ, Lowe AJ, Richardson DM. 2009. Something in the way you move: dispersal pathways affect invasion success. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 136–144, (10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.007) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pyšek P, Richardson DM. 2010. Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 25–55. (10.1146/annurev-environ-033009-095548) - DOI
    1. Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL, Daszak P. 2008. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451, 990–993. (10.1038/nature06536) - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources