Search

Costa Rica has benefited from effective vaccination campaigns to eliminate canine rabies virus infections. Still, the virus has endured, spread by vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus) to cattle, with rare but [...]

Many of the world's most pressing issues, such as the emergence of zoonotic diseases, can only be addressed through interdisciplinary research. However, the findings of interdisciplinary research are susceptible to miscommunication among both professional and non-professional audiences due to differences in training, language, experience, and understanding. Such miscommunication contributes to the misunderstanding of key concepts or processes and hinders the development of effective research agendas and public policy. These misunderstandings can also provoke unnecessary fear in the public and have devastating effects for wildlife conservation. For example, inaccurate communication and subsequent misunderstanding of the potential associations between certain bats and zoonoses has led to persecution of diverse bats worldwide and even government calls to cull them. Here, we identify four types of miscommunication driven by the use of terminology regarding bats and the emergence of zoonotic diseases that we have categorized based on their root causes: (1) incorrect or overly broad use of terms; (2) terms that have unstable usage within a discipline, or different usages among disciplines; (3) terms that are used correctly but spark incorrect inferences about biological processes or significance in the audience; (4) incorrect inference drawn from the evidence presented. We illustrate each type of miscommunication with commonly misused or misinterpreted terms, providing a definition, caveats and common misconceptions, and suggest alternatives as appropriate. While we focus on terms specific to bats and disease ecology, we present a more general framework for addressing miscommunication that can be applied to other topics and disciplines to facilitate more effective research, problem-solving, and public policy.

Bartonella, the causative agent of bartonellosis, is a genus of gram-negative bacteria. Bartonellosis causes a range of symptoms from severe to life-threatening (e.g., endocarditis and meningitis). Clinical syndromes from Bartonella [...]

During the past 2 decades we have observed zoonotic outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012 (1,2). These [...]

Human activities have increased the intensity and frequency of natural stressors and created novel stressors, altering host–pathogen interactions and changing the risk of emerging infectious diseases. Despite the ubiquity of such anthropogenic impacts, predicting the directionality of outcomes has proven challenging. Here, we conduct a review and meta‐analysis to determine the primary mechanisms through which stressors affect host–pathogen interactions and to evaluate the impacts stress has on host fitness (survival and fecundity) and pathogen infectivity (prevalence and intensity). We assessed 891 effect sizes from 71 host species (representing seven taxonomic groups) and 78 parasite taxa from 98 studies. We found that infected and uninfected hosts had similar sensitivity to stressors and that responses varied according to stressor type. Specifically, limited resources compromised host fecundity and decreased pathogen intensity, while abiotic environmental stressors (e.g., temperature and salinity) decreased host survivorship and increased pathogen intensity, and pollution increased mortality but decreased pathogen prevalence. We then used our meta‐analysis results to develop susceptible–infected theoretical models to illustrate scenarios where infection rates are expected to increase or decrease in response to resource limitations or environmental stress gradients. Our results carry implications for conservation and disease emergence and reveal areas for future work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]