|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Pangloss revisited: A critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-buffers-disease paradigm|
|Authors:||Randolph, Sarah E|
|Publisher:||Cambridge University Press|
|Citation:||Randolph SE & Dobson A (2012) Pangloss revisited: A critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-buffers-disease paradigm, Parasitology, 139 (7), pp. 847-863.|
|Abstract:||The twin concepts of zooprophylaxis and the dilution effect originated with vector-borne diseases (malaria), were driven forward by studies on Lyme borreliosis and have now developed into the mantra "biodiversity protects against disease". The basic idea is that by diluting the assemblage of transmission-competent hosts with non-competent hosts, the probability of vectors feeding on transmission-competent hosts is reduced and so the abundance of infected vectors is lowered. The same principle has recently been applied to other infectious disease systems - tick-borne, insect-borne, indirectly transmitted via intermediate hosts, directly transmitted. It is claimed that the presence of extra species of various sorts, acting through a variety of distinct mechanisms, causes the prevalence of infectious agents to decrease. Examination of the theoretical and empirical evidence for this hypothesis reveals that it applies only in certain circumstances even amongst tick-borne diseases, and even less often if considering the correct metric - abundance rather than prevalence of infected vectors. Whether dilution or amplification occurs depends more on specific community composition than on biodiversity per se. We warn against raising a straw man, an untenable argument easily dismantled and dismissed. The intrinsic value of protecting biodiversity and ecosystem function outweighs this questionable utilitarian justification.|
|Rights:||Publisher policy allows this work to be made available in this repository. Published in Parasitology / Volume 139 / Issue 07 / June 2012, pp 847-863 Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012. The original publication is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031182012000200|
|Affiliation:||University of Oxford|
Biological and Environmental Sciences
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.