Geology topics

Alison J. Peel

Publications and source records attributed to Alison J. Peel.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Evidence gaps and diversity among potential win–win solutions for conservation and human infectious disease control

As sustainable development practitioners have worked to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all” and “conserve life on land and below water”, what progress has been made with win–win interventions that reduce human infectious disease burdens while advancing conservation goals? Using a systematic literature review, we identified 46 proposed solutions, which we then investigated individually using targeted literature reviews. The proposed solutions addressed diverse conservation threats and human infectious diseases, and thus, the proposed interventions varied in scale, costs, and impacts. Some potential solutions had medium-quality to high-quality evidence for previous success in achieving proposed impacts in one or both sectors. However, there were notable evidence gaps within and among solutions, highlighting opportunities for further research and adaptive implementation. Stakeholders seeking win–win interventions can explore this Review and an online database to find and tailor a relevant solution or brainstorm new solutions.

The Lancet Planetary Health↗

USGS2022

Ecological and socioeconomic factors associated with the human burden of environmentally mediated pathogens: A global analysis

Background Billions of people living in poverty are at risk of environmentally mediated infectious diseases—that is, pathogens with environmental reservoirs that affect disease persistence and control and where environmental control of pathogens can reduce human risk. The complex ecology of these diseases creates a global health problem not easily solved with medical treatment alone. Methods We quantified the current global disease burden caused by environmentally mediated infectious diseases and used a structural equation model to explore environmental and socioeconomic factors associated with the human burden of environmentally mediated pathogens across all countries. Findings We found that around 80% (455 of 560) of WHO-tracked pathogen species known to infect humans are environmentally mediated, causing about 40% (129 488 of 359 341 disability-adjusted life years) of contemporary infectious disease burden (global loss of 130 million years of healthy life annually). The majority of this environmentally mediated disease burden occurs in tropical countries, and the poorest countries carry the highest burdens across all latitudes. We found weak associations between disease burden and biodiversity or agricultural land use at the global scale. In contrast, the proportion of people with rural poor livelihoods in a country was a strong proximate indicator of environmentally mediated infectious disease burden. Political stability and wealth were associated with improved sanitation, better health care, and lower proportions of rural poverty, indirectly resulting in lower burdens of environmentally mediated infections. Rarely, environmentally mediated pathogens can evolve into global pandemics (eg, HIV, COVID-19) affecting even the wealthiest communities. Interpretation The high and uneven burden of environmentally mediated infections highlights the need for innovative social and ecological interventions to complement biomedical advances in the pursuit of global health and sustainability goals. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, Stanford University, and the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The Lancet Planetary Health↗

USGS2020

How to identify win–win interventions that benefit human health and conservation

To reach the Sustainable Development Goals, we may need to act on synergies between some targets while mediating trade-offs between other targets. But what, exactly, are synergies and trade-offs, and how are they related to other outcomes, such as ‘win–win’ solutions? Finding limited guidance in the existing literature, we developed an operational method for distinguishing win–wins from eight other possible dual outcomes (lose–lose, lose–neutral and so on). Using examples related to human health and conservation, we illustrate how interdisciplinary problem-solvers can use this framework to assess relationships among targets and compare multi-target interventions that affect people and nature.

Nature Sustainability↗

USGS2020

Possibility for reverse zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to free-ranging wildlife: A case study of bats

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the substantial public health, economic, and societal consequences of virus spillover from a wildlife reservoir. Widespread human transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) also presents a new set of challenges when considering viral spillover from people to naïve wildlife and other animal populations. The establishment of new wildlife reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2 would further complicate public health control measures and could lead to wildlife health and conservation impacts. Given the likely bat origin of SARS-CoV-2 and related beta-coronaviruses (β-CoVs), free-ranging bats are a key group of concern for spillover from humans back to wildlife. Here, we review the diversity and natural host range of β-CoVs in bats and examine the risk of humans inadvertently infecting free-ranging bats with SARS-CoV-2. Our review of the global distribution and host range of β-CoV evolutionary lineages suggests that 40+ species of temperate-zone North American bats could be immunologically naïve and susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2. We highlight an urgent need to proactively connect the wellbeing of human and wildlife health during the current pandemic and to implement new tools to continue wildlife research while avoiding potentially severe health and conservation impacts of SARS-CoV-2 "spilling back" into free-ranging bat populations.

PLoS Pathogens↗

USGS2019

The expectations and challenges of wildlife disease research in the era of genomics: Forecasting with a horizon scan-like exercise

The outbreak and transmission of disease-causing pathogens are contributing to the unprecedented rate of biodiversity decline. Recent advances in genomics have coalesced into powerful tools to monitor, detect, and reconstruct the role of pathogens impacting wildlife populations. Wildlife researchers are thus uniquely positioned to merge ecological and evolutionary studies with genomic technologies to exploit unprecedented ‘Big Data’ tools in disease research; however, many researchers lack the training and expertise required to use these computationally intensive methodologies. To address this disparity, the inaugural ‘Genomics of Disease in Wildlife’ workshop assembled early to mid-career professionals with expertise across scientific disciplines (e.g., genomics, wildlife biology, veterinary sciences, and conservation management) for training in the application of genomic tools to wildlife disease research. A horizon scanning-like exercise, an activity to identify forthcoming trends and challenges, performed by the workshop participants identified and discussed five themes considered to be the most pressing to the application of genomics in wildlife disease research: i) “Improving Communication”, ii) “Methodological and Analytical Advancements”, iii) “Translation into Practice”, iv) “Integrating Landscape Ecology and Genomics”, and v) “Emerging New Questions”. Wide-ranging solutions from the horizon scan were international in scope, itemized both deficiencies and strengths in wildlife genomic initiatives, promoted the use of genomic technologies to unite wildlife and human disease research, and advocated best practices for optimal use of genomic tools in wildlife disease projects. The results offer a glimpse of the potential revolution in human and wildlife disease research possible through multi-disciplinary collaborations at local, regional, and global scales.

Journal of Heredity↗

USGS2014

Bat flight and zoonotic viruses

Bats are sources of high viral diversity and high-profile zoonotic viruses worldwide. Although apparently not pathogenic in their reservoir hosts, some viruses from bats severely affect other mammals, including humans. Examples include severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses, Ebola and Marburg viruses, and Nipah and Hendra viruses. Factors underlying high viral diversity in bats are the subject of speculation. We hypothesize that flight, a factor common to all bats but to no other mammals, provides an intensive selective force for coexistence with viral parasites through a daily cycle that elevates metabolism and body temperature analogous to the febrile response in other mammals. On an evolutionary scale, this host–virus interaction might have resulted in the large diversity of zoonotic viruses in bats, possibly through bat viruses adapting to be more tolerant of the fever response and less virulent to their natural hosts.

Emerging Infectious Diseases↗