14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The relationship between physiological stress and wildlife disease: consequences for health and conservation

      , , ,
      Wildlife Research
      CSIRO Publishing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Emerging Infectious Diseases of Wildlife-- Threats to Biodiversity and Human Health

          P. Daszak (2000)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being☆

            Faced with complex patterns of global change, the inextricable interconnection of humans, pet animals, livestock and wildlife and their social and ecological environment is evident and requires integrated approaches to human and animal health and their respective social and environmental contexts. The history of integrative thinking of human and animal health is briefly reviewed from early historical times, to the foundation of universities in Europe, up to the beginning of comparative medicine at the end of the 19th century. In the 20th century, Calvin Schwabe coined the concept of “one medicine”. It recognises that there is no difference of paradigm between human and veterinary medicine and both disciplines can contribute to the development of each other. Considering a broader approach to health and well-being of societies, the original concept of “one medicine” was extended to “one health” through practical implementations and careful validations in different settings. Given the global health thinking in recent decades, ecosystem approaches to health have emerged. Based on complex ecological thinking that goes beyond humans and animals, these approaches consider inextricable linkages between ecosystems and health, known as “ecosystem health”. Despite these integrative conceptual and methodological developments, large portions of human and animal health thinking and actions still remain in separate disciplinary silos. Evidence for added value of a coherent application of “one health” compared to separated sectorial thinking is, however, now growing. Integrative thinking is increasingly being considered in academic curricula, clinical practice, ministries of health and livestock/agriculture and international organizations. Challenges remain, focusing around key questions such as how does “one health” evolve and what are the elements of a modern theory of health? The close interdependence of humans and animals in their social and ecological context relates to the concept of “human-environmental systems”, also called “social-ecological systems”. The theory and practice of understanding and managing human activities in the context of social-ecological systems has been well-developed by members of The Resilience Alliance and was used extensively in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, including its work on human well-being outcomes. This in turn entails systems theory applied to human and animal health. Examples of successful systems approaches to public health show unexpected results. Analogous to “systems biology” which focuses mostly on the interplay of proteins and molecules at a sub-cellular level, a systemic approach to health in social-ecological systems (HSES) is an inter- and trans-disciplinary study of complex interactions in all health-related fields. HSES moves beyond “one health” and “eco-health”, expecting to identify emerging properties and determinants of health that may arise from a systemic view ranging across scales from molecules to the ecological and socio-cultural context, as well from the comparison with different disease endemicities and health systems structures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases

              Urbanization is intensifying worldwide, with two-thirds of the human population expected to reside in cities within 30 years. The role of cities in human infectious disease is well established, but less is known about how urban landscapes influence wildlife–pathogen interactions. Here, we draw on recent advances in wildlife epidemiology to consider how environmental changes linked with urbanization can alter the biology of hosts, pathogens and vectors. Although urbanization reduces the abundance of many wildlife parasites, transmission can, in some cases, increase among urban-adapted hosts, with effects on rarer wildlife or those living beyond city limits. Continued rapid urbanization, together with risks posed by multi-host pathogens for humans and vulnerable wildlife populations, emphasize the need for future research on wildlife diseases in urban landscapes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Wildlife Research
                Wildl. Res.
                CSIRO Publishing
                1035-3712
                2016
                2016
                : 43
                : 1
                : 51
                Article
                10.1071/WR15183
                35492407
                2fb9eaf3-bd71-4a00-aa93-c7fcc8242b90
                © 2016
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article