Forecasting the impacts of climate change on Aedes -borne viruses—especially dengue, chikungunya, and Zika—is a key component of public health preparedness. We apply an empirically parameterized model of viral transmission by the vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae . albopictus , as a function of temperature, to predict cumulative monthly global transmission risk in current climates, and compare them with projected risk in 2050 and 2080 based on general circulation models (GCMs). Our results show that if mosquito range shifts track optimal temperature ranges for transmission (21.3–34.0°C for Ae . aegypti ; 19.9–29.4°C for Ae . albopictus ), we can expect poleward shifts in Aedes -borne virus distributions. However, the differing thermal niches of the two vectors produce different patterns of shifts under climate change. More severe climate change scenarios produce larger population exposures to transmission by Ae . aegypti , but not by Ae . albopictus in the most extreme cases. Climate-driven risk of transmission from both mosquitoes will increase substantially, even in the short term, for most of Europe. In contrast, significant reductions in climate suitability are expected for Ae . albopictus , most noticeably in southeast Asia and west Africa. Within the next century, nearly a billion people are threatened with new exposure to virus transmission by both Aedes spp. in the worst-case scenario. As major net losses in year-round transmission risk are predicted for Ae . albopictus , we project a global shift towards more seasonal risk across regions. Many other complicating factors (like mosquito range limits and viral evolution) exist, but overall our results indicate that while climate change will lead to increased net and new exposures to Aedes -borne viruses, the most extreme increases in Ae . albopictus transmission are predicted to occur at intermediate climate change scenarios.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic will be an unprecedented test of governments' ability to manage compound risks, as climate hazards disrupt outbreak response around the world. Immediate steps can be taken to minimize climate-attributable loss of life, but climate adaptation also needs a long-term strategy for pandemic preparedness.

Parasites face range loss and shifts under climate change, with likely parasite extinction rates of up to one in three species.

Bacillus anthracis is a spore-forming, Gram-positive bacterium responsible for anthrax, an acute infection that most significantly affects grazing livestock and wild ungulates, but also poses a threat to human health. The geographic extent of B. anthracis is poorly understood, despite multi-decade research on anthrax epizootic and epidemic dynamics; many countries have limited or inadequate surveillance systems, even within known endemic regions. Here, we compile a global occurrence dataset of human, livestock and wildlife anthrax outbreaks. With these records, we use boosted regression trees to produce a map of the global distribution of B. anthracis as a proxy for anthrax risk. We estimate that 1.83 billion people (95% credible interval (CI): 0.59-4.16 billion) live within regions of anthrax risk, but most of that population faces little occupational exposure. More informatively, a global total of 63.8 million poor livestock keepers (95% CI: 17.5-168.6 million) and 1.1 billion livestock (95% CI: 0.4-2.3 billion) live within vulnerable regions. Human and livestock vulnerability are both concentrated in rural rainfed systems throughout arid and temperate land across Eurasia, Africa and North America. We conclude by mapping where anthrax risk could disrupt sensitive conservation efforts for wild ungulates that coincide with anthrax-prone landscapes.

Though epidemiology dates back to the 1700s, most mathematical representations of epidemics still use transmission rates averaged at the population scale, especially for wildlife diseases. In simplifying the contact process, we ignore the heterogeneities in host movements that complicate the real world, and overlook their impact on spatiotemporal patterns of disease burden. Movement ecology offers a set of tools that help unpack the transmission process, letting researchers more accurately model how animals within a population interact and spread pathogens. Analytical techniques from this growing field can also help expose the reverse process: how infection impacts movement behaviours, and therefore other ecological processes like feeding, reproduction, and dispersal. Here, we synthesise the contributions of movement ecology in disease research, with a particular focus on studies that have successfully used movement-based methods to quantify individual heterogeneity in exposure and transmission risk. Throughout, we highlight the rapid growth of both disease and movement ecology and comment on promising but unexplored avenues for research at their overlap. Ultimately, we suggest, including movement empowers ecologists to pose new questions, expanding our understanding of host-pathogen dynamics and improving our predictive capacity for wildlife and even human diseases.

Weather may marginally affect COVID-19 dynamics, but misconceptions about the way that climate and weather drive exposure and transmission have adversely shaped risk perceptions for both policymakers and citizens. Future scientific work on this politically-fraught topic needs a more careful approach.

T unnamed, and very few species have well-documented distributions or population sizes. These data gaps can be resolved by targeting parasites in biodiversity monitoring and sampling programs; protecting, modernizing, and using biological collections as a resource for studying longterm change; and harnessing modern revolutions in bioinformatics and genomics to track shifting host-parasite interactions and catalog new species.…parasite conservation is ready to make the jump from premise to practice. Case studies of successful parasite conservation exist, especially where parasites were conserved along with their hosts during host translocation and ex situ host conservation efforts. Following these examples, standard conservation protocols can minimize (real or perceived) tradeoffs between parasite and host vulnerability, and make protecting parasites alongside their hosts the default option. More broadly, frameworks are in place to start protecting parasites in their own right, including vulnerability assessment, classification on Red Lists, and protection through endangered species legislation.…growing interest in parasite conservation is an asset worth fostering. As academics, conservation practitioners, and stakeholders increasingly work towards advancing parasite conservation, their efforts can be supported through resources and training. At the same time, sharing the benefits and beauty of parasites with the general public through education, outreach, and citizen science could build stronger local and global communities that support parasite conservation efforts.