Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz.

, 2014, 33 (2), 487-496

The integration of biodiversity into One Health

C. Romanelli, H.D. Cooper* & B.F. de Souza Dias

Secretariat, Convention on Biological Diversity, 413 St Jacques, Suite 800, Montreal, H2Y1N9, Canada
*Corresponding author: david.cooper@cbd.int

Summary
A better understanding of the links between biodiversity, health and disease
presents major opportunities for policy development, and can enhance our
understanding of how health-focused measures affect biodiversity, and
conservation measures affect health. The breadth and complexity of these
relationships, and the socio-economic drivers by which they are influenced, in
the context of rapidly shifting global trends, reaffirm the need for an integrative,
multidisciplinary and systemic approach to the health of people, livestock and
wildlife within the ecosystem context. Loss of biodiversity, habitat fragmentation
and the loss of natural environments threaten the full range of life-supporting
services provided by ecosystems at all levels of biodiversity, including species,
genetic and ecosystem diversity. The disruption of ecosystem services has
direct and indirect implications for public health, which are likely to exacerbate
existing health inequities, whether through exposure to environmental hazards
or through the loss of livelihoods. One Health provides a valuable framework for
the development of mutually beneficial policies and interventions at the nexus
between health and biodiversity, and it is critical that One Health integrates
biodiversity into its strategic agenda.

Keywords
Biodiversity – Ecosystem services – Global health – Infectious disease – Microbiota –
Non-communicable disease – Nutrition – One Health.

Introduction compromised, and, in some cases, there is a risk that some

thresholds will be passed, undermining the functioning of
the Earth’s support system. Ultimately, biodiversity loss and
Biodiversity can be considered as the foundation for human degradation have negative impacts on the well-being of all
health. As defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity people. However, these are particularly severe, and more
(CBD), biodiversity is ‘the variability among living organisms immediate, on the poor and vulnerable, women, children
from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and and indigenous peoples (1, 2).
other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of
which they are part; this includes diversity within species, The links between biodiversity and health are
between species and of ecosystems’ (1). It is the source of intricate, multifaceted and complex and are manifested at
our food crops, and most of our medicines (both traditional various spatial and temporal scales. Some of the smallest
medicine and pharmaceuticals). The ecosystems on which organisms of the microbial world drive some of the
we depend for fresh water and for regulating climate, floods largest-scale phenomena on the planet, including
and diseases would not function without biodiversity. It photosynthesis and nitrogen cycling, essential for life
also supports our physical and mental well-being, offers on Earth (4). Our food production systems depend on
cultural and spiritual enrichment, and provides livelihoods, these and a whole host of organisms: primary producers
particularly those of the rural poor (1, 2, 3). (photosynthesisers), herbivores, carnivores, decomposers,
pollinators, pathogens, natural enemies of pests. At a more
Biodiversity is threatened by land use change, habitat intimate level, the human microbiota – the commensal
alteration and land degradation, overexploitation, microbial communities present in our gut, in our
pollution, invasive alien species, climate change and ocean respiratory, oropharyngeal and urino-genital tracts and
acidification. As biodiversity is lost, ecosystem services are on our skin – contribute to our nutrition, help regulate
488 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2)

our immune system, and prevent infection. At the same

time, biodiversity is the origin of the majority of infectious Biodiversity,
diseases, invasive alien species and agricultural pests, as
well as strains of resistant bacteria. food security and nutrition
Understanding these biodiversity–health links is more The sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture
important than ever as we try to manage biodiversity provides a range of simultaneous benefits for human and
and ecosystems to feed a population predicted to exceed ecosystem health. For the health sector, it is an opportunity
9.6 billion by 2050 (5), meet the demands of rapid to promote dietary diversity and traditional food
urbanisation, adapt to and mitigate climate change, and cultures, and to raise levels of nutrition, while combating
reduce the burden of disease. micronutrient deficiencies and reducing the overall burden
of non-communicable and infectious diseases, including
It is therefore a critical goal for a number of organisations foodborne diseases.
and initiatives to address the links between biodiversity and
health (6). A common framework for action within which The provision of adequate nutrition, clean water and
this relationship can be addressed is the Strategic Plan for long-term food security depends directly on functioning
Biodiversity 2011 to 2020 and its 20 Aichi Biodiversity agro- and other ecosystems and indirectly on the
Targets, adopted by the Parties to the CBD in 2010 (www. regulating ecosystem services of the biosphere (2). Many
cbd.int/sp/). All targets have direct or indirect impacts on, agricultural species rely on the services of pollinators, which
and provide opportunities to improve, both global human affect approximately one-third of the global food supply
health and ecosystem health. The need to strengthen this (12), and crop productivity is frequently greater in areas
nexus was also expressed by the Parties calling for stronger with a greater diversity of native bees (13). Widespread
collaboration on these issues with the World Health declines of pollinator species – up to 70% in some areas
Organization (WHO), as well as the World Organisation (3) – have sometimes been associated with pesticide use
for Animal Health (OIE), the Food and Agriculture (12), with potentially critical implications for agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, and the International productivity, food security and the functioning of ecosystems.
Union for the Conservation of Nature, and others. Pesticides and other chemicals that are increasingly
used in industrial agriculture have also been linked to
In this article, the authors argue that a better understanding increased cancer risks for consumers and farmers, as well
of the relationships between biodiversity, health and disease as endocrine disruption and reproductive dysfunction (14).
presents major opportunities for policy development, and The erosion of life-supporting services from overexploitation
can enhance our understanding of how health-focused and unsustainable practices (e.g. industrial animal
measures influence biodiversity and how conservation production, herbicide use, excessive use of fertilisers) (14)
measures affect health. The breadth and complexity of these can both threaten biodiversity and pose significant health
relationships, and the socio-economic drivers by which risks.
they are influenced, in the context of rapidly shifting global
trends, reaffirm the need for an integrative, multidisciplinary
The ‘nutrition transition’ has involved a shift away
and systemic approach to the health of people, livestock
and wildlife in the ecosystem context (7, 8). One Health from diverse, nutritionally rich plant and animal foods
provides a valuable framework within which public health towards high-energy and high-fat diets (15). From a
and biodiversity benefits can be explored (9, 10). Indeed, health perspective, the shift towards a modern simplified
the integration of biodiversity-related issues into One Health diet has intensified micronutrient deficiencies, led to
strategies is crucial to attaining the stated goal of ‘optimal the consumption of excess energy, and compounded the
health for people, animals and our environment’ (11). escalating problem of non-communicable diseases (15,
16). Dietary diversity can improve nutritional status, while
The links between biodiversity and health are numerous. The also improving immune function and micronutrient bio-
sections that follow will focus on some of those most directly availability (16). As discussed in the next section, a link
relevant to One Health, emphasising the contribution of between diet, microbiota and the health status of the elderly
biodiversity to food security and nutrition; the connections has also been established (17).
between biodiversity, non-communicable diseases and
microbial communities; and the intricate interplay between Some traditional crop varieties may contain higher levels of
biodiversity–health links and the emergence of infectious nutrients than modern varieties. For example, there are large
diseases. As the sum of these sections will demonstrate, differences in nutrient composition among varieties of rice.
there are significant synergies to be realised between However, many of the varieties which are higher in nutrient
conservation and health policies. Sometimes there are ‘win– content are less favoured in the current market, which is
win’ solutions; in other cases, there are necessary trade-offs driven by yield. Too often, nutritional considerations rank
demanding careful management. far lower than other aspects of crop production (18).
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2) 489

Wild food sources remain important sources of nutrition.

A recent study on the potential health benefits of wildlife Biodiversity, non-communicable
consumption in children has shown that the elimination of
wild animal sources of food can lead to significant macro-
diseases and human–microbial
and micronutrient deficiencies, such as iron deficiency; a
manifestation dubbed ‘hidden hunger’, due to its frequent
communities
absence of visible symptoms (19). On a global scale, chronic
Non-communicable diseases represent the largest proportion
micronutrient deficiencies have been estimated to affect
of the global burden of disease. According to WHO, they are
over two billion people worldwide (15). Wild foods can
now responsible for more deaths worldwide than all other
be instrumental in redressing this nutritional imbalance,
causes combined, totalling an estimated 63% of all deaths
particularly in less developed countries. Also, wild foods
in 2008. They are most prevalent in low and middle-income
remain important in traditional food cultures, which are
countries, where almost 80% of all non-communicable
often based on non-cultivated, non-commercial foods, high
disease deaths occur, and where the greatest increase is
in micronutrients (20).
expected (26). A large percentage of non-communicable
diseases are preventable through the reduction of major
From an ecological perspective, dietary diversity can behavioural risk factors (e.g. physical inactivity and
promote awareness of the value of biological diversity for unhealthy diet), but underlying factors can sometimes be
food and nutrition and lead to the improved protection linked to biodiversity and other environmental and social
of species, their genetic diversity and ecosystems (21). It factors. The relationship between ecosystem change and
is also an opportunity to protect and promote agricultural the social drivers that influence the inequitable distribution
biodiversity, sustainable production harvesting and the of health-damaging experiences is often reciprocal (6, 22).
conservation of wild food sources. However, for these A more complete understanding of how environmental
practices to be truly sustainable, local food production factors interact with the social determinants of health has
must be encouraged, equitable access to a diverse range emerged, in that access to preventive and curative health
of agricultural products must be ensured, and alternatives services both shapes and is shaped by the persistent burden
to unsustainable practices must be provided. Indeed, local of diseases of poverty and the emerging challenge of non-
food production is not only an important source of food communicable diseases (6).
security, cultural resilience and nutrition, it is also essential
to livelihoods (22) and traditional food cultures. Ecosystem approaches that apply scientific methodologies
focused on levels of biological organisation and the
Moderating our consumption of animal products and integrated management of land, water and living resources
encouraging more sustainable agriculture, fisheries and (27) are especially relevant when addressing a range of
forestry practices, coupled with more sustainable use of emerging health concerns, including those of vulnerable
existing cleared land, not only reduces biodiversity loss populations (28). They are also consistent with broader One
but also provides essential ecological services (21, 23). Health approaches that embrace the interconnectedness of
Sustainable practices, such as forest protection, play an people (and human development), wildlife and ecosystems
important role in promoting soil fertility, protecting water to improve global health outcomes. While the One Health
resources, regulating climate, stabilising agricultural output, approach has been successful in identifying the relevance of
and providing habitats for wild food sources, predators of ecosystem-based approaches when addressing the human–
agricultural pests and wild pollinators, all of which play an animal–ecosystems interface (29), it is equally useful to the
important role in agricultural productivity (24). development of holistic public health strategies and applied
research on non-communicable diseases.
Sustainable intensification may also provide biodiversity
and health co-benefits, when it does not limit our dietary Rapid urbanisation has a considerable impact upon lifestyle
options by increasing our dependence on a limited through greater exposure to shared risk factors, such as
number of high-yielding crops that favour productivity air pollutants, decreased physical activity and unhealthy
over nutritional content (25). Crop diversification also dietary changes. The loss and degradation of urban and
contributes towards climate change adaptation and peri-urban green spaces could have adverse effects on
mitigation strategies, increases agro-ecosystem resilience, both ecosystems and human health. Several studies have
and supports dietary diversity, food security and nutrition. examined the contribution of green spaces to healthy
This is especially valuable among vulnerable groups, such environments and their physiological, psychological and
as women, indigenous communities and the poor, when endocrinological health benefits, as well as potential socio-
resources and benefits are shared equitably. economic advantages (30, 33).
490 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2)

Microbial diversity and disease Evidence also suggests that biodiversity loss in the wider
environment may lead to ‘microbial deprivation’, i.e. reduced
diversity in the human microbiota (31), which in itself can
Microorganisms are both the least visible and most lead to immune dysfunction and disease, including a range
abundant form of biodiversity on earth. The interactions
of chronic inflammatory disorders (35). Urbanisation and
of microbes within their complex ecological communities
the loss of access to green spaces are not only increasingly
have significant implications for human health, influencing
being discussed in relation to non-communicable diseases
both our physiology and susceptibility to disease. Microbes
such as obesity, type II diabetes, depression and cancer, they
have been described as the ‘under-appreciated link between
have also been linked to a failure of the immune system
biodiversity and human health’ (31). While changes to the
to adapt to environments that are microbe-poor (31). Half
composition of microbial species and their link to infection
are well documented, changes in the diversity of microbial of the world’s population already lives in urban areas and
species have traditionally received less attention (32, 33). this number is projected to increase markedly in the next
half-century, with the most rapid increase taking place in
low and middle-income countries. The full range of health,
The microscopic bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoa of
socio-economic and environmental impacts of urbanisation
which microbes are composed play an important role in the
is also likely to be a central feature in the emerging post-
processes that link environmental changes and human health.
Recent scientific advances in research on the composition 2015 development agenda.
and function of the human microbiota (32, 34) and the
impacts of biodiversity loss on microbial communities, These and other findings (31, 34, 35) provide support for
coupled with advances in genomics technologies, have the ‘old friends’ hypothesis (33), a reformulation of the
led to new insights on infection and disease, allergies and closely related ‘hygiene hypothesis’, according to which our
other chronic inflammatory diseases, antibiotic resistance, inadequate exposure to microbial agents, coupled with the
autoimmune dysfunction, non-communicable diseases, use of antibacterial products and antibiotics, may be linked
chronic non-genetic diseases, and nutrition (17, 31, 35, 36). to an increase in allergies, such as asthma and eczema (39).
The development of barrier functions and immunological Certain environments, such as those found in relatively
tolerance in humans depends upon commensal and urban and affluent communities, do not support the
environmental microorganisms, though further research is development of a healthy microbiota. Limiting the use of
needed to clarify causal relationships (31, 33). antimicrobial agents could provide potential co-benefits to
health and biodiversity, by reducing chronic inflammatory
Understanding the mechanisms that underlie functional diseases through a healthier and more diverse human
and compositional changes in the human microbiome can microbiota while also, more broadly, reducing the risk of
contribute to the development of therapies that address re-emerging diseases from antibiotic-resistant strains and
the gut microbiota and corresponding diseases (33, 34). the potential impacts of antibiotics on ecosystems.
Claesson et al. (17) demonstrated the relationship between
diet, microbiota and health status: a positive correlation Moreover, the old friends hypothesis suggests that our
was established between the healthy food diversity index physiological requirements for microbial biodiversity are
developed by Drescher et al. (37) and three indices of gut evolutionarily determined, and lifestyle changes, such
microbiota diversity (17). The full range of links between as urbanisation, have led to an inadequate exposure to
biodiversity in the farming food system, biodiversity-based micro- and macroorganisms (i.e. old friends). In turn, this
dietary diversity and dietary diversity, as measured by the
has, at least in part, contributed to the reduced efficiency
healthy food diversity index, are an important subject
of immunoregulatory mechanisms and poorly regulated
for further investigation. Moreover, experimental studies
inflammatory responses (33).
evaluating the effects of microbial diversity in plants and
animals (including humans) have shown that increasing
microbial biodiversity may, in some cases, prevent the The potential health and biodiversity benefits that could
colonisation of invasive pathogens (32) or protect against result from the more limited use of antibiotics and
infections. Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea due to Clostridium antimicrobials extend beyond the human microbiome
difficile, for example, is believed to reflect the ‘colonization and could also be applied to agricultural practices and
of a disrupted microbial community by the pathogen’ food production systems. Current industrial agricultural
(38). Such studies support the conclusion that preserving practices not only contribute to ecosystem degradation, air
and restoring microbial communities may have important and water pollution and soil depletion: industrial animal
implications for the development of novel public health agriculture also generates considerable pollution (from
strategies and alternative therapies (38), and could reduce animal waste) and relies heavily on the use of antibiotics,
the transmission and prevalence of non-communicable which may lead to antibiotic resistance and reduced efficacy
diseases, including chronic diseases (31, 33). in their subsequent use in medicine (14).
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2) 491

Biodiversity and infectious applicability (42, 51). With the notable exception of a study
demonstrating a consistent link between species richness,
diseases community competence and infection risk to amphibians
(49), surprisingly few studies appear to have used direct
measures of biodiversity (such as species richness and
Infectious diseases are a manifestation of interactions
among species. As such, changes in the abundance and infection prevalence) to study the dilution effect, relying
composition of biodiversity may affect human exposure instead primarily on measures of habitat fragment size,
to and the transmission of infectious diseases. Numerous host abundance, other indirect measures used as proxies
studies discuss the multifaceted role of biodiversity in for biodiversity, or indirect measures of disease risks to
pathogen transmission; it can increase or decrease disease humans (42). While generalisations about the effects of
transmission by affecting the abundance, behaviour or biodiversity and disease transmission cannot be made,
condition of hosts or vectors (32, 40, 41, 42). these relationships and their corresponding global health
and biodiversity policy implications remain a vital avenue
Emerging infectious diseases are widely cited as examples of future research.
of the intimate and direct links between biodiversity and
health. This may be primarily due to the fact that over 70% The common thread in the divergence of views on the
of zoonoses are of wildlife origin (43, 44), and are therefore role of biodiversity in disease reduction or transmission
a product of biodiversity. Increased human contact with is the complexity of this crucial relationship, which,
wildlife can increase the risk of diseases being transmitted the authors argue, must be re-examined using a broad
across species. High levels of biodiversity and anthropogenic spectrum of spatial and temporal scales while also
influence correlate most directly with the risk of disease considering the ‘contact processes’ between people and
emergence (44).
wildlife (52). In line with One Health approaches to disease
emergence, an examination of this complex relationship
In some cases, anthropogenic changes, such as land-use
must also consider contributions from other disciplines,
change, the wildlife and livestock trade, and increased
including the biological, physical and social sciences (7,
human infringement on wildlife habitat, have been found to
53). Collaborative work with disciplines that examine
increase the rate of transmission of infectious diseases such
the social determinants of health, such as poverty, can
as West Nile virus (Flavivirus) (45); Hantavirus pulmonary
syndrome (46); and widely cited examples of Lyme disease also provide valuable insights on the drivers of disease
(aetiologic agent: Borrelia burgdorferi), frequently transmitted emergence and spread, identifying previous patterns
by infected blacklegged ticks of the genus Ixodes scapularis of disease risk and helping to predict future risks (53).
(32, 41). In other cases, forest loss has been correlated with Such collaborative work, and a better understanding of
a reduced incidence of Lyme disease, and forest restoration ecosystem–biodiversity–health links, should also inform
with an increased incidence (42). Such findings have even the management of the landscape (54).
led to the development of public health programmes that
focus on removing or controlling the wildlife reservoirs of A study on the interplay among infectious diseases,
specific pathogens (21, 42). biogeographical and ecological factors, and economic
prosperity has confirmed the importance of both
However, some disease ecology models have found that biodiversity and anthropogenic disturbance for disease
high species diversity may reduce the risk of certain wildlife risk (55, 56). Tropical countries, which often have high
diseases, as it may provide a balance between predators levels of poverty and biodiversity, also tend to have higher
and prey, hosts, vectors and parasites. One such model, disease burdens than temperate countries. Using structural
which has been extended to a growing number of human, equation modelling, and based on per capita income for
plant and wildlife diseases, is commonly referred to as the
139 countries, the authors distinguished between this
‘dilution effect’, in which scenarios of high biodiversity
effect and the parallel relationship between per capita
lead to a reduction of disease (13, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49).
income and latitude. In analysing the socio-economic
For example, in the case of Lyme borreliosis, high tick-
host diversity has been found to dilute the impact of factors that alter pathogen dynamics, they found that the
competent hosts – including the ecologically resilient burden of vector-borne pathogenic disease is determined
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), which can carry by ecological conditions, and that a rise in the burden of
the spirochete bacterium that causes Lyme – on disease several diseases often coincides with biodiversity declines,
prevalence, due to a reduction in host–parasite interactions and has significant consequences for per capita income
and subsequent disease risk (13, 45, 47, 48, 50). While this (55). Integrated approaches such as these are valuable
pattern has been extensively documented, there is much in understanding the causal links between ecological
uncertainty over the underlying mechanisms and its general processes, economic development, and disease emergence.
492 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2)

Conclusions likely to occur simultaneously. An enhanced understanding

of health–biodiversity relationships will allow for the
adjustment of interventions in both sectors, with a view to
Health is our most basic human right and therefore one of promoting human well-being over the long term.
the most important indicators of sustainable development.
At the same time, the conservation and sustainable use of
Mainstreaming this vital nexus in both scientific research,
biodiversity is imperative for the continued functioning of
and biodiversity and public health policies, in line
ecosystems at all scales, and for the delivery of ecosystem
with integrative One Health approaches, creates timely
services that are essential for human health. There are many
opportunities to identify the health benefits of biodiversity
opportunities for synergistic approaches that promote both
and sustainable ecosystem management, jointly promote
biodiversity conservation and the health of humans and
the numerous co-benefits of these intricate interactions,
livestock. However, as this article notes, in some cases there
and develop coordinated, preventive and forward-
must be trade-offs among these objectives. Indeed, because
looking policies which are crucial to the development and
of the complexity of interactions among the components
implementation of sustainable global health goals in the
of biodiversity at various tropical levels (including parasites
context of the emerging post-2015 development agenda.
and symbionts), and across ecosystems at various scales
(from the planetary-scale biomes to human-microbial
interactions), positive, negative and neutral links are quite

Intégrer la biodiversité dans le cadre

du concept « Une seule santé »
C. Romanelli, H.D. Cooper & B.F. de Souza Dias

Résumé
Une meilleure connaissance des liens entre la biodiversité, la santé et les
maladies est un atout majeur pour l’élaboration des politiques dans ces domaines
parce qu’elle permet d’élucider leurs interactions réciproques, à savoir l’impact
des actions dans le domaine de la santé sur la biodiversité et l’influence sur la
santé des mesures de conservation de la nature. L’ampleur et la complexité de
ces interactions et les moteurs socio-économiques en jeu dans un contexte
d’évolution rapide des principales tendances sont autant de confirmations de
la nécessité d’adopter une approche intégrée, pluridisciplinaire et systématique
de la santé humaine, de la santé du bétail et de celle des animaux sauvages au
sein de leurs écosystèmes. Le déclin de la biodiversité, la fragmentation des
habitats et la disparition des cadres de vie naturels menacent l’intégrité des
services vitaux fournis par les écosystèmes à tous les niveaux de la biodiversité
(d’espèces, génétique et des écosystèmes). La perturbation des services rendus
par les écosystèmes a des conséquences directes et indirectes sur la santé
publique, qui risquent d’exacerber les inégalités existantes dans le domaine de la
santé en raison de nouvelles expositions à des risques environnementaux ou de
la disparition des moyens de subsistance. Le concept « Une seule santé » fournit
un cadre précieux pour explorer les bénéfices simultanés de la santé et de la
biodiversité ; il est donc fondamental que la biodiversité soit mise au cœur de la
stratégie « Une seule santé ».

Mots-clés
Alimentation – Biodiversité – Maladie infectieuse – Maladie non transmissible –
Microbiote – Santé mondiale – Services rendus par les écosystèmes – Une seule santé.
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2) 493

Integración de la diversidad biológica en «Una sola salud»

C. Romanelli, H.D. Cooper & B.F. de Souza Dias

Resumen
Un mejor conocimiento de los vínculos entre la diversidad biológica, la salud
y las enfermedades presenta importantes oportunidades para la elaboración
de políticas, y puede también mejorar nuestra comprensión del impacto de
las medidas sanitarias sobre la biodiversidad y, recíprocamente, de cómo las
medidas de conservación afectan a la salud. La amplitud y complejidad de estas
relaciones, así como los factores socioeconómicos que influyen en ellas, en un
contexto en el que las tendencias mundiales evolucionan rápidamente, confirman
la necesidad de abordar desde un planteamiento integrado, multidisciplinario
y sistémico, la salud de las personas, el ganado y la fauna salvaje en el contexto
de los ecosistemas. La pérdida de biodiversidad, la fragmentación de los hábitats
y la desaparición de espacios naturales amenazan toda la gama de servicios
ecosistémicos esenciales para la vida en todos los niveles de la diversidad
biológica (diversidad de especies, genética y de ecosistemas). La perturbación
de los servicios ecosistémicos tiene consecuencias directas e indirectas sobre
la salud pública, que seguramente acentuarán las inequidades sanitarias ya
existentes, ya sea por la exposición a peligros ambientales o por la pérdida de
medios de subsistencia. Los planteamientos de «Una sola salud» proporcionan
un valioso marco de referencia para el desarrollo de políticas e intervenciones de
beneficio mutuo en el nexo entre la salud y la diversidad biológica. En este sentido
es imprescindible que el concepto de «Una sola salud» integre la diversidad
biológica como elemento central en su agenda estratégica.

Palabras clave
Diversidad biológica – Enfermedad infecciosa – Enfermedad no transmisible – Microbiota
– Nutrición – Salud mundial – Servicios ecosistémicos – Una sola salud.

References
1.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 5. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(CBD) (2010). – Global biodiversity outlook, 3rd Ed. (UN/DESA) Population Division (2013). – World population
Available at: www.cbd.int/doc/publications/gbo/gbo3-final-en. prospects: the 2012 revision. Press release, 13 June: World
pdf (accessed on 21 October 2013). population to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 with most growth
in developing regions, especially Africa. Available at:
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). – Ecosystems and esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm (accessed on
human well-being – synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 3 November 2013).
Available at: www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2013). 6. World Health Organization (WHO) (2012). – Our Planet, Our
Health, Our Future. Human Health and the Rio Conventions.
Discussion paper. WHO, Geneva. Available at: www.who.int/
3. Chivian E. & Bernstein A. (eds) (2008). – Sustaining life: how globalchange/publications/reports/health_rioconventions.pdf
human health depends on biodiversity. Oxford University (accessed on 30 October 2013).
Press, New York, 542 pp.
7. Zinsstag J., Schelling E., Waltner-Toews D. & Tanner M.
4. Falkowski P.G., Fenchel T. & Delong E.F. (2008). – The (2011). – From ‘One Medicine’ to ‘One Health’ and systemic
microbial engines that drive Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. approaches to health and well-being. Prev. vet. Med.,
Science, 320 (5879), 1034–1039. 101 (3–4), 148–156.
494 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2)

8. Parkes M.W. (2011). – Diversity, emergence, resilience: guides 19. Golden C.D., Fernald L.C., Brashares J.S., Rasolofoniaina B.R.
for a new generation of ecohealth research and practice. & Kremen C. (2011). – Benefits of wildlife consumption to child
EcoHealth, 8 (2), 137–139. nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proc. natl Acad. Sci. USA,
108 (49), 19653–19656. doi:10.1073/pnas.1112586108.
9. Atlas R., Rubin C., Maloy S., Daszak P., Colwell R. &
Hyde B. (2010). – One Health: attaining optimal health 20.
Kuhnlein H.V. (2003). – Micronutrient nutrition and
for people, animals, and the environment. Microbe, 5 (9), traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Food Nutr.
383–389. Agricult., 32, 33–39.

10. Coker R., Rushton J., Mounier-Jack S., Karimuribo E.,

21. Campbell K., Cooper D., Dias B., Prieur-Richard A.H.,

Lutumba P., Kambarage D., Pfeiffer D.U., Stärk K. & Campbell-Lendrum D., Karesh W.B. & Daszak P. (2012).
Rweyemamu M. (2011). – Towards a conceptual framework to – Strengthening international cooperation for health and
support one-health research for policy on emerging zoonoses. biodiversity. EcoHealth, 8 (4), 407–409. doi:10.1007/s10393-
Lancet infect. Dis., 11 (4), 326–331. doi:10.1016/S1473- 012-0764-8.
3099(10)70312-1.
22. Friel S., Marmot M., McMichael A.J., Kjellstrom T. &

11. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) (2008).
Vågerö D. (2008). – Global health equity and climate
– One Health: a new professional imperative. One Health stabilisation: a common agenda. Lancet, 372 (9650), 1677–
Initiative Task Force final report. AVMA, Washington, 1683.
DC, 383–389.
23. Foley J.A., Ramankutty N., Brauman K.A., Cassidy E.S.,

Gerber J.S., Johnston M., Mueller N.D., O’Connell C.,
12.
Tscharntke T., Clough Y., Wanger T.C., Jackson L.,
Ray D.K., West P.C., Balzer C., Bennett E.M., Carpenter S.R.,
Motzke I., Perfecto I., John Vandermeer J. & Whitbread A.
Hill J., Monfreda C., Polasky S., Rockstrom J., Sheehan J.,
(2012). – Global food security, biodiversity conservation
Siebert S., Tilman D. & Zaks D.P.M. (2011). – Solutions for a
and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv.,
cultivated planet. Nature, 478 (7369), 337–342. doi:10.1038/
151 (1), 53–59.
nature10452.
13. Díaz S., Fargione J., Chapin F.S. & Tilman D. (2006). –

24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol.,
(FAO) (2013). – The state of food insecurity in the world: the
4, 1300–1305.
multiple dimensions of food insecurity. FAO, Rome. Available
at: www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3434e/i3434e.pdf (accessed on
14. Horrigan L., Lawrence R.S. & Walker P. (2002). – How
4 November 2013).
sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and
human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ. Hlth 25.
Garnett T., Appleby M.C., Balmford A., Bateman I.J.,
Perspect., 110 (5), 445–456. Benton T.G., Bloomer P., Burlingame B., Dawkins M.,
Dolan L., Fraser D., Herrero M., Hoffmann I., Smith P.,
15. Johns T. & Eyzaguirre P.B. (2006). – Linking biodiversity, Thornton P.K., Toulmin C., Vermeulen S.J. & Godfray H.C.J.
diet and health in policy and practice. Proc. Nutr. Soc. (N.Z.), (2013). – Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises
65 (2), 182–189. and policies. Science, 341 (6141), 33–34.

16. Johns T. (2007). – Agrobiodiversity, diet and human health. 26. World Health Organization (WHO) (2011). – Global status
In Managing biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. WHO, Geneva.
(D.I. Jarvis, C. Padoch & H.D. Cooper, eds). Columbia Available at: www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_
University Press, New York. full_en.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2013).

17.
Claesson M.J., Jeffery I.B., Conde S., Power S.E., 27. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
O’Connor E.M., Cusack S., Harris H.M.B., Coakley M., (2004). – The ecosystem approach (CBD Guidelines). CBD,
Lakshminarayanan B., O’Sullivan O., Fitzgerald G.F., Montreal. Available at: www.cbd.int/doc/publications/ea-text-
Deane J., O’Connor M., Harnedy N., O’Connor K., en.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2013).
O’Mahony D., van Sinderen D., Wallace M., Brennan L.,
Stanton C., Marchesi J.R., Fitzgerald A.P., Shanahan F., 28. Webb J.C., Mergler D., Parkes M.W., Saint-Charles J.,

Hill C., Ross R.P. & O’Toole P.W. (2012). – Gut microbiota Spiegel J., Waltner-Toews D., Yassi A. & Woollard R.F. (2010).
composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly. –Tools for thoughtful action: the role of ecosystem approaches
Nature, 488 (7410), 178–184. to health in enhancing public health. Can. J. public Hlth,
101 (6), 439–441.
18.
Garnett T., Appleby M.C., Balmford A., Bateman I.J.,
Benton T.G., Bloomer P., Burlingame B., Dawkins M., 29. Veterinarians without Borders (VWB) (2010). – One Health
Dolan L., Fraser D., Herrero M., Hoffmann I., Smith P., for One World: a compendium of case studies. VWB, Canada,
Thornton P.K., Toulmin C., Vermeulen S.J. & Godfray H.C.J. 104 pp. Available at: onehealthinitiative.com/publications/
(2013). – Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises OHOW_Compendium_Case_Studies.pdf (accessed on
and policies. Science, 341, 33–34. 1 November 2013).
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2) 495

30.
Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., 42. Wood C.L. & Lafferty K.D. (2013). – Biodiversity and

Kaźmierczak A., Niemela J. & James P. (2007). – Promoting disease: a synthesis of ecological perspectives on Lyme
ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green disease transmission. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28 (4), 239–247.
infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape urban Plann., doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.011.
81 (3), 167–178.
43. Taylor L.H., S.M. Latham and M.E.J. Woolhouse (2001). –
31. Von Hertzen L., Hanski I. & Haahtela T. (2011). – Natural Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philos. Trans. roy.
immunity. EMBO Reports, 12 (11), 1089–1093. Soc. Lond., B, biol. Sci., 356 (1411), 983–989.

32. Keesing F., Belden L.K., Daszak P., Dobson A., Harvell C.D., 44. Jones K.E., Patel N.G., Levy M.A., Storeygard A., Balk D.,
Holt R.D., Hudson P., Jolles A., Jones K.E., Mitchell C.E., Gittleman J.L. & Daszak P. (2008). – Global trends in emerging
Myers S.S., Bogich T. & Ostfeld R.S. (2010). – Impacts of infectious diseases. Nature, 451 (7181), 990–993.
biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious
diseases. Nature, 468 (7324), 647–652.
45. Ezenwa V.O., Godsey M.S., King R.J. & Guptill S.C. (2006).
– Avian diversity and West Nile virus: testing associations
33. Rook G.A. (2013). – Regulation of the immune system by
between biodiversity and infectious disease risk. Philos. Trans.
biodiversity from the natural environment: an ecosystem
roy. Soc. Lond., B, biol. Sci., 273, 109–117.
service essential to health. Proc. natl Acad. Sci. USA, 110 (46),
18360–18367. doi:10.1073/pnas.1313731110.
46.
Suzán G., Marcé E., Giermakowski J.T., Mills J.N.,
34. Lozupone C.A., Stombaugh J.I., Gordon J.I., Jansson J.K.
Ceballos G., Ostfeld R.S., Armien B., Pascale J.M. & Yates T.L.
& Knight R. (2012). – Diversity, stability and resilience of (2009). – Experimental evidence for reduced rodent diversity
the human gut microbiota. Nature, 489 (7415), 220–230. causing increased Hantavirus prevalence. PLoS ONE, 4, e5461.
doi:10.1038/nature11550.
47. LoGiudice K., Ostfeld R.S., Schmidt K.A. & Keesing F. (2003).
35. Hanski I., von Hertzen L., Fyhrquist N., Koskinen K.,
– The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host diversity
Torppa K., Laatikainen T., Karisola P., Auvinen P., and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proc. natl
Paulin L., Mäkelä M.J., Vartiainen E., Kosunen T.U., Alenius H. Acad. Sci. USA, 100 (2), 567–571.
& Haahtela T. (2012). – Environmental biodiversity, human
microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc. natl Acad. Sci. 48. Searle C.L., Biga L.M., Spatafora J.W. & Blaustein A.R.A.

USA, 109 (21), 8334–8339. doi:10.1073/pnas.1205624109. (2011). – Dilution effect in the emerging amphibian pathogen
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Proc. natl Acad. Sci. USA,
36. Costello E.K., Stagaman K., Dethlefsen L., Bohannan B.J. & 108, 16322–16326.
Relman D.A. (2012). – The application of ecological theory
toward an understanding of the human microbiome. Science,
49. Johnson P.T.J., Preston D.L., Hoverman J.T. & Richgels K.L.D.
336 (6086), 1255–1262.
(2013). – Biodiversity decreases disease through predictable
changes in host community competence. Nature, 494 (7436),
37. Drescher L.S., Thiele S. & Mensink G.B. (2007). – A new index 230–233. doi:10.1038/nature11883.
to measure healthy food diversity better reflects a healthy diet
than traditional measures. J. Nutr., 137, 647–651.
50. Dobson A., Cattadori I., Holt R.D., Ostfeld R.S., Keesing F.,
Krichbaum K., Rohr J.R., Perkins S.E. & Hudson P.J. (2006).
38.
Chang J.Y., Antonopoulos D.A., Kalra A., Tonelli A.,
– Sacred cows and sympathetic squirrels: the importance of
Khalife W.T., Schmidt T.M. & Young V.B. (2008). – Decreased
biological diversity to human health. PLoS Med., 3 (6), e231.
diversity of the fecal microbiome in recurrent Clostridium
difficile–associated diarrhea. J. infect. Dis., 197 (3), 435–438.
51. Randolph S.E. & Dobson A.D.M. (2012). – Pangloss revisited:
39. Graham-Rowe D. (2011). – Lifestyle: when allergies go west. a critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-buffers-
Nature, 479 (7374), S2–S4. disease paradigm. Parasitology, 139, 847–863.

40. Pongsiri M.J., Roman J., Ezenwa V.O., Goldberg T.L.,

52. Roche B., Dobson A.P., Guégan J.-F. & Rohani P. (2012). –
Koren H.S., Newbold S.C., Ostfeld R.S., Pattanayak S.K. & Linking community and disease ecology: the impact of
Salkeld D.J. (2009). – Biodiversity loss affects global disease biodiversity on pathogen transmission. Philos. Trans. roy. Soc.
ecology. BioScience, 59 (11), 945–954. Lond., B, biol. Sci., 367, 2807–2813.

41. Ostfeld R.S., Keesing F. & Eviner V.T. (2008). – The ecology 53.
Daszak P., Zambrana-Torrelio C., Bogich T.L.,
of infectious diseases: progress, challenges, and frontiers. In Fernandez M., Epstein J.H., Murray K.A. & Hamilton H.
Infectious disease ecology: effects of ecosystems on disease (2013). – Interdisciplinary approaches to understanding
and of disease on ecosystems (R.S. Ostfeld, F. Keesing & disease emergence: the past, present, and future drivers
V.T. Eviner, eds). Princeton University Press, New Jersey, of Nipah virus emergence. Proc. natl Acad. Sci. USA, 110
469–482. (Suppl. 1), 3681–3688.
496 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 33 (2)

54. Patz J.A., Daszak P., Tabor G.M., Aguirre A.A., Pearl M.,
55. Bonds M.H., Dobson A.P. & Keenan D.C. (2012). – Disease
Epstein J., Wolfe N.D., Kilpatrick A.M., Foufopoulos J., ecology, biodiversity, and the latitudinal gradient in income.
Molyneux D., Bradley D.J. & Working Group on Land PLoS Biol., 10 (12), e1001456.
Use Change and Disease Emergence (2004). – Unhealthy
landscapes: policy recommendations on land use change and 56. Chase J. (2012). – Which came first: burden of infectious
infectious disease emergence. Environ. Hlth Perspect., 112 (10), disease or poverty? PLoS Biol., 10 (12), e1001457.
1092–1098.