Interacting effects of wildlife loss and climate on ticks and tick-borne disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both large-wildlife loss and climatic changes can independently influence the prevalence and distribution of zoonotic disease. Given growing evidence that wildlife loss often has stronger community-level effects in low-productivity areas, we hypothesized that these perturbations would have interactive effects on disease risk. We experimentally tested this hypothesis by measuring tick abundance and the prevalence of tick-borne pathogens ( Coxiella burnetii and Rickettsia spp . ) within long-term, size-selective, large-herbivore exclosures replicated across a precipitation gradient in East Africa. Total wildlife exclusion increased total tick abundance by 130% (mesic sites) to 225% (dry, low-productivity sites), demonstrating a significant interaction of defaunation and aridity on tick abundance. When differing degrees of exclusion were tested for a subset of months, total tick abundance increased from 170% (only mega-herbivores excluded) to 360% (all large wildlife excluded). Wildlife exclusion differentially affected the abundance of the three dominant tick species, and this effect varied strongly over time, likely due to differences among species in their host associations, seasonality, and other ecological characteristics. Pathogen prevalence did not differ across wildlife exclusion treatments, rainfall levels, or tick species, suggesting that exposure risk will respond to defaunation and climate change in proportion to total tick abundance. These findings demonstrate interacting effects of defaunation and aridity that increase disease risk, and they highlight the need to incorporate ecological context when predicting effects of wildlife loss on zoonotic disease dynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".