Biodiversity loss underlies the dilution effect of biodiversity

The dilution effect predicts increasing biodiversity to reduce the risk of infection, but the generality of this effect remains unresolved. Because biodiversity loss generates predictable changes in host community competence, we hypothesised that biodiversity loss might drive the dilution effect. We tested this hypothesis by reanalysing four previously published meta-analyses that came to contradictory conclusions regarding generality of the dilution effect. In the context of biodiversity loss, our analyses revealed a unifying pattern: dilution effects were inconsistently observed for natural biodiversity gradients, but were commonly observed for biodiversity gradients generated by disturbances causing losses of biodiversity. Incorporating biodiversity loss into tests of generality of the dilution effect further indicated that scale-dependency may strengthen the dilution effect only when biodiversity gradients are driven by biodiversity loss. Together, these results help to resolve one of the most contentious issues in disease ecology: the generality of the dilution effect.Non peer reviewe

Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles

Because particular life history traits affect species vulnerability to development pressures, cross-species summaries of life history traits are useful for generating management guidelines. Conservation of aquatic turtles, many members of which are regionally or globally imperiled, requires knowing the extent of upland habitat used for nesting. Therefore, we compiled distances that nests and gravid females had been observed from wetlands. Based on records of \u3e 8000 nests and gravid female records compiled for 31 species in the United States and Canada, the distances that encompass 95% of nests vary dramatically among genera and populations, from just 8 m for Malaclemys to nearly 1400 m for Trachemys. Widths of core areas to encompass varying fractions of nesting populations (based on mean maxima across all genera) were estimated as: 50% coverage = 93 m, 75% = 154 m, 90% = 198 m, 95% = 232 m, 100% = 942 m. Approximately 6–98 m is required to encompass each consecutive 10% segment of a nesting population up to 90% coverage; thereafter, ca. 424 m is required to encompass the remaining 10%. Many genera require modest terrestrial areas (\u3c200 m zones) for 95% nest coverage (Actinemys, Apalone, Chelydra, Chrysemys, Clemmys, Glyptemys, Graptemys, Macrochelys, Malaclemys, Pseudemys, Sternotherus), whereas other genera require larger zones (Deirochelys, Emydoidea, Kinosternon, Trachemys). Our results represent planning targets for conserving sufficient areas of uplands around wetlands to ensure protection of turtle nesting sites, migrating adult female turtles, and dispersing turtle hatchlings