Integration of medical service provision and nature conservation worldwide 1980–2022: collaborative evidence mapping of 43 projects across 22 countries

Background Biodiversity protection is fundamental to human wellbeing, and, in turn, serving human health in medically underserved areas can sometimes strengthen conservation. We aimed to collaboratively map the evidence on projects worldwide that are, or have been, providing health services with the intention of producing conservation outcomes in addition to health improvements. Methods Scoping indicated many NGO projects are never published in the academic literature. To avoid missing such interventions we asked conservation staff worldwide to contribute data online or through zoom calls. Advertising to join the collaboration was through formal networks (International Union for Conservation of Nature, Planetary Health Alliance, etc.), professional contacts, funders, and a call in The Lancet Planetary Health. Additionally, data and literature were synthesised from libraries and datasets of collaborators at Population Reference Bureau, Sussex Sustainability Research Programme, and Ecological Levers for Health. Findings Forty-three projects from 22 countries fitted inclusion criteria. Around half had not been published in the collected literature, with data only available through direct submission. Tropical wet forest was by far the most common habitat, followed by tropical dry forest, coral reefs, and tropical grasslands. The most represented region was Sub-Saharan Africa with 27 projects, followed by South-East Asia (five), South Asia (five), Oceania (two), South America (two), Central America (one), Europe (one). Projects ranged from basic health interventions bolted on to pre-existing conservation programmes to generate goodwill (e.g., vaccination rounds bordering national parks) to complex schemes jointly acting on health and biodiversity driven (and funded) by concerns for human welfare as much as conservation. Interpretation Synergistic action on biodiversity conservation and health service provision is very often effective and the approach is more widespread than literature would indicate. However, funding was usually provided on a siloed basis for either health or conservation, and this remains a barrier to wider adoption

Occurrences at baits

Ant species occurrences at baits in the understorey. Sampling was performed along an elevation gradient (see altitude column). Replicate corresponds to an understorey plant. Bait abbreviations are as follows: CI Crushed insects, SU sucrose, ME Melezitose, CS chicken faeces, TE termites

Appendix A. A description of Euphorbiaceae phylogeny.

A description of Euphorbiaceae phylogeny

Appendix 1 Figures from Network reorganization and breakdown of an ant–plant protection mutualism with elevation

Supporting figures S1-S

Overlap of Lepidoptera species in frugivorous (this study) and leaf-chewer (different study, [68]) guilds.

<p>Overlap of Lepidoptera species in frugivorous (this study) and leaf-chewer (different study, [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0171843#pone.0171843.ref068" target="_blank">68</a>]) guilds.</p

Mean volume for whole fruit, mesocarp and seeds (a) and fleshiness (b) in plant species attacked and not attacked by Lepidoptera.

<p>The differences between attacked and non-attacked species are significant (whole fruit: U _106,151 = 5624, Z = 3.064, P = 0.002; mesocarp: U _106,151 = 5828, Z = 2.69, P = 0.007; seeds: U _106,151 = 5346, Z = 3.574, P < 0.0010), (b) Fleshiness (i.e. proportion of mesocarp in whole fruit) did not have significant effect on infestation (U _106,151 = 6839, Z = 0.83, P = 0.401).</p

The number of plant species attacked (black bar) and not attacked (white bar) by frugivorous Lepidoptera in samples categorized by (a) fruit weight and (b) the number of fruits.

<p>The number of plant species attacked (black bar) and not attacked (white bar) by frugivorous Lepidoptera in samples categorized by (a) fruit weight and (b) the number of fruits.</p

Relationship between seed and mesocarp volume for 268 plant species attacked and not attacked by Lepidoptera.

<p>Relationship between seed and mesocarp volume for 268 plant species attacked and not attacked by Lepidoptera.</p

Density of all frugivorous Lepidoptera, and both specialist and generalists, per fruit.

<p>Host species are ranked from highest to lowest density for 326 plant species with samples of >1 kg and >50 fruits. Note that all plants to the right of each curve exhibited zero density for the herbivore category in question that cannot be shown on the log scale d y axis.</p

NovotnyEtAl2011DryadData

This is the plant x herbivore data matrix for 38 woody plant species from a lowland rainforest in Papua New Guinea and their folivorous insect herbivores. The herbivores were sampled from 1,500 m2 of foliage area for each plant species. The matrix includes the number of individuals of each herbivore species on each plant species, except for singleton records (i.e., combinations of a particular herbivore species feeding on a particular plant species supported by only a single individual) which were excluded. All records in the matrix are feeding records, verified either by rearing of larvae or no-choice feeding experiments for adults. Each herbivore species is denoted by a species code, identified as far as possible, and assigned to its feeding guild. The number of individuals (ni.) and the number of host plant species (pi) are reported for each species. These are original data obtained by research in the field. This data set is associated with the paper Insects on Plants: Explaining the Paradox of Low Diversity within Specialist Herbivore Guilds by V. Novotny, S. E. Miller, J. Hrcek, L. Baje, Y. Basset, O. T. Lewis, A. J. A. Stewart and G. D. Weiblen published in the American Naturalist. This paper includes the definition of each herbivore guild, phylogeny of the plant species, and the information on the depositories of the plant and insect vouchers documenting the data