Ecologists question effects of climate change on infectious diseases

Recent research has predicted that climate change may expand the scope of human infectious diseases. A new review, however, argues that climate change may have a negligible effect on pathogens or even reduce their ranges. The paper has sparked debate in the ecological community.

In a forum in the April issue of Ecology, Kevin Lafferty of the U.S. Geological Survey's Western Ecological Research Center suggests that instead of a net expansion in the global range of diseases, may cause poleward range shifts in the areas suitable for diseases as higher latitudes become warmer and regions near the equator become too hot.

The newly suitable areas for diseases will tend to be in more affluent regions where medicines are in widespread use and can more readily combat the diseases, Lafferty says. He cites model estimations that the most dangerous kind of malaria will gain 23 million human hosts outside of its current range by the year 2050, but will lose 25 million in its current range.

"The dramatic contraction of malaria during a century of warming suggests that economic forces might be just as important as climate in determining pathogen ranges," Lafferty says.

Mercedes Pascual of the University of Michigan sees the situation very differently. Pascual is the lead author of one of five Forum papers published in response to Lafferty. Although she agrees that disease expansion in some areas could be accompanied by retraction in others, she emphasizes that disease range does not always correlate with the number of humans infected. In regions of Africa and South America, for example, humans have historically settled in high latitudes and altitudes. If climate change makes these areas more fit for mosquito breeding and for pathogen development, she writes, then a number of infections could expand. She notes that scientists are already seeing evidence of this pattern.

"It would be very unfortunate if the conclusions in Lafferty's paper were taken as evidence that climate change does not matter to ," Pascual says. "Range shifts will matter and should be better understood."

Lafferty agrees that range shifts mean there will be winners and losers among human populations. Knowing how disease ranges will shift, instead of assuming a global expansion of diseases, will be the key to distributing resources effectively, he says.

Scientists have used the fact that infectious diseases are most prevalent in the tropics to argue that warmer, wetter conditions that might occur under climate change would lead to an increase in infectious disease transmission. However, Lafferty points out that climate change isn't making the whole world warmer and wetter: Warming trends over the last 60 years have led instead to an increase in hot, dry, desert-like climates. Further, he says, infectious diseases don't all increase during warm, wet weather. Meningitis peaks during the tropical dry season, for example, and influenza is an obvious staple of winter weather in temperate climes.

Pascual argues, however, that humans have a history of altering the landscape to suit their needs and thus might unintentionally create better habitat for disease carriers. For example, humans seldom leave accessible arid areas alone; instead, they irrigate them for use as farmlands. According to Pascual, the creation of water sources could provide havens for , and thus malaria parasites, to remain in areas that would otherwise dry out.

"We live in a world in which urban and rural areas are increasingly interfacing with each other," says Pascual. "This underscores the challenges for predicting the Earth's changing environment."

Lafferty agrees that climate isn't the only issue that affects disease ecology, and maintains that climate may play only a small part in determining disease ranges.

"If we over-emphasize the role of climate, which we have little control over, at the expense of other factors that drive disease dynamics, we may be missing the forest for the trees," he says.

Source: Ecological Society of America

Explore further

Scientists concerned about effects of global warming on infectious diseases

Citation: Ecologists question effects of climate change on infectious diseases (2009, April 1) retrieved 24 August 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 01, 2009
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" c'mon Henny Penny we've got to go see the king.

Apr 03, 2009
Malaria IS NOT a tropical disease!!
Researchers should know this, so this one proves itself to be only propaganda. Malaria killed more Roman soldiers than the Ancient Brits. There was a major malaria epidemic in SIBERIA about 100 yrs ago. The Anopheles Mosquito can survive MINUS 15 Deg C. during its life cycle.
Most diseases are spread through increased travel during modern times.

Apr 03, 2009
Diseases of all sorts thrive in temperatures ranging from below 0 to over 100F (and some even to 100C). If the temperature drops by 5 degrees, the mosquitos don't even notice. It is foolish to believe that a 2F (or even a 10F if you believe the worst case scenarios that defy physics, logic, and common sense) would noticably affect diseases. Any change would be dwarfed by affluence changes, land use changes, pesticide policy, and everything else. Our doctors have much better things to do than waste their time on this.

Apr 03, 2009
Presently we have in Argentina an outbreak of Dengue fever, with more than 5,500 patients and about 10 deaths already. This is the first year we had dengue here. Had some imported cases of travelers coming from Bolivia and Paraguay, but as malaria, dengue was not known since 1947, when extensive aerial spraying with DDT were performed for fighting huge flocks of locusts. Locusts were eradicated and never returned. DDT did the trick.


But along with locusts, mosquitoes were also killed by the zillions and malaria, dengue and other mosquito carried diseases have been absent since then. But what goes against the %u201Cconsensus%u201D in climatology 'a la Al Gore', is that central and north part of Argentina has been in a cooling trend since 1987, so there is no global warming for our dengue outbreak. Only lousy government sanitary policies, and increasing poverty.
Or perhaps the cooling we are experiencing is caused by global warming? If warming now causes cooling, I recommend Jim Hansen to try cooling his beer in the kitchen oven!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more