Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T05:39:31.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Balancing the scales: Including under-represented herptile species in a One Health approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2024

A response to the following question: How do the practical and pragmatic limitations in the design or implementation of wildlife disease surveillance systems bias our understanding of the drivers, epidemiology, and impact of pathogen traffic between wildlife and people or domestic species, or within wildlife host populations?

Camille Hopkins
Affiliation:
United States Geological Survey Headquarters, Ecosystems Mission Area, Reston, VA, USA
David Lesbarrères
Affiliation:
Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada Laboratoire Biodiv’AG, UFR Sciences, Université d’Angers, Angers, France
Natalie Claunch
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Eveline Emmenegger
Affiliation:
Western Fisheries Research Center, United States Geological Survey, Seattle, WA, USA
Bennett Hardy
Affiliation:
Schmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA
María Torres-Sánchez
Affiliation:
Department of Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Tariq Stark
Affiliation:
Amphibian and Fish Conservation Netherlands (RAVON), BK Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Angela Julian
Affiliation:
Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the UK (ARG UK), Oxford, UK
Sarah McGrath-Blaser
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Christine A. Parker-Graham
Affiliation:
Pacific Region Fish Health Program, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA, USA
Katie Haman
Affiliation:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, USA
Ashley Morgan
Affiliation:
One Health Initiative, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Debra L. Miller*
Affiliation:
One Health Initiative, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
*
Corresponding author: Debra L. Miller; Email: dmille42@utk.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The One Health High-Level Expert Panel’s definition of One Health includes optimizing the health of people, animals (wild and domestic) and ecosystems. For many One Health practitioners, wildlife that can spread zoonoses are the focus, particularly if they can come in contact with people. However, ecosystem health is often best-indicated by less-encountered species, for instance, amphibians and reptiles. This review highlights how these taxa can benefit human health and well-being, including cultural significance, as well as their impact on plant, animal and environmental health. We highlight current challenges to the health of these species and the need to include them in the One Health Joint Action Plan. We conclude with a call to action for inclusion of amphibians and reptiles in a One Health approach.

Information

Type
Impact Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Examples of connections between herptile species and human health

Figure 1

Table 2. Summary of potential and demonstrated impacts of climate change on Herptile Health

Figure 2

Figure 1. Examples of how Citizen Science can be incorporated into herptile One Health approaches. Adapted from https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/illustration-participatory-science-usgs-ecosystems-mission-area.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Visual schematic representing the diverse stakeholders that can contribute to a successful One Health approach for herpetofauna. Credit: Natalie Claunch.

Author comment: Balancing the Scales: Including Under-represented Herptile Species in a One Health Approach — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Balancing the Scales: Including Under-represented Herptile Species in a One Health Approach — R0/PR2

Comments

Manuscript review. Research Directions: One Health.

Hopkins et al. “Balancing the Scales: Including Under-represented Herptile Species in a One Health Approach”.

It is an interesting manuscript, needed to increase awareness for the inclusion of reptiles and amphibians, as well as other taxa, into the One Health concept. Generally, ecosystem health is the least addressed among the One Health “circles”, and this paper focus on this issue. Apparently, this manuscript is part of the results from a meeting (OH JPA), however, this is not explained when these abbreviations appear, nor in the methods (or introduction). Such explanation will help readers to understand the origin behind this communication. Below I include several comments that need to be addressed before publication, including some text that need to be re-edited.

L40-41. and humans. Even is obvious, should be mentioned first time.

L43. Change “specifically” for “for instance”.

L51. This is somehow confusing. Without wildlife there is no ecosystems.

L65. The idea “human health and well-being is tied…”, repeats with what was recently said in L56. L66 repeats again “human health and well-being”.

L68. For sure amphibians are an important source of energy for food-webs in many regions of the world, not only salamanders in North America. So, try first to give the general idea, and then use the relevant example/s that have been studied.

L83. What “n.d.” stands for?

L99. It is a bit difficult to follow the connection between berberine and the lizard L. belli in Chile. I suggest adding a dot after “barberry plan species”.

L110. Altering or improving water quality? My feeling is that the impacts are more positive, rather than negative. If positive, then it may promote animal health.

L114. I would delete the whole idea or re-write it. It says that herps can negatively impact each other, giving as example a population decline in frogs. More than being a negative impact, is a knock-on impact. Something xaused the decline of frogs, and that causes another decline as a consequence.

L119. Re-write around the concept of “venomous species”.

L123-128. They may carry potentially zoonotic pathogens. These could be or not multidrug-resistant. I am not aware that frog legs are particularly risky for multidrug-resistant bacteria. In fact, I would expect that other farm animals in which large amounts of antimicrobial agents are used, to be a higher risk (e.g. salmoniculture).

L129. Cite “Table 1” only once.

Table 1. Legend: “examples of connections…” First example for X. laevis and pregnancy tests. First, it is not linger used. Second, this was the use of captive-bred animals. So, conservation of amphibians (including Xenopus) in this case will not make a difference. Third, even more, Xenopus that are maintained in captivity for research, represent a negative impact to ecosystem and human health, since they usually scape and establish invasive populations. So, the use of X. laevis (in captivity) have benefited humans historically in the first place. But also represent negative impacts a quite a large scale. Also, Jensen & Camp 2003, is not the best cite for this. What I want to say, is that authors can refer to the direct benefits of using amphibians by humans, but is important to mention the overall context too.

If possible, explain how Heloderma and snake venoms are used.

L180. Why putting together environmental degradation and contamination. I would separate them.

L200. I realize here, but should be in other parts of the text as well, you are missing Luetdke et al. 2023 Nature paper on the status of world amphibians, among references. For instance, one of the main conclusions is how climate change emerges as the new important threat to amphibians worldwide.

L208. I think you don’t need to refer to pathogens here, considering you have other sections to deal with that. Still, I think you could include such examples in Table 2 (are the less ones).

Table 2. Please match well what impacts are supported from what references.

L244. Because “most” amphibians.

L247-252. This text should go in the anterior section, isn’t?

L264. 5- “Herptile Diseases”. Should be 4c? As with climate change, diseaes are part of the biodiversity loss phenomenon?

L264-277. Missing to develop more “snake fungal disease”, “Bsal”, “Ranavirus”, as diseases causing herps declines.

L281-283. You already mentioned these organizations.

L284. Do not repeat “integrating the environment into One Health”.

L289. Although the use of poikilotherm is correct, perhaps consider using ectotherm for consistency.

L305. What the code and numbers mean?

L307. Are professional resources getting more scarce? Not sure if is the case or if I understand well what the authors means here.

Figure 1. In legend, I think is not needed to add co-author name here.

L318. Not sure why not include here Turtle SG, or Crocodile SG, and others.

L322. Risks and impacts of what.

L340. Mention humans, separately from animals.

L343. Don’t like the example of emergency medical or military civil affairs team. I think inter/transdiciplinarity of One Health goes way beyond that.

Fig. 2. I like it. As previously, no need to add co-author name in legend.

L346. Explain code.

Decision: Balancing the Scales: Including Under-represented Herptile Species in a One Health Approach — R0/PR3

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Balancing the Scales: Including Under-represented Herptile Species in a One Health Approach — R1/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Balancing the Scales: Including Under-represented Herptile Species in a One Health Approach — R1/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.