Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Adaptive ecosystem restoration to mitigate zoonotic risks

Nature Ecology & Evolution (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Infectious diseases pose a substantial threat to global health security. Key wildlife species, potentially harbouring numerous zoonotic pathogens, are increasingly being forced to adapt to disturbances from land-use change, human encroachment and climate change. Although the evidence is rather convincing pertaining to the increased risks of zoonotic diseases with degradation and disturbances, the scientific literature on the mitigating effects of ecosystem restoration on zoonotic spillover is scattered, inconclusive and challenged by the lack of a conceptual framework and practical guidance. In light of rising restoration needs and activities, we outline six critical considerations when examining impacts of zoonotic diseases from ecosystem restoration: (1) assessment of zoonotic disease targets; (2) time lag between restoration and recovery; (3) integration of trophic rewilding; (4) robust study designs; (5) controlling for confounding and modifying drivers; and (6) stakeholder engagement and co-creation with communities. Failure to account for these considerations makes the scientific contribution of restoration less valuable and may even jeopardize global efforts to reverse the global biodiversity decline.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The envisioned One Health-based adaptive process for assessment of ecosystem restoration.
Fig. 2: Zoonotic hazard as a function of habitat degradation and ecosystem restoration.
Fig. 3: Response of zoonotic hazard to nature restoration via trophic rewilding.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jones, K. E. et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451, 990–993 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Carlson, C. J. et al. Pathogens and planetary change. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 1, 32–49 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibb, R., Franklinos, L. H. V., Redding, D. W. & Jones, K. E. Ecosystem perspectives are needed to manage zoonotic risks in a changing climate. BMJ 371, m3389 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker, R. E. et al. Infectious disease in an era of global change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 193–205 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Olival, K. J. et al. Host and viral traits predict zoonotic spillover from mammals. Nature 546, 646–650 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Qiu, Y. et al. The global distribution and diversity of wild-bird-associated pathogens: an integrated data analysis and modeling study. Med 6, 100553 (2025).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Han, B. A., Kramer, A. M. & Drake, J. M. Global patterns of zoonotic disease in mammals. Trends Parasitol. 32, 565–577 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Han, B. A., Schmidt, J. P., Bowden, S. E. & Drake, J. M. Rodent reservoirs of future zoonotic diseases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7039–7044 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Keesing, F., Holt, R. D. & Ostfeld, R. S. Effects of species diversity on disease risk. Ecol. Lett. 9, 485–498 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ostfeld, R. S. & Keesing, F. Biodiversity and disease risk: the case of Lyme disease. Conserv. Biol. 14, 722–728 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Keesing, F. & Ostfeld, R. S. Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023540118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Khalil, H., Ecke, F., Evander, M., Magnusson, M. & Hörnfeldt, B. Declining ecosystem health and the dilution effect. Sci. Rep. 6, 31314 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang, Y. X. G. et al. The impact of wildlife and environmental factors on hantavirus infection in the host and its translation into human risk. Proc. R. Soc. B 290, 20222470 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Tersago, K. et al. Population, environmental, and community effects on local bank vole (Myodes glareolus) Puumala virus infection in an area with low human incidence. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 8, 235–244 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clay, C. A., Lehmer, E. M., Jeor, S. S. & Dearing, M. D. Sin Nombre virus and rodent species diversity: a test of the dilution and amplification hypotheses. PLoS ONE 4, e6467 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Khalil, H., Ecke, F., Evander, M. & Hörnfeldt, B. Selective predation on hantavirus-infected voles by owls and confounding effects from landscape properties. Oecologia 181, 597–606 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ecke, F. et al. Selective predation by owls on infected bank voles (Myodes glareolus) as a possible sentinel of tularemia outbreaks. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 20, 630–632 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mahon, M. B. et al. A meta-analysis on global change drivers and the risk of infectious disease. Nature 629, 830–836 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barouki, R. et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and global environmental change: emerging research needs. Environ. Int. 146, 106272 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ecke, F. et al. Population fluctuations and synanthropy explain transmission risk in rodent-borne zoonoses. Nat. Commun. 13, 7532 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Civitello, D. J. et al. Biodiversity inhibits parasites: broad evidence for the dilution effect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8667–8671 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Rohr, J. R. et al. Towards common ground in the biodiversity–disease debate. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 24–33 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wood, C. L., McInturff, A., Young, H. S., Kim, D. & Lafferty, K. D. Human infectious disease burdens decrease with urbanization but not with biodiversity. Phil. Trans R Soc. B 372, 20160122 (2017).

  24. Magnusson, M., Fischhoff, I. R., Ecke, F., Hörnfeldt, B. & Ostfeld, R. S. Effect of spatial scale and latitude on diversity–disease relationships. Ecology 101, e02955 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Halliday, F. W., Rohr, J. R. & Laine, A. L. Biodiversity loss underlies the dilution effect of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1611–1622 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Prist, P. R. et al. Promoting landscapes with a low zoonotic disease risk through forest restoration: the need for comprehensive guidelines. J. Appl. Ecol. 60, 1510–1521 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Breed, M. F. et al. Ecosystem restoration: a public health intervention. EcoHealth 18, 269–271 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Reaser, J. K., Witt, A., Tabor, G. M., Hudson, P. J. & Plowright, R. K. Ecological countermeasures for preventing zoonotic disease outbreaks: when ecological restoration is a human health imperative. Restor. Ecol. 29, e13357 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment Nature Restoration Law – For People, Climate, and Planet (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).

  30. Reaser, J. K. et al. Fostering landscape immunity to protect human health: a science-based rationale for shifting conservation policy paradigms. Conserv. Lett. 15, e12869 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Daszak, P. et al. (eds) Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2020).

  32. Hopkins, S. R. et al. Evidence gaps and diversity among potential win–win solutions for conservation and human infectious disease control. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e694–e705 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Plowright, R. K. et al. Ecological countermeasures to prevent pathogen spillover and subsequent pandemics. Nat. Commun. 15, 2577 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. IPCC in Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Lee, H. & Romero, J.) 35–115 (IPCC, 2023).

  35. Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).

  36. Lindgren, E., Andersson, Y., Suk, J. E., Sudre, B. & Semenza, J. C. Monitoring EU emerging infectious disease risk due to climate change. Science 336, 418–419 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Monaghan, A. J., Moore, S. M., Sampson, K. M., Beard, C. B. & Eisen, R. J. Climate change influences on the annual onset of Lyme disease in the United States. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 6, 615–622 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Semenza, J. C. & Paz, S. Climate change and infectious disease in Europe: impact, projection and adaptation. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 9, 100230 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Semenza, J. C. & Ko, A. I. Waterborne diseases that are sensitive to climate variability and climate change. N. Engl. J. Med. 389, 2175–2187 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pfenning-Butterworth, A. et al. Interconnecting global threats: climate change, biodiversity loss, and infectious diseases. Lancet Planet. Health 8, e270–e283 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. UNEP. UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration: 10 Flagship Initiatives Boosting Nature and Livelihoods Around the World. unep.org https://www.unep.org/interactive/flagship-initiatives-boosting-nature-livelihoods/#5 (2023).

  42. African Parks. Rewilding 2,000 Rhino. africanparks.org https://www.africanparks.org/campaign/rewilding-2000-rhino (accessed 1 October 2024).

  43. UNDP. UNDP Green Aral Sea Initiative – Planting a Forest on the Aral Seabed. undp.org https://www.undp.org/uzbekistan/press-releases/green-aral-sea-initiative-planting-forest-aral-seabed (2020).

  44. National Geographic. The Great Green Wall. National Geographic https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/great-green-wall/ (accessed 1 October 2024).

  45. UNEP. Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem Restoration for People, Nature and Climate (UN Environment Programme, 2021).

  46. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005).

  47. One Health High-Level Expert Panel et al. One Health: a new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLoS Pathog. 18, e1010537 (2022).

  48. Rohr, J. R. et al. A planetary health innovation for disease, food and water challenges in Africa. Nature 619, 782–787 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. European Environment Agency. The Importance of Restoring Nature in Europe Briefing No. 09/2023. eea.europa.eu https://doi.org/10.2800/269094 (2023).

  50. Lepori, F., Palm, D. & Malmqvist, B. Effects of a stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: detritus retentiveness and decomposition. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 228–238 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hering, D. et al. Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1518–1527 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Collins, S. L., Knapp, A. K., Briggs, J. M. B., Blair, J. M. & Steinauer, E. M. Modulation of diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie. Science 280, 745–747 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ecke, F., Nematollahi Mahani, S. A., Evander, M., Hörnfeldt, B. & Khalil, H. Wildfire-induced short-term changes in a small mammal community increase prevalence of a zoonotic pathogen? Ecol. Evol. 9, 12459–12470 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S. & Jones, E. B. D. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14843–14847 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Svenning, J.-C. et al. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 898–906 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Perino, A. et al. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science 364, eaav5570 (2019).

  57. Halley, D. J., Saveljev, A. P. & Rosell, F. Population and distribution of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis in Eurasia. Mammal Rev. 51, 1–24 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Awasthi, B., McConkey, K. R., Aluthwattha, S. T., Chen, C. & Chen, J. Restoring ecological function: interactions between vertebrates and latrines in a reintroduced population of Rhinoceros unicornis. Biol. Conserv. 294, 110611 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Delibes-Mateos, M., Glikman, J. A., Lafuente, R., Villafuerte, R. & Garrido, F. E. Support to Iberian lynx reintroduction and perceived impacts: assessments before and after reintroduction. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e605 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Devineau, O. et al. Evaluating the Canada lynx reintroduction programme in Colorado: patterns in mortality. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 524–531 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Johnsingh, A. & Madhusudan, M. in Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators (eds Hayward, M. W. & Somers, M. J.) 146–163 (Blackwell, 2009).

  62. Hayward, M. W. et al. The reintroduction of large carnivores to the Eastern Cape, South Africa: an assessment. Oryx 41, 205–214 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Parsons, M. A. et al. Habitat selection and spatiotemporal interactions of a reintroduced mesocarnivore. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 1172–1184 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Landa, A. et al. Conservation of the endangered Arctic fox in Norway - are successful reintroductions enough? Biol. Conserv. 275, 109774 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Gouar, P. L. et al. Roles of survival and dispersal in reintroduction success of griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus). Ecol. Appl. 18, 859–872 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Dzialak, M. R., Lacki, M. J. & Vorisek, S. Survival, mortality, and morbidity among peregrine falcons reintroduced in Kentucky. J. Raptor Res. 41, 61–65 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Green, R. E., Pienkowski, M. W. & Love, J. A. Long-term viability of the re-introduced population of the white-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in Scotland. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 357–368 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Leupin, E. E. & Low, D. J. Burrowing owl reintroduction efforts in the Thompson–Nicola region of British Columbia. J. Raptor Res. 35, 19 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Mitchell, A. M., Wellicome, T. I., Brodie, D. & Cheng, K. M. Captive-reared burrowing owls show higher site-affinity, survival, and reproductive performance when reintroduced using a soft-release. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1382–1391 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Markandya, A. et al. Counting the cost of vulture decline—an appraisal of the human health and other benefits of vultures in India. Ecol. Econ. 67, 194–204 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stier, A. C. et al. Ecosystem context and historical contingency in apex predator recoveries. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501769 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Hörnfeldt, B., Carlsson, B. G., Löfgren, O. & Eklund, U. Effects of cyclic food supply on breeding performance in Tengmalm’s owl. Can. J. Zool. 68, 522–530 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lapshin, A. S., Andreychev, A. V., Alpeev, M. A. & Kuznetsov, V. A. Breeding success of the Eurasian eagle owl (Bubo bubo, Strigiformes, Strigidae) in artificial nests. Biol. Bull. 50, 1486–1492 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Zagorski, M. E. & Swihart, R. K. Killing time in cover crops? Artificial perches promote field use by raptors. Ann. Appl. Biol. 177, 358–366 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Kay, B., Twigg, L., Korn, T. & Nicol, H. The use of artifical perches to increase predation on house mice (Mus domesticus) by raptors. Wildl. Res. 21, 95–105 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Eby, P. et al. Pathogen spillover driven by rapid changes in bat ecology. Nature 613, 340–344 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Crawford, R. D. & O’Keefe, J. M. Improving the science and practice of using artificial roosts for bats. Conserv. Biol. 38, e14170 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Frank, E. G. The economic impacts of ecosystem disruptions: costs from substituting biological pest control. Science 385, eadg0344 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Weterings, R., Umponstira, C. & Buckley, H. L. Landscape variation influences trophic cascades in dengue vector food webs. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9534 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Russell, M. C. et al. Both consumptive and non-consumptive effects of predators impact mosquito populations and have implications for disease transmission. eLife 11, e71503 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Bowatte, G., Perera, P., Senevirathne, G., Meegaskumbura, S. & Meegaskumbura, M. Tadpoles as dengue mosquito (Aedes aegypti) egg predators. Biol. Control 67, 469–474 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Fischhoff, I. R., Burtis, J. C., Keesing, F. & Ostfeld, R. S. Tritrophic interactions between a fungal pathogen, a spider predator, and the blacklegged tick. Ecol. Evol. 8, 7824–7834 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Bentley, M. D. & Day, J. F. Chemical ecology and behavioral aspects of mosquito oviposition. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34, 401–421 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Gliwicz, J. & Glowacka, B. Differential responses of Clethrionomys species to forest disturbance in Europe and North America. Can. J. Zool. 78, 1340–1348 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Morgan Ernest, S. K. & Brown, J. H. Delayed compensation for missing keystone species by colonization. Science 292, 101–104 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L. & Altendorf, K. B. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Staats, E. G., Agosta, S. J. & Vonesh, J. R. Predator diversity reduces habitat colonization by mosquitoes and midges. Biol. Lett. 12, 20160580 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Hartley, M. & Sainsbury, A. Methods of disease risk analysis in wildlife translocations for conservation purposes. Ecohealth 14, 16–29 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Magnusson, M. et al. Spatial and temporal variation of hantavirus bank vole infection in managed forest landscapes. Ecosphere 6, art163 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Pardo, I. et al. The European reference condition concept: a scientific and technical approach to identify minimally-impacted river ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 420, 33–42 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Rocklöv, J. et al. Decision-support tools to build climate resilience against emerging infectious diseases in Europe and beyond. Lancet Reg. Health Europe 32, 100701 (2023).

  92. Pan, Y. et al. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature 631, 563–569 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. European Environment Agency. Water Resources Across Europe – Confronting Water Stress: An Updated Assessment (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021).

  94. Levesque, K. & Hamann, A. Identifying western North American tree populations vulnerable to drought under observed and projected climate change. Climate 10, 114 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Brodin, T., Fick, J., Jonsson, M. & Klaminder, J. Dilute concentrations of a psychiatric drug alter behavior of fish from natural populations. Science 339, 814–815 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Oaks, J. L. et al. Diclofenac residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan. Nature 427, 630–633 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Stokstad, E. Vultures face new toxic threat. Science 373, 1187 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Stone, E. L., Harris, S. & Jones, G. Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: a review of challenges and solutions. Mamm. Biol. 80, 213–219 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Gaddy, H. G. Using local knowledge in emerging infectious disease research. Soc. Sci. Med 258, 113107 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Halliday, J. E. B. et al. Driving improvements in emerging disease surveillance through locally relevant capacity strengthening. Science 357, 146–148 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Vora, N. M. et al. Interventions to reduce risk for pathogen spillover and early disease spread to prevent outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 29, 1–9 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Elvander, M., Persson, B. & Lewerin, S. Historical cases of anthrax in Sweden 1916–1961. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 64, 892–898 (2015).

  103. Sjukdomsrapportering 2011: En Uppdatering av Regeringsrapporten 2006 SVA:s Rapportserie 23. sva.se https://www.sva.se/media/zpmpwfhm/sva-rapport-23-sjukdomsrapportering-2011.pdf (SVA, 2011).

  104. Reyes-García, V. et al. The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, 3–8 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Santini, N. S. & Y, M. The restoration of degraded lands by local communities and Indigenous Peoples. Front. Conserv. Sci. 3, 873659 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Ortega-Álvarez, R., Tobón, W., Urquiza-Haas, T., Ruiz-González, S. P. & Koleff, P. Exploring local perceptions, implementation, benefits, and limitations of community-based restoration projects in Mexico. Restor. Ecol. 30, e13604 (2022).

  107. Meadows, A. J., Stephenson, N., Madhav, N. K. & Oppenheim, B. Historical trends demonstrate a pattern of increasingly frequent and severe spillover events of high-consequence zoonotic viruses. BMJ Glob. Health 8, e012026 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Semenza, J. C. Lateral public health: advancing systemic resilience to climate change. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 9, 100231 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Hemmerling, S. A., Barra, M. & Bienn, H. C. Elevating local knowledge through participatory modeling: active community engagement in restoration planning in coastal Louisiana. J. Geogr. Syst. 22, 241–266 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Davidson, G. et al. Forest restoration and the zoonotic vector Anopheles balabacensis in Sabah, Malaysia. EcoHealth 21, 21-37 (2024).

  111. Allan, B. F. et al. Invasive honeysuckle eradication reduces tick-borne disease risk by altering host dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18523–18527 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses FEMA Publication 386-2 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2001).

  113. UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. The Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. undrr.org https://www.undrr.org/terminology (2017).

  114. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting (European Environment Agency, 2003).

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors disclose support for the research of this work from the European Union (grant agreement no. 101060568; project BEPREP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Frauke Ecke

  2. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Umeå, Sweden

    Frauke Ecke, Yonas Meheretu & Navinder Singh

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Jan C. Semenza, Junwen Guo, Henrik Sjödin & Joacim Rocklöv

  4. Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Jan C. Semenza, Henrik Sjödin, Marina Treskova & Joacim Rocklöv

  5. Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia

    Elena Buzan

  6. Faculty of Environmental Protection, Velenje, Slovenia

    Elena Buzan

  7. Institute of Collective Health, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Federico Costa & Caio Graco Zeppelini

  8. CHICAS, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Emanuele Giorgi & Matt Timperley

  9. School of Environment and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

    Lucinda Kirkpatrick

  10. Institute of International Animal Health/One Health, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany

    Sascha Knauf

  11. One Health/International Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

    Sascha Knauf

  12. Department of Biology and Institute of Mountain Research & Development, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia

    Yonas Meheretu

  13. Integrated Science Lab, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Henrik Sjödin

  14. Institute of Novel and Emerging Infectious Diseases, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany

    Rainer G. Ulrich

  15. Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Joacim Rocklöv

Authors
  1. Frauke Ecke
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan C. Semenza
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elena Buzan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federico Costa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emanuele Giorgi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junwen Guo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lucinda Kirkpatrick
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sascha Knauf
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yonas Meheretu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Navinder Singh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Henrik Sjödin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Matt Timperley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Marina Treskova
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Rainer G. Ulrich
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Caio Graco Zeppelini
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Joacim Rocklöv
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.E., J.C.S. and J.R. conceptualized the study. All authors contributed to writing the original draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frauke Ecke.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Rory Gibb, Peter Taylor and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ecke, F., Semenza, J.C., Buzan, E. et al. Adaptive ecosystem restoration to mitigate zoonotic risks. Nat Ecol Evol (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02869-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02869-3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing