Emerging infectious diseases, biodiversity loss, and anthropogenic environmental change are interconnected crises with massive social and ecological costs. In this Review, we discuss how pathogens and parasites are responding to global change, and the implications for pandemic prevention and biodiversity conservation. Ecological and evolutionary principles help to explain why both pandemics and wildlife die-offs are becoming more common; why land-use change and biodiversity loss are often followed by an increase in zoonotic and vector-borne diseases; and why some species, such as bats, host so many emerging pathogens. To prevent the next pandemic, scientists should focus on monitoring and limiting the spread of a handful of high-risk viruses, especially at key interfaces such as farms and live-animal markets. But to address the much broader set of infectious disease risks associated with the Anthropocene, decision-makers will need to develop comprehensive strategies that include pathogen surveillance across species and ecosystems; conservation-based interventions to reduce human–animal contact and protect wildlife health; health system strengthening; and global improvements in epidemic preparedness and response. Scientists can contribute to these efforts by filling global gaps in disease data, and by expanding the evidence base for disease–driver relationships and ecological interventions. This Review explores the relationship between emerging infectious diseases and biodiversity loss, and how both are connected to global environmental changes in the Anthropocene. Human activities have created a planetary polycrisis that includes pandemics, climate change and the sixth mass extinction. Climate change, land change, agriculture and wildlife use — the major threats to biodiversity — are also driving a global rise in infectious diseases. Biodiversity loss is generally harmful to human health. Interventions that target spillover interfaces for high-risk pathogens, such as avian influenza or coronaviruses, could prevent some future pandemics. Even with these interventions, investments in health systems and pandemic preparedness will be an important part of living in the Anthropocene. The world needs better real-time biosurveillance infrastructure to track pathogens across species and ecosystems. Human activities have created a planetary polycrisis that includes pandemics, climate change and the sixth mass extinction. Climate change, land change, agriculture and wildlife use — the major threats to biodiversity — are also driving a global rise in infectious diseases. Biodiversity loss is generally harmful to human health. Interventions that target spillover interfaces for high-risk pathogens, such as avian influenza or coronaviruses, could prevent some future pandemics. Even with these interventions, investments in health systems and pandemic preparedness will be an important part of living in the Anthropocene. The world needs better real-time biosurveillance infrastructure to track pathogens across species and ecosystems.

International and national conservation policies almost exclusively focus on conserving species in their historic native ranges, thus excluding species that have dispersed on their own accord or have been introduced by people. Given that many of these ‘migrant’ species are threatened in their native ranges, conservation goals that explicitly exclude these migrant populations may overlook opportunities to prevent extinctions and respond dynamically to rapidly changing environmental and climatic conditions. Focusing on terrestrial mammals, we quantified the extent to which migration, in this case via introductions, has provided new homes for threatened mammal species. We then devised alternative scenarios for the inclusion of migrant populations in mainstream conservation policy with the aim of preventing global species extinctions and used spatial prioritization algorithms to simulate how these scenarios could change global spatial conservation priorities. We found that 22% of all identified migrant mammals (70 species) are threatened in their native ranges, mirroring the 25% of all mammals that are threatened. Reassessing global threat statuses by combining native and migrant ranges reduced the threat status of 23 species (∼33% of threatened migrants). Thus, including migrant populations in threat assessments provides a more accurate assessment of actual global extinction risk among species. Spatial prioritization simulations showed that reimagining the role of migrant populations to prevent global species extinction could increase the importance of overlooked landscapes, particularly in central Australia. Our results indicate that these various and non-exhaustive ways to consider migrant populations, with due consideration for potential conservation conflicts with resident taxa, may provide unprecedented opportunities to prevent species extinctions. We present these alternatives and spatial simulations to stimulate discussion on how conservation ought to respond, both pragmatically and ethically, to rapid environmental change in order to best prevent extinctions.

There is increasing evidence that pesticides act as endocrine disruptors, developmental toxicants, and reproductive toxicants. In this review, we describe several global challenges associated with pesticide production and use that put the health of human and wildlife populations at risk. These include: (1) the global production and use of pesticides is high, leading to increasing rates of release into the environment; (2) exposures to non-target species (including humans) are well documented, and pesticides often have adverse effects on these species; (3) pesticides, and especially those that are persistent organic pollutants, do not stay where they are used, contributing to ecosystem pollution far from their intended areas of application; (4) climate change can exacerbate the use of pesticides; and (5) social determinants of health (race/ethnicity, sex, and occupation) influence pesticide exposures and the adverse effects associated with these exposures. In 2009, the concept of planetary boundaries was introduced as a framework to evaluate how human actions impact earth systems. The planetary boundaries were based on a shared understanding that human activities have significant and sometimes irreversible effects on key aspects of environmental health. When considering the global impact of pesticides, these products can disrupt several planetary boundaries including biogeochemical cycles, biosphere integrity (e.g., measures of biodiversity), and the availability of clean freshwater, but the greatest challenge posed by pesticides is the “novel entities” boundary (i.e., the introduction of synthetic chemicals and materials into the environment). The planetary boundaries framework makes clear that failure to act against the most concerning chemicals, including pesticides, ultimately puts the survival of human populations at risk.