Analysis of lead pollution levels within an urban ecosystem using the cestode Hymenolepis diminuta and its rat hosts as bioindicators

Helminth-host-environment interactions: Looking down from the tip of the iceberg

In 1978, the theory behind helminth parasites having the potential to regulate the abundance of their host populations was formalized based on the understanding that those helminth macroparasites that reduce survival or fecundity of the infected host population would be among the forces limiting unregulated host population growth. Now, 45 years later, a phenomenal breadth of factors that directly or indirectly affect the host-helminth interaction has emerged. Based largely on publications from the past 5 years, this review explores the host-helminth interaction from three lenses: the perspective of the helminth, the host, and the environment. What biotic and abiotic as well as social and intrinsic host factors affect helminths? What are the negative, and positive, implications for host populations and communities? What are the larger-scale implications of the host-helminth dynamic on the environment, and what evidence do we have that human-induced environmental change will modify this dynamic? The overwhelming message is that context is everything. Our understanding of second-, third-, and fourth-level interactions is extremely limited, and we are far from drawing generalizations about the myriad of microbe-helminth-host interactions.Yet the intricate, co-evolved balance and complexity of these interactions may provide a level of resilience in the face of global environmental change. Hopefully, this albeit limited compilation of recent research will spark new interdisciplinary studies, and application of the One Health approach to all helminth systems will generate new and testable conceptual frameworks that encompass our understanding of the host-helminth-environment triad.

The urban lead (Pb) burden in humans, animals and the natural environment

Centuries of human activities, particularly housing and transportation practices from the late 19th century through the 1980's, dispersed hundreds of millions of tons of lead into our urban areas. The urban lead burden is evident among humans, wild and domesticated animals, and plants. Animal lead exposures closely mirror and often exceed the lead exposure patterns of their human partners. Some examples: Pigeons in New York City neighborhoods mimicked the lead exposures of neighborhood children, with more contaminated areas associated with higher exposures in both species. Also, immediately following the lead in drinking water crisis in Flint MI in 2015, blood lead levels in pet dogs in Flint were 4 times higher than in surrounding towns. And combining lead's neurotoxicity with urban stress results in well-characterized aggressive behaviors across multiple species. Lead pollution is not distributed evenly across urban areas. Although average US pediatric lead exposures have declined by 90% since the 1970s, there remain well defined neighborhoods where children continue to have toxic lead exposures; animals are poisoned there, too. Those neighborhoods tend to have disproportionate commercial and industrial lead activity; a history of dense traffic; older and deteriorating housing; past and operating landfills, dumps and hazardous waste sites; and often lead contaminated drinking water. The population there tends to be low income and minority. Urban wild and domesticated animals bear that same lead burden. Soil, buildings, dust and even trees constitute huge lead repositories throughout urban areas. Until and unless we begin to address the lead repositories in our cities, the urban lead burden will continue to impose enormous costs distributed disproportionately across the domains of the natural environment. Evidence-based research has shown the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of some US public policies to prevent or reduce these exposures. We end with a series of recommendations to manage lead-safe urban environments.