Common ground: The foundation of interdisciplinary research on bat disease emergence

Advances in understanding bat infection dynamics across biological scales

Over the past two decades, research on bat-associated microbes such as viruses, bacteria and fungi has dramatically increased. Here, we synthesize themes from a conference symposium focused on advances in the research of bats and their microbes, including physiological, immunological, ecological and epidemiological research that has improved our understanding of bat infection dynamics at multiple biological scales. We first present metrics for measuring individual bat responses to infection and challenges associated with using these metrics. We next discuss infection dynamics within bat populations of the same species, before introducing complexities that arise in multi-species communities of bats, humans and/or livestock. Finally, we outline critical gaps and opportunities for future interdisciplinary work on topics involving bats and their microbes.

Bats from the Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

The Pedra Branca Forest is located in a highly-urbanised region of the central portion of Rio de Janeiro City, comprises the largest urban forest on the continent and is isolated from other Atlantic Forest remnants. The local flora and fauna are protected by three conservation units (Pedra Branca State Park, Prainha Municipal Natural Park and Guaratiba State Biological Reserve) and one biological station (Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station—EFMA). Here, we provide an updated list of the bat fauna for the remnant. The results are based on samplings at EFMA and literature data from Pedra Branca State Park and Prainha Natural Park. The three sampling sites combined resulted in 31 species, 23 genera and four families. Phyllostomidae was the richest family with 24 species, followed by Vespertilionidae with five species (3%) and Molossidae and Noctilionidae with one species. The local bat fauna was predominantly composed of species with a broad geographic distribution.

Bats and their vital ecosystem services: a global review

Bats play crucial ecosystem services as seed dispersers, pollinators, controllers of insects, and nutrient recyclers. However, there has not been a thorough global review evaluating these roles in bats across all biogeographical regions of the world. We reviewed the literature published during the last two decades and identified 283 relevant studies: 78 dealt with the control of potential insect pests by bats, 80 related to the suppression of other arthropods, 60 on the dispersal of native or endemic seeds, 11 dealt with the dispersal of seeds of introduced plants, 29 on the pollination of native or endemic plants, 1 study on pollination of introduced plants, and 24 on the use of guano as fertilizer. Our literature search showed that queries combining the terms "seed dispersal," "insectivorous bats," "nectarivorous bats," "use of guano," and "ecosystem services" returned 577 studies, but half were experimental in nature. We found that the evaluation of ecosystem services by bats has been mostly conducted in the Neotropical and Palearctic regions. To detect differences across relevant studies, and to explain trends in the study of ecosystem services provided by bats, we performed generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) fitted with a Poisson distribution to analyze potential differences among sampling methods. We identified 409 bat species that provide ecosystem services, 752 insect species consumed by bats and 549 plant species either dispersed or pollinated by bats. Our review summarizes the importance of conserving bat populations and the ecological services they provide, which is especially important during the current pandemic.

Setting the Terms for Zoonotic Diseases: Effective Communication for Research, Conservation, and Public Policy

Many of the world's most pressing issues, such as the emergence of zoonotic diseases, can only be addressed through interdisciplinary research. However, the findings of interdisciplinary research are susceptible to miscommunication among both professional and non-professional audiences due to differences in training, language, experience, and understanding. Such miscommunication contributes to the misunderstanding of key concepts or processes and hinders the development of effective research agendas and public policy. These misunderstandings can also provoke unnecessary fear in the public and have devastating effects for wildlife conservation. For example, inaccurate communication and subsequent misunderstanding of the potential associations between certain bats and zoonoses has led to persecution of diverse bats worldwide and even government calls to cull them. Here, we identify four types of miscommunication driven by the use of terminology regarding bats and the emergence of zoonotic diseases that we have categorized based on their root causes: (1) incorrect or overly broad use of terms; (2) terms that have unstable usage within a discipline, or different usages among disciplines; (3) terms that are used correctly but spark incorrect inferences about biological processes or significance in the audience; (4) incorrect inference drawn from the evidence presented. We illustrate each type of miscommunication with commonly misused or misinterpreted terms, providing a definition, caveats and common misconceptions, and suggest alternatives as appropriate. While we focus on terms specific to bats and disease ecology, we present a more general framework for addressing miscommunication that can be applied to other topics and disciplines to facilitate more effective research, problem-solving, and public policy.

Preserve a Voucher Specimen! The Critical Need for Integrating Natural History Collections in Infectious Disease Studies

Despite being nearly 10 months into the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, the definitive animal host for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the causal agent of COVID-19, remains unknown. Unfortunately, similar problems exist for other betacoronaviruses, and no vouchered specimens exist to corroborate host species identification for most of these pathogens. This most basic information is critical to the full understanding and mitigation of emerging zoonotic diseases. To overcome this hurdle, we recommend that host-pathogen researchers adopt vouchering practices and collaborate with natural history collections to permanently archive microbiological samples and host specimens. Vouchered specimens and associated samples provide both repeatability and extension to host-pathogen studies, and using them mobilizes a large workforce (i.e., biodiversity scientists) to assist in pandemic preparedness. We review several well-known examples that successfully integrate host-pathogen research with natural history collections (e.g., yellow fever, hantaviruses, helminths). However, vouchering remains an underutilized practice in such studies. Using an online survey, we assessed vouchering practices used by microbiologists (e.g., bacteriologists, parasitologists, virologists) in host-pathogen research. A much greater number of respondents permanently archive microbiological samples than archive host specimens, and less than half of respondents voucher host specimens from which microbiological samples were lethally collected. To foster collaborations between microbiologists and natural history collections, we provide recommendations for integrating vouchering techniques and archiving of microbiological samples into host-pathogen studies. This integrative approach exemplifies the premise underlying One Health initiatives, providing critical infrastructure for addressing related issues ranging from public health to global climate change and the biodiversity crisis.