Biodiversity Emerges as the Missing Link Between One Health and Planetary Health

Health has quietly become one of the most powerful words in global sustainability politics. It anchors climate negotiations, frames biodiversity treaties, and justifies investments in food systems, urban planning, and pandemic preparedness. Yet according to a new commentary published in the journal Ambio, the term is being used with remarkably little precision. Jonas Geschke of the University of Bern, Simone Sommer of the University of Ulm, and Michael Schloter of the Technical University of Munich argue that the loose, interchangeable use of health concepts—public health, global health, One Health, EcoHealth, GeoHealth, and Planetary Health—is not a harmless ambiguity. It actively weakens policy, and the casualty is biodiversity, the biological foundation on which all of these frameworks ultimately depend.

The authors’ central claim is provocative: biodiversity is routinely treated as an environmental co-benefit of health policy rather than as a foundational determinant of health itself. This framing, they contend, undermines the implementation of One Health approaches, because biodiversity underpins disease regulation, immune system development, food and water security, ecosystem functioning, resilience, and climate adaptation. At the same time, biodiversity provides the critical conceptual bridge between One Health, which focuses on the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health, and Planetary Health, which situates human well-being within the stability of Earth systems. Without recognizing that bridge, policymakers oscillate between frameworks without a coherent mechanism connecting them.

The conceptual confusion the authors describe is well documented. In biomedical contexts, health is typically approached through disease, therapy, and individual well-being. Public and global health shift attention toward populations, prevention, and governance. One Health, formally defined by the One Health High-Level Expert Panel as an integrated, unifying approach that balances and optimizes the health of people, animals, and ecosystems, emphasizes interdependence across sectors. Planetary Health goes further, embedding human flourishing within the biophysical limits of the planet, including the transgression of planetary boundaries. EcoHealth and GeoHealth add further ecological and environmental dimensions. Each concept carries distinct theoretical foundations and practical implications, yet international agreements tend to blur these distinctions into a generic aspiration.

Policy documents illustrate the pattern. The Paris Agreement identifies health as a key concern affected by climate change but endorses no particular health framework. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development addresses health through Sustainable Development Goal 3 and weaves it across multiple goals, again without conceptual differentiation. A notable exception is the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which explicitly references the One Health approach and recognizes links between biodiversity, wildlife, and disease risks. The authors argue that this ambiguity matters because concepts shape implementation: a narrow, disease-focused framing treats environmental degradation as an external risk to health, whereas broader approaches recognize ecosystem functioning and environmental stability as the very substrate from which health emerges.

So what does the evidence actually say about biodiversity as a determinant of health? The most direct pathway runs through food systems. Soil biodiversity—including microbial communities, plant diversity, pollinators, and natural enemies of agricultural pests—underpins soil fertility, nutrient cycling, crop productivity, plant health, and dietary diversity. Research cited by the authors shows that biodiversity across multiple trophic levels is required for ecosystem multifunctionality, and that simplification of soil biota communities impairs nutrient recycling while increasing nitrogen losses above and below ground. These ecological processes influence micronutrient availability, reduce dependence on pesticides and antimicrobials, and enhance the resilience of food production under climate stress, ultimately linking ecosystem functioning to nutrition, food security, and disease prevention.

Biodiversity also shapes the dynamics of infectious disease, though the relationship is more nuanced than popular narratives suggest. The authors caution against the simplistic assumption that higher biodiversity always reduces disease risk. Instead, current evidence indicates that disease dynamics emerge from complex ecological systems in which biodiversity plays important regulatory roles, particularly through host-microbe interactions and trophic networks. Studies show that bat species assemblage predicts coronavirus prevalence, that biodiversity changes drive trypanosome infections in Panamanian wildlife, and that zoonotic host diversity tends to increase in human-dominated ecosystems. Biodiversity loss, deforestation, land-use change, and agricultural intensification can disrupt ecological relationships and create new opportunities for pathogen spillover, although these effects are highly context dependent. The practical lesson is that maintaining ecological integrity is a component of disease prevention and health system resilience, not an optional luxury.

Perhaps the most striking mechanism involves the human immune system itself. Contact with biodiverse soils, plants, animals, and outdoor environments enriches the diversity of host-associated microbial communities and supports the development of immune tolerance, particularly during early life. A landmark intervention study found that replacing playground gravel with forest floor material enhanced immune regulation and health-associated commensal microbiota among daycare children, while dust from traditional farm environments has been shown to contain asthma-protective agents. Conversely, biodiversity loss, urbanization, reduced contact with nature, and the homogenization of microbial exposures can contribute to immune dysregulation, increasing susceptibility to allergies, asthma, and other chronic inflammatory diseases. In other words, the erosion of biodiversity is written into the immunological arithmetic of childhood.

Microbial diversity emerges in the commentary as the connective tissue across all dimensions of One Health. Microbiomes are integral components of humans, animals, plants, soils, freshwater and marine systems, and the built environment, mediating interactions between environmental conditions and biological functioning. Changes in microbiome composition can serve as sensitive early indicators of environmental and health-related stress. Studies of wildlife illustrate the point vividly: bats feeding in banana monocultures are heavier but carry less diverse gut microbiota, astrovirus infections induce age-dependent dysbiosis in bat guts, climate change drives the loss of bacterial gut mutualists at the expense of host survival in wild meerkats, and human encroachment alters wildlife gut microbiomes. Recognizing microbial diversity as a shared component of environmental, animal, and human health, the authors argue, strengthens both the conceptual and operational integration of One Health.

The policy implications are concrete. Rather than choosing between One Health and Planetary Health, the authors recommend treating them as complementary: One Health provides an operational framework for collaboration across medicine, veterinary science, agriculture, and environmental management, while Planetary Health defines the ecological boundaries within which societies and health systems must operate. Translating this understanding into practice means integrating biodiversity into health planning, pandemic preparedness, veterinary strategies, and antimicrobial resistance action plans. Surveillance should extend beyond human and livestock health to include wildlife, environmental, and ecosystem indicators. Institutions across health, agriculture, environment, finance, and urban planning should develop shared data systems and joint risk assessments, and ecosystem conservation and restoration should be recognized as investments in prevention rather than as discretionary environmental spending.

Agriculture, food systems, and cities are central to this transition. Agriculture is a major driver of biodiversity loss, yet it simultaneously shapes nutrition, livelihoods, antimicrobial use, and climate resilience. Cities concentrate environmental health risks while offering opportunities to expand access to biodiverse green spaces and healthier food systems. Biodiversity-friendly agriculture, regenerative food systems, urban green infrastructure, healthy soils, wetlands, community gardens, and other nature-based solutions can simultaneously strengthen biodiversity, food security, climate adaptation, and physical and mental health. The authors conclude that the question ‘What health are we talking about?’ is far more than semantic: it determines how problems are framed, which sectors engage, and which interventions are prioritized. Their prescription is a shift from disease treatment toward prevention and health promotion, with future sustainability frameworks placing biodiversity at the center of healthy people, ecosystems, and the planet—an explicit recognition that protecting the variety of life is, in the most literal biological sense, protecting ourselves.

Subject of Research: The role of biodiversity as a foundational determinant of health linking One Health and Planetary Health frameworks

Article Title: What health are we talking about? Biodiversity as the missing link between One Health and Planetary Health

Article References: Geschke, J., Sommer, S., & Schloter, M. (2026). What health are we talking about? Biodiversity as the missing link between One Health and Planetary Health. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02487-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s13280-026-02487-8

Keywords: biodiversity, One Health, Planetary Health, public health, microbiome, infectious disease, zoonoses, food security, immune system, sustainability policy, ecosystem services, planetary boundaries