Skip to main content
Dryad

Code and data for: Are novel or locally adapted pathogens more devastating and why? : resolving opposing hypotheses

Data files

Apr 05, 2024 version files 66.04 KB

Abstract

The naive host syndrome hypothesis suggests that pathogens are able to easily invade and become deadly to novel hosts because of a lack of co-evolutionary history, whereas the local adaptation hypothesis suggests that pathogens are better able to invade local hosts because of their co-evolutionary history, but rarely do studies on these two hypotheses cite one another or acknowledge their ostensibly mixed messages. By combining a continental-scale, factorial, common garden experiment with a global-scale meta-analysis, each on the amphibian-chytrid fungus host-pathogen system, we show that local host-pathogen interactions typically resulted in higher host mortality, greater infection success, and higher pathogen loads, but that there was substantial variation in novel host-pathogen outcomes and thus moving pathogens around the planet increases the likelihood of exposure to particularly virulent pathogen strains and particularly deadly host-pathogen combination. Therefore, we provide support for both the local adaptation and naïve host syndrome hypotheses, highlight how the two hypotheses are complementary rather than conflicting, and emphasize the need for greater integration of these hypotheses and their associated semi-disparate literature.