1 Pandemics and biodiversity: applying lessons learned to conservation in the post-COVID- 2 19 era 3 4 Authors: Jiajia Liu1, Zhijun Ma1, Shilu Zheng2, Xingfeng Si3, Marc W. Cadotte4* 5 6 Affiliations: 7 1Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, 8 Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity 9 Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China 10 11 2School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, 12 Crawley, WA 6009, Australia 13 14 3Zhejiang Tiantong Forest Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, School of 15 Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200241, 16 China 17 18 4Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Toronto, ON, Canada 19

20 *Correspondence to: Marc Cadotte, [email protected]. 21

1 22 Abstract: 23

24 The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly restricted human activities, and wild species are seemingly

25 thriving in human-dominated areas. However, we have little understanding of the consequences

26 for biodiversity from governmental policies and socioeconomic changes in response to COVID-

27 19, and their conservation significance. Understanding these impacts is a priority for setting

28 effective conservation management in a post-COVID-19 world. Here, we identify putative

29 positive and negative effects of the pandemic on biodiversity. We also highlight consequences

30 that need to be mitigated and others that provided insight into policies to promote biodiversity

31 conservation. To avoid further pandemics and protect human health, local governments should

32 consider biodiversity conservation as a core value and strengthen conservation efforts. In

33 addition, global wildlife trade ban and maintenance of the wildlife’s intact habitats are urgently

34 required. 35

36

37 Keywords: Biodiversity, deforestation, pandemic, poaching, SARS-CoV-2, wildlife trade. 38 39

2 40 The COVID-19 pandemic is threatening global public health and severely limiting human

41 activities worldwide, resulting in unexpected consequences for biodiversity, penguins roaming

42 the streets of eerily quiet South African towns, a puma wandering through Santiago, Chile, and

43 wild boars having their way in Spanish cities, just a few signs of the changing nature of wildlife

44 in the current upheaval (Sharma et al., 2020). Research into the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the cause of

45 COVID-19 disease, has necessarily focused on understanding and finding a cure for the virus

46 and the human health impacts of infection. However, scientists are only beginning to grapple

47 with the environmental and biodiversity consequences of the pandemic and seek opportunities to

48 quantify the effects of human activity on biodiversity (Rutz et al., 2020). The consequences of

49 COVID-19 for biodiversity are critically important to study and understand because it is essential

50 for environmental health and human well-being. The human economic activities and movement

51 have been impacted by COVID-19 shutdowns directly, and impact biodiversity under normal

52 conditions. Further, we need to better understand and communicate that biodiversity is closely

53 related to the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases (Keesing et al., 2010). 54

55 Recent studies have discussed short-term effects of reduced human mobility on biodiversity

56 conservation (Bates et al., 2020; Rutz et al., 2020), but lack a full understanding of long-term

57 impacts from governmental policies and societal changes in response to COVID-19. Here we

58 highlight the possible impacts, identify their conservation significance, and propose potential

59 biodiversity management strategies to prevent future pandemics. 60

61 Direct effect of COVID-19 on wild animals

62 The SARS-CoV-2 virus not only threatens human health and well-being , but also is a risk to

63 wild animals worldwide. Current research is showing that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can transmit

64 from humans to other mammals such as farmed minks (Enserink, 2020), ferrets, and cats (Shi et

65 al., 2020). Siberian tigers and African lions at the Bronx Zoo in New York City have tested

66 positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Leroy et al., 2020). The rising evidence of COVID-19

67 transmission to and between animals indicates that the virus can be a potential risk for

68 susceptible species. Historically, human-to-animal disease transmissions have been widely

69 observed (Messenger et al., 2014). It is a profound threat to apes, which are our closest relatives,

70 because they are likely to be susceptible to infection (Gillespie and Leendertz, 2020). The risk of

3 71 human-to-ape transmission is unfortunately informed by past episodes. For example, wild

72 chimpanzees have been infected with two common human paramyxoviruses, resulting in an

73 unusually high number of sudden deaths of chimpanzees in Côte d'Ivoire from 1995 to 2006

74 (Köndgen et al., 2008). All the great apes are critically endangered, leading to national and non-

75 governmental organizations to limit access to wild ape populations to limit exposure to SARS-

76 CoV-2 (Gillespie and Leendertz, 2020). Until now, we still know little about the direct effect of

77 COVID-19 on wildlife populations. 78

79 Indirect effect of pandemic lockdowns on biodiversity

80 The most important and obvious biodiversity response to reduced human activities is the rapid

81 range expansion of wild animals into formerly human-dominated areas, as showcased by rapid

82 wildlife population increases after the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl (Deryabina et al., 2015)

83 and Fukushima (Lyons et al., 2020). Similarly, COVID-19 lockdowns in human-dominated areas

84 worldwide have resulted in reduced traffic volumes and have generally provided more room for

85 wild animals. As indicated by numerous examples highlighted in popular social media, wild

86 animals are realizing more space and time for their activities as a result of COVID-19, such as

87 lions lounging on empty roads in South Africa, endangered hawksbill sea turtles hatching in

88 greater numbers on empty beaches, and wild flowers flourishing near the street verges and road

89 junctions (Sharma et al., 2020). 90

91 A plethora of environmental consequences, such as noise pollution (McQuate, 2017) and air

92 pollution (Saha and Padhy, 2011), have significant negative effects on the survival of wild plant

93 and animal species. The COVID-19 lockdown has reduced the effect of many of these stressors

94 on wildlife. Government restrictions in response to the pandemic have greatly reduced air

95 pollution (Cadotte, 2020), water pollution (Saraswat and Saraswat, 2020), and noise pollution

96 (Gibney, 2020) around the world. Such environmental improvements will have far-reaching

97 benefits for the survival, growth and reproduction of wild species. For example, reductions of

98 underwater noises caused by ship traffic in North America following the 9/11 attack, are

99 associated with decreased chronic stress in North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

100 (Rolland et al., 2012). This benefit for marine mammals must surely be occurring again with

101 reduced ship traffic during COVID-19 lockdowns (Rutz et al., 2020).

4 102

103 Even though COVID-19 responses have resulted in reduced air and noise pollution (Cadotte,

104 2020; Gibney, 2020), other pollution pathways have likely increased and have more direct

105 impacts on biodiversity. Before the pandemic, plastic pollution was recognized as a serious

106 problem with significant negative effects on aquatic and terrestrial species (de Souza Machado et

107 al., 2018; Wilcox et al., 2015). With COVID-19, there has been a surge in the personal use of

108 non-recyclable medical materials, such as face masks and rubber gloves. They are now seen

109 littering streets in cities worldwide, and the increased use of packaging and plastic bags for food

110 delivery is increasing plastic pollution (Klemeš et al., 2020). For example, some Asian cities

111 have a two-fold increase in medical waste than before the pandemic, and there is a three-fold

112 increase of unsustainable waste management in some rural UK communities (You et al., 2020).

113 Mitigation actions are desperately required. 114

115 The impact of invasive species on ecosystems is frequently cited as a major source of

116 biodiversity loss globally (van Der Wal et al., 2008), and is strongly correlated with the

117 movement of people and goods between regions (Levine and D’Antonio, 2003). The global

118 spread of SARS-CoV-2, which should be considered an invasive species, was driven by both

119 ecological and socioeconomic factors (Nuñez et al., 2020). As a result of the COVID-19

120 lockdown, global transportations and traffic communications have been greatly limited and the

121 subsequent reduction of economic activity has lowered trade. These responses will invariably

122 reduce the number of non-native species introduced into sensitive habitats around the world. 123

124 Finally, before COVID-19, there was a global move towards increasing isolationism with, for

125 example, the UK leaving the EU and the United States pursuing a plan to build border walls. The

126 pandemic is exacerbating this troubling trend as countries isolate themselves by reducing legal

127 immigration and travel, limiting the movement of expert conservation knowledge and resources

128 into places that desperately need these investments (Bates et al., 2020). More than this, instances

129 of physically isolating regions can impact the movement of species and connections between

130 wild populations. In a related example, to prevent the spread of African swine fever by wild

131 boar, Bulgaria erected a 133-km fence along the border with Romania in 2018 (Mysterud and

132 Rolandsen, 2019). The widespread perception of the zoonotic origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

5 133 could cause governments to likewise restrict animal movement to prevent diseases, cause

134 significant habitat loss and fragmentation of wildlife populations, and biodiversity in these

135 transboundary areas would be threatened (Liu et al., 2020). 136

137 Indirect effect of socioeconomic changes

138 While the direct effects of the pandemic lockdowns on wildlife are important, they are mostly

139 temporary or are reversible (Table 1). In contrast, the indirect effects on biodiversity through

140 increased public awareness of the risks of emerging diseases and their relationships with

141 biodiversity could have long-term impacts. It is especially true for segments of the wildlife trade

142 that satisfies non-nutritional demands like perceived medicinal value, such as pangolin scales

143 used in a variety of traditional medicines. These illegal wildlife trades now conflict with the

144 perception that wildlife might carry disease, which is a risk to human health. Wild animals, such

145 as bats and pangolins, were identified as possible natural or intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2

146 (Lam et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). To prevent the recurrence of disease transmission to

147 humans from wildlife, Asian nations, like China and Vietnam, are quickly moving to restrict and

148 prohibit the trade and consumption of wildlife (Wang et al., 2020). Given that human

149 exploitation is one of the most important causes of species extinction globally (Díaz et al., 2019),

150 such wildlife trade bans are well-understood to be an important ingredient for the protection and

151 population recovery of wild species. For example, banning the ivory trade in Hong Kong in 2018

152 was seen as a significant step towards improving the long-term persistence of African elephants

153 (Gibson et al., 2018). More importantly, changes in market demand for wild animals will reduce

154 hunting, poaching, and illegal wildlife trade in the long run. 155

156 However, it should be noted that global exploitation of wildlife resources is growing in

157 developing countries during the pandemic (Bates et al., 2020; Evans et al., 2020). According to

158 Asian Development Bank, global economy could suffer losses worth up to $8.8 trillion due to

159 COVID-19. People in precarious economic situations are likely to exploit more local natural

160 resources during the pandemic if incomes are decreased, and thus increase biodiversity threats.

161 For example, India has witnessed an elevated extinction risk of iconic fish species due to an

162 additional 12 million people in extreme poverty as a result of COVID-19 (Pinder et al., 2020).

163 Meanwhile, the economic strains of the pandemic mean that governments and conservation

6 164 organizations have less funding and staff, challenging biodiversity conservation efforts (Corlett

165 et al., 2020). For example, satellite data from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research

166 showed accelerated deforestation rates in Amazon, mainly due to fewer field agents to combat

167 illegal loggers and miners (Trevisani, 2020). In addition, reductions in effectiveness of wildlife

168 patrolling and security lead to increased poaching in rural areas and nature reserves, resulting in

169 a rapid loss of endangered species. For example, at least nine rhinos in South Africa and six

170 rhinos in Botswana have been killed by poachers as coronavirus halts wildlife tourism (Emma

171 Newburger, 2020). In Cambodia, at least three critical endangered Giant Ibis (Thaumatibis

172 gigantea) and over 100 Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala) chicks have been killed by

173 poachers in response to COVID-19 (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020). 174

175 Given that SARS-CoV-2 originates from wildlife, there is a serious risk of an increase in the

176 perception of wildlife as a threat to human well-being. Under the fear of possible disease

177 transmission from purported hosts of the virus, some hibernating bats have been expelled from

178 their habitats and suffer from misguided persecution (Zhao, 2020). However, not all bats carry

179 such viruses and the greatest risk comes not from the presence of bats but rather activities that

180 increase human-animal interactions that facilitate virus spillover (MacFarlane and Rocha, 2020).

181 Perhaps more insidious than the increase in human-wildlife conflict is that these perception

182 changes could result in less support for endangered species protection, which has always been

183 pitted against human economic wellbeing. Further, people might be less inclined to travel for

184 eco-tourism experiences (Buckley, 2020), which can benefit conservation activities (Krüger,

185 2005), or they might be less likely to donate money or volunteer for conservation organizations. 186

187 Conservation significance of impact types

188 As shown in Table 1, the potential consequences of COVID-19 lockdowns on biodiversity are

189 complex and context-specific, and most of these impacts are temporary, with negligible long-

190 term consequences (Corlett et al., 2020). However, ample signs are indicating a rapid range

191 expansion of wildlife into human spaces due to reduced human mobilities and improved

192 environmental conditions. Factors leading to increased biodiversity in human-dominated areas

193 should inform policy and management going forward to see if we can replicate these with policy

194 tools in a post-COVID-19 world. For example, COVID-19 recovery programs could promote

7 195 sustainable consumer choices and strengthen environmental protections (Pearson et al., 2020).

196 From a research point of view, the pandemic lockdown can be considered as an experiment of

197 “Global Human Confinement Experiment”, and provide opportunities that can benefit

198 biodiversity (Bates et al., 2020; Rutz et al., 2020). 199

200 Unlike lockdowns, impacts of socioeconomic changes on biodiversity can have long-term and

201 far-reaching consequences on biodiversity (Table 1). First, the pandemic has educated the public

202 about the risks of wildlife trade and bushmeat consumption, providing opportunities for easing

203 pressure on wild populations (Evans et al., 2020). For example, after the SARS pandemic, the

204 proportion of people who ate wildlife meat in Hunan Province declined (Yang et al., 2007). In

205 addition, some Asian countries have banned wildlife trade temporarily. It should be noted that

206 blanket bans on hunting bushmeat are impossible. In central Africa, bushmeat provides up to

207 80% of the dietary protein and fat for rural communities (Gilbert, 2008). As such, the priority is

208 critical scrutiny of wildlife trade (Montgomery and Macdonald, 2020). Finally, the loss of

209 human-nature interactions during the lockdowns and increased fear of wildlife species could

210 result in a generation of low conservation willingness and investment in conservation efforts

211 (Buckley, 2020). Such elevated negative impacts need to be mitigated quickly and prioritized as

212 essential governmental operations. 213

214 Lessons learned to prevent future pandemics like COVID-19

215 In recent decades, emerging infectious disease events dominated by zoonoses have increased

216 rapidly, with the majority of these diseases originating from wildlife (Jones et al., 2008). Past

217 pandemics, inlcuding SARS, MERS, Ebola, Nipah, H1N1 flu, have been triggered by close

218 human-animal contacts associated with activities that ultimately result in biodiversity loss

219 (Montgomery and Macdonald, 2020), highlighting the entangled link between the biodiversity

220 crisis and disease transmission to human populations. For example, HIV was derived from

221 consumption of wildlife such as the meat of wild chimpanzees (Faria et al., 2014), while SARS

222 was derived from contacts with bats and masked civets (Li et al., 2005). Illegal hunting, wildlife

223 trade and bushmeat consumption increase opportunities for zoonotic disease transmission

224 (Johnson et al., 2020). Unfortunately, billions of live animals and animal products are traded

225 globally every year (Smith et al., 2009). The global wildlife trade has resulted in at least 1441

8 226 mammal species becoming at risk of extinction (Scheffers et al., 2019), and human consumption

227 of wild animals is the largest threat causing megafauna extinction (Ripple et al., 2019).

228 Immediate remedies from governmental and transnational institutions, and conservation-prone

229 actvities encourage close human-nature contacts, such as bird watching and ecotourism, are

230 urgently required. 231

232 Outbreaks of novel diseases and past pandemics have also been linked to deforestation. For

233 example, increasing deforestation by 10% leads to a 3% rise in malaria cases among people

234 living in the Amazon (MacDonald and Mordecai, 2019). Similarly, past outbreaks of Ebola

235 occurred mostly in sites with recent loss of intact forests (Olivero et al., 2017). This pattern was

236 also observed for avian infectious diseases and other diseases (Morris et al., 2016; Sehgal, 2010).

237 Deforestation amplifies human exposure to deadly pathogens because wild species carrying

238 diseases are pushed into human-dominated landscapes. For example, deforestation led Pteropus

239 bats carrying the Nipah virus into anthropized environments where they foraged on mangos near

240 barns, where the virus was transmitted to pigs and then to humans (Chadha et al., 2006). In

241 addition, frequent human-wildlife contacts in newly created forest edges can increase

242 transmission risk of zoonotic infections (Bloomfield et al., 2020). Intact forests provide a

243 plethora of environmental contributions to human well-being (Mori et al., 2017), but we should

244 add to the exaptational value of intact forests in controlling the spread of emerging diseases

245 (Watson et al., 2018). Unfortunately, large intact forests are declining globally (Potapov et al.,

246 2017). As such, it is urgent to preserve intact forest ecosystems to prevent further outbreaks of

247 infectious diseases (Keesing et al., 2010). 248

249 There is a lesson that needs to be learned and communicated, conserving biodiversity generally

250 reduces the transfer of infectious diseases to human populations, and is therefore a fundamental

251 component of effective public health policy (Keesing et al., 2010). To avoid further pandemics

252 and protect human health, local governments need to consider biodiversity conservation as a core

253 value and strengthen conservation efforts. Rapid biodiversity responses to changes in human

254 activity reveal that we have many lessons to learn about our impacts on species. Ultimately, the

255 pandemic is showing us that humans and nature can coexist better. To protect biodiversity in the

256 post-COVID-19 era, governments and conservation organizations need to create policies and

9 257 management scenarios, and to address changes in the exploitation of wildlife resources in rural

258 areas, where the increased plastic pollution is ending up in urban areas, and to guide COVID-19

259 recovery programs so that they strengthen environmental protections. Moreover, we need to

260 educate the public about the risks of inappropriate human–animal contacts. In particular,

261 maintenance of the wildlife’s intact habitats and global ban on illegal wildlife trade are urgently

262 required. 263

264 Acknowledgments:

265 We thank doctors, nurses and other frontline workers in the fight against COVID-19. We

266 appreciate insightful comments from two anonymous reviewers. We declare no competing

267 interests.

268

269 References: 270 Bates, A.E., Primack, R.B., Moraga, P., Duarte, C.M., 2020. COVID-19 pandemic and 271 associated lockdown as a “Global Human Confinement Experiment” to investigate 272 biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 246, 108571. 273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108665 274 Bloomfield, L.S.P., McIntosh, T.L., Lambin, E.F., 2020. Habitat fragmentation, livelihood 275 behaviors, and contact between people and nonhuman primates in Africa. Landsc. Ecol. 35, 276 985–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-00995-w 277 Buckley, R., 2020. Conservation implications of COVID19: Effects via tourism and extractive 278 industries. Biol. Conserv. 247, 108640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108640 279 Cadotte, M., 2020. Early evidence that COVID-19 government policies reduce urban air 280 pollution. EarthArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31223/OSF.IO/NHGJ3 281 Chadha, M.S., Comer, J.A., Lowe, L., Rota, P.A., Rollin, P.E., Bellini, W.J., Ksiazek, T.G., 282 Mishra, A.C., 2006. Nipah virus-associated encephalitis outbreak, Siliguri, India. Emerg. 283 Infect. Dis. 12, 235–240. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1202.051247 284 Corlett, R.T., Primack, R.B., Devictor, V., Maas, B., Goswami, V.R., Bates, A.E., Koh, L.P., 285 Regan, T.J., Loyola, R., Pakeman, R.J., Cumming, G.S., Pidgeon, A., Johns, D., Roth, R., 286 2020. Impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 287 246, 108571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108571 288 de Souza Machado, A.A., Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., Hempel, S., Rillig, M.C., 2018. Microplastics as 289 an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 1405–1416. 290 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14020 291 Deryabina, T.G., Kuchmel, S. V., Nagorskaya, L.L., Hinton, T.G., Beasley, J.C., Lerebours, A., 292 Smith, J.T., 2015. Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at

10 293 Chernobyl. Curr. Biol. 25, R824–R826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.017 294 Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, 295 K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., Chan, K.M.A., Lucas, A.G., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S.M., 296 Midgley, G.F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., 297 Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Chowdhury, R.R., Shin, Y.J., Visseren-Hamakers, I., Willis, K.J., 298 Zayas, C.N., 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for 299 transformative change. Science. 366, eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100 300 Emma Newburger, 2020. ‘Filthy bloody business:’ Poachers kill more animals as coronavirus 301 crushes tourism to Africa. CNBC. URL https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus- 302 poachers-kill-more-animals-as-tourism-to-africa-plummets.html (accessed 4.28.20). 303 Enserink, M., 2020. Coronavirus rips through Dutch mink farms, triggering culls to prevent 304 human infections. Science. 368, 1169. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd2483 305 Evans, K.L., Ewen, J.G., Guillera-Arroita, G., Johnson, J.A., Penteriani, V., Ryan, S.J., 306 Sollmann, R., Gordon, I.J., 2020. Conservation in the maelstrom of Covid-19 – a call to 307 action to solve the challenges, exploit opportunities and prepare for the next pandemic. 308 Anim. Conserv. 23, 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12601 309 Faria, N.R., Rambaut, A., Suchard, M.A., Baele, G., Bedford, T., Ward, M.J., Tatem, A.J., 310 Sousa, J.D., Arinaminpathy, N., Pépin, J., Posada, D., Peeters, M., Pybus, O.G., Lemey, P., 311 2014. The early spread and epidemic ignition of HIV-1 in human populations. Science. 346, 312 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256739 313 Gibney, E., 2020. Coronavirus lockdowns have changed the way Earth moves. Nature 580, 176– 314 177. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00965-x 315 Gibson, L., Hofford, A., Dudgeon, D., Song, Y., Chen, Y., Baker, D.M., Andersson, A., 2018. 316 Hong Kong’s delayed ivory ban endangers African elephants. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 317 378–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1921 318 Gilbert, N., 2008. Bushmeat ban would have dire effects. Nature. 319 https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2008.1114 320 Gillespie, T.R., Leendertz, F.H., 2020. COVID-19: protect great apes during human pandemics. 321 Nature 579, 497. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00859-y 322 Johnson, C.K., Hitchens, P.L., Pandit, P.S., Rushmore, J., Evans, T.S., Young, C.C.W., Doyle, 323 M.M., 2020. Global shifts in mammalian population trends reveal key predictors of virus 324 spillover risk. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20192736. 325 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736 326 Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, A., Balk, D., Gittleman, J.L., Daszak, P., 2008. 327 Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451, 990–993. 328 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536 329 Keesing, F., Belden, L.K., Daszak, P., Dobson, A., Harvell, C.D., Holt, R.D., Hudson, P., Jolles, 330 A., Jones, K.E., Mitchell, C.E., Myers, S.S., Bogich, T., Ostfeld, R.S., 2010. Impacts of 331 biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature 468, 647– 332 652. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09575 333 Klemeš, J.J., Fan, Y. Van, Tan, R.R., Jiang, P., 2020. Minimising the present and future plastic

11 334 waste, energy and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renew. Sustain. Energy 335 Rev. 127, 109883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109883 336 Köndgen, S., Kühl, H., N’Goran, P.K., Walsh, P.D., Schenk, S., Ernst, N., Biek, R., Formenty, 337 P., Mätz-Rensing, K., Schweiger, B., Junglen, S., Ellerbrok, H., Nitsche, A., Briese, T., 338 Lipkin, W.I., Pauli, G., Boesch, C., Leendertz, F.H., 2008. Pandemic Human Viruses Cause 339 Decline of Endangered Great Apes. Curr. Biol. 18, 260–264. 340 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.012 341 Krüger, O., 2005. The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodivers. 342 Conserv. 14, 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-3917-4 343 Lam, T.T.-Y., Shum, M.H.-H., Zhu, H.-C., Tong, Y.-G., Ni, X.-B., Liao, Y.-S., Wei, W., 344 Cheung, W.Y.-M., Li, W.-J., Li, L.-F., Leung, G.M., Holmes, E.C., Hu, Y.-L., Guan, Y., 345 2020. Identifying SARS-CoV-2 related coronaviruses in Malayan pangolins. Nature https:// 346 doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2169-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2169-0 347 Leroy, E.M., Ar Gouilh, M., Brugère-Picoux, J., 2020. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to 348 pets and other wild and domestic animals strongly mandates a one-health strategy to control 349 the COVID-19 pandemic. One Heal. 100133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100133 350 Levine, J.M., D’Antonio, C.M., 2003. Forecasting biological invasions with increasing 351 international trade. Conserv. Biol. 17, 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523- 352 1739.2003.02038.x 353 Li, W., Shi, Z., Yu, M., Ren, W., Smith, C., Epstein, J.H., Wang, H., Crameri, G., Hu, Z., Zhang, 354 H., Zhang, J., McEachern, J., Field, H., Daszak, P., Eaton, B.T., Zhang, S., Wang, L.F., 355 2005. Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. Science. 310, 676–679. 356 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1118391 357 Liu, J., Yong, D.L., Choi, C.Y., Gibson, L., 2020. Transboundary Frontiers: An Emerging 358 Priority for Biodiversity Conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 679–690. 359 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.03.004 360 Lyons, P.C., Okuda, K., Hamilton, M.T., Hinton, T.G., Beasley, J.C., 2020. Rewilding of 361 Fukushima’s human evacuation zone. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 127–134. 362 https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2149 363 MacDonald, A.J., Mordecai, E.A., 2019. Amazon deforestation drives malaria transmission, and 364 malaria burden reduces forest clearing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 22212–22218. 365 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905315116 366 MacFarlane, D., Rocha, R., 2020. Guidelines for communicating about bats to prevent 367 persecution in the time of COVID-19. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108650. 368 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108650 369 McQuate, S., 2017. Human noise in US parks threatens wildlife. Nature 370 doi:10.1038/nature.2017.21933. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.21933 371 Messenger, A.M., Barnes, A.N., Gray, G.C., 2014. Reverse zoonotic disease transmission 372 (Zooanthroponosis): A systematic review of seldom-documented human biological threats 373 to animals. PLoS One 9, e89055. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089055 374 Montgomery, R.A., Macdonald, D.W., 2020. COVID-19, Health, Conservation, and Shared

12 375 Wellbeing: Details Matter. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.06.001 376 Mori, A.S., Lertzman, K.P., Gustafsson, L., 2017. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forest 377 ecosystems: a research agenda for applied forest ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 12–27. 378 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12669 379 Morris, A.L., Guégan, J.F., Andreou, D., Marsollier, L., Carolan, K., Le Croller, M., Sanhueza, 380 D., Gozlan, R.E., 2016. Deforestation-driven food-web collapse linked to emerging tropical 381 infectious disease, mycobacterium ulcerans. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600387. https://doi.org/10.1126/ 382 sciadv.1600387 383 Mysterud, A., Rolandsen, C.M., 2019. Fencing for wildlife disease control. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 384 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13301 385 Nuñez, M.A., Pauchard, A., Ricciardi, A., 2020. Invasion Science and the Global Spread of 386 SARS-CoV-2. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.05.004 387 Olivero, J., Fa, J.E., Real, R., Márquez, A.L., Farfán, M.A., Vargas, J.M., Gaveau, D., Salim, 388 M.A., Park, D., Suter, J., King, S., Leendertz, S.A., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., 2017. Recent loss of 389 closed forests is associated with Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Sci. Rep. 7, 14291. 390 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14727-9 391 Pearson, R.M., Sievers, M., McClure, E.C., Turschwell, M.P., Connolly, R.M., 2020. COVID-19 392 recovery can benefit biodiversity. Science. 368, 838–839. 393 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc1430 394 Pinder, A.C., Raghavan, R., Britton, | J Robert, Cooke, S.J., 2020. COVID-19 and biodiversity: 395 The paradox of cleaner rivers and elevated extinction risk to iconic fish species. Aquat. 396 Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 30, 1061–1062. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3416 397 Potapov, P., Hansen, M.C., Laestadius, L., Turubanova, S., Yaroshenko, A., Thies, C., Smith, 398 W., Zhuravleva, I., Komarova, A., Minnemeyer, S., Esipova, E., 2017. The last frontiers of 399 wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3, 400 e1600821. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600821 401 Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Betts, M.G., Ceballos, G., Courchamp, F., Hayward, 402 M.W., Valkenburgh, B., Wallach, A.D., Worm, B., 2019. Are we eating the world’s 403 megafauna to extinction? Conserv. Lett. 12, e12627. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12627 404 Rolland, R.M., Parks, S.E., Hunt, K.E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, 405 S.K., Kraus, S.D., 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc. R. 406 Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 2363–2368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2429 407 Rutz, C., Loretto, M., Bates, A.E., Davidson, S.C., Duarte, C.M., Jetz, W., Johnson, M., Kato, 408 A., Kays, R., Mueller, T., Primack, R.B., Ropert-coudert, Y., Tucker, M.A., Wikelski, M., 409 Cagnacci, F., 2020. COVID-19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of 410 human activity on wildlife. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1237-z 411 Saha, D.C., Padhy, P.K., 2011. Effect of air and noise pollution on species diversity and 412 population density of forest birds at Lalpahari, West Bengal, India. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 413 5328–5336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.08.062 414 Saraswat, R., Saraswat, D.A., 2020. Research opportunities in pandemic lockdown. Science. 368, 415 594–595. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc3372

13 416 Scheffers, B.R., Oliveira, B.F., Lamb, I., Edwards, D.P., 2019. Global wildlife trade across the 417 tree of life. Science. 366, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5327 418 Sehgal, R.N.M., 2010. Deforestation and avian infectious diseases. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 955–960. 419 https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.037663 420 Sharma, P., Kaur, M., Narwal, G., 2020. Other side of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A review. 421 Pharma Innov. 9, 366–369. 422 Shi, J., Wen, Z., Zhong, G., Yang, H., Wang, C., Huang, B., Liu, R., He, X., Shuai, L., Sun, Z., 423 Zhao, Y., Liu, P., Liang, L., Cui, P., Wang, J., Zhang, X., Guan, Y., Tan, W., Wu, G., Chen, 424 H., Bu, Z., 2020. Susceptibility of ferrets, cats, dogs, and other domesticated animals to 425 SARS–coronavirus 2. Science. eabb7015. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb7015 426 Smith, K.F., Behrens, M., Schloegel, L.M., Marano, N., Burgiel, S., Daszak, P., 2009. Reducing 427 the risks of the wildlife trade. Science. 324, 594–595. 428 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174460 429 Trevisani, P., 2020. Amazon Deforestation Accelerates as Coronavirus Pandemic Hinders 430 Enforcement. Wall Str. J. URL https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-deforestation- 431 accelerates-as-coronavirus-pandemic-hinders-enforcement-11587586399 (accessed 432 4.29.20). 433 van Der Wal, R., Truscott, A.M., Pearce, I.S.K., Cole, L., Harris, M.P., Wanless, S., 2008. 434 Multiple anthropogenic changes cause biodiversity loss through plant invasion. Glob. 435 Chang. Biol. 14, 1428–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01576.x 436 Wang, H., Shao, J., Luo, X., Chuai, Z., Xu, S., Geng, M., Gao, Z., 2020. Wildlife consumption 437 ban is insufficient. Science. 367, 1435. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6463 438 Watson, J.E.M., Evans, T., Venter, O., Williams, B., Tulloch, A., Stewart, C., Thompson, I., 439 Ray, J.C., Murray, K., Salazar, A., McAlpine, C., Potapov, P., Walston, J., Robinson, J.G., 440 Painter, M., Wilkie, D., Filardi, C., Laurance, W.F., Houghton, R.A., Maxwell, S., 441 Grantham, H., Samper, C., Wang, S., Laestadius, L., Runting, R.K., Silva-Chávez, G.A., 442 Ervin, J., Lindenmayer, D., 2018. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. 443 Ecol. Evol. 2, 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x 444 Wilcox, C., Van Sebille, E., Hardesty, B.D., Estes, J.A., 2015. Threat of plastic pollution to 445 seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 11899– 446 11904. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502108112 447 Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020. COVID-19 FUELING AN UPTICK IN POACHING: 448 Three Critically Endangered Giant Ibis – Cambodia’s National Bird – Killed in Protected 449 Area. URL https://programs.wcs.org/press/News-Releases/articleType/ArticleView/ 450 articleId/14039/categoryId/127/COVID-19-FUELING-AN-UPTICK-IN-POACHING- 451 Three-Critically-Endangered-Giant-Ibis-Cambodias-National-Bird-Killed-in-Protected- 452 Area.aspx (accessed 4.28.20). 453 Yang, D., Dai, X., Deng, Y., Lu, W., Jiang, Z., 2007. Changes in attitudes toward wildlife and 454 wildlife meats in Hunan Province, central China, before and after the severe acute 455 respiratory syndrome outbreak. Integr. Zool. 2, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 456 4877.2007.00043.x

14 457 You, S., Sonne, C., Ok, Y.S., 2020. COVID-19’s unsustainable waste management. Science. 458 368, 1438. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc7778 459 Zhao, H., 2020. COVID-19 drives new threat to bats in China. Science. 367, 1436. 460 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3088 461 Zhou, P., Yang, X.-L., Wang, X.-G., Hu, B., Zhang, L., Zhang, W., Si, H.-R., Zhu, Y., Li, B., 462 Huang, C.-L., Chen, H.-D., Chen, J., Luo, Y., Guo, H., Jiang, R.-D., Liu, M.-Q., Chen, Y., 463 Shen, X.-R., Wang, X., Zheng, X.-S., Zhao, K., Chen, Q.-J., Deng, F., Liu, L.-L., Yan, B., 464 Zhan, F.-X., Wang, Y.-Y., Xiao, G.-F., Shi, Z.-L., 2020. A pneumonia outbreak associated 465 with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 570, 270–273. 466 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 467 468

15 469 Table 1 Conservation significance of the effect of COVID-19 on biodiversity. 470 Responses Consequences Effect on biodiversity Reversibility Extent after reopening Direct Infection of wildlife Affect mammals, No Global effect especially great apes

Lockdowns Wildlife exapansion into Mostly positive Yes Global human spaces Reduced air/water pollution Mainly positive Yes Global Increased plastic pollution Harmful to fish, marine Yes Global birds, mammals and turtles, and soil biota Reduced transportation of Positive for native Yes Global invasive species species and ecosystems Border closure Mostly negative effect Yes- if Global on transboundary physical species barriers are not erected

Socioecono Prohibition of wildlife trade Critical for threatened Not likely Asian countries mic wilidlife protection changes Increased fear of wildlife Misguided persecution Not likely Mainly in Asian species of bats and other wild and African animals regions Increased human Drive extinction of Likely Mainly in exploitation threatened species developing countries Failure of conservation Drive extinction of rare Yes Mainly in efforts and endangered developing species countries 471

16