Response to Comment on “Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity”

dc.contributor.authorScheele, Ben
dc.contributor.authorPasmans, Frank
dc.contributor.authorSkerratt, Lee
dc.contributor.authorBerger, Lee
dc.contributor.authorMartel, An
dc.contributor.authorBeukema, Wouter
dc.contributor.authorAcevedo, Aldemar
dc.contributor.authorBurrowes, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, Tamilie
dc.contributor.authorCatenazzi, Alessandro
dc.contributor.authorDe la Riva, Ignacio
dc.contributor.authorFisher, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorGuayasamín, Juan
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-28T19:04:08Z
dc.date.available2022-06-28T19:04:08Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractLambert et al. question our retrospective and holistic epidemiological assessment of the role of chytridiomycosis in amphibian declines. Their alternative assessment is narrow and provides an incomplete evaluation of evidence. Adopting this approach limits understanding of infectious disease impacts and hampers conservation efforts. We reaffirm that our study provides unambiguous evidence that chytridiomycosis has affected at least 501 amphibian species.es
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay2905
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14809/3345
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherScience. Volume 367, Issue 6484es
dc.rightsopenAccesses
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/es
dc.titleResponse to Comment on “Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity”es
dc.typearticlees

Archivos