Why would a pathogen evolve to kill its hosts when killing a host ends a pathogen’s own opportunity for transmission? A vast body of scientific literature has attempted to answer this question using “trade-off theory,” which posits that host mortality persists due to its cost being balanced by benefits of other traits that correlate with host mortality. The most commonly invoked trade-off is the mortality-transmission trade-off, where increasingly harmful pathogens are assumed to transmit at higher rates from hosts while the hosts are alive, but the pathogens truncate their infectious period by killing their hosts. Here I show that costs of mortality are too small to plausibly constrain the evolution of disease severity except in systems where survival is rare. I alternatively propose that disease severity can be much more readily constrained by a cost of behavioral change due to the detection of infection, whereby increasingly harmful pathogens have increasing likelihood of detection and behavioral change following detection, thereby limiting opportunities for transmission. Using a mathematical model, I show the conditions under which detection can limit disease severity. Ultimately, this argument may explain why empirical support for trade-off theory has been limited and mixed.
Detection, not mortality, constrains the evolution of virulence