Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32932890›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Risky Business: Live Non-CITES Wildlife UK Imports and the Potential for Infectious Diseases.

Jennah Green, Emma Coulthard, John Norrey, David Megson, Neil D'Cruze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Surveys on Pet-Reptile-Associated Multi-Drug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Ending Commercial Lion Farming in South Africa: A Gap Analysis Approach.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Zoonotic potential and prevalence ofInfection ecology & epidemiology · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. On the Record: An Analysis of Exotic Pet Licences in the UK.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jennah GreenWorld Animal Protection, 222 Gray's Inn Rd., London WC1X 8HB, UK.
Emma CoulthardEcology & Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GB, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8935-9092
John NorreyEcology & Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GB, UK.
David MegsonEcology & Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GB, UK.
Neil D'CruzeWorld Animal Protection, 222 Gray's Inn Rd., London WC1X 8HB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International wildlife trade is recognised as a major transmission pathway for the movement of pathogenic organisms around the world. The UK is an active consumer of non-native live wild animals and is therefore subject to the risks posed by pathogen pollution from imported wildlife. Here, we characterise a key yet overlooked portion of the UK wildlife import market. We evaluate the trade in live non-CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) wild terrestrial animals entering the UK over a 5-year period using data reported by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA). Between 2014 and 2018, over 48 million individual animals, across five taxonomic classes and 24 taxonomic orders, were imported into the UK from 90 countries across nine global regions. The largest volumes of wild animals were imported from North America and Asia, and most of the import records were from Europe and Africa. Excluding Columbiformes (pigeons) and Galliformes ('game birds'), amphibians were the most imported taxonomic class (73%), followed by reptiles (17%), mammals (4%), birds (3%), and arachnids (<1%). The records described herein provide insight into the scope and scale of non-CITES listed wildlife imported in to the UK. We describe the potential for pathogen pollution from these vast and varied wildlife imports and highlight the potential threats they pose to public health. We also draw attention to the lack of detail in the UK wildlife import records, which limits its ability to help prevent and manage introduced infectious diseases. We recommend that improved record keeping and reporting could prove beneficial in this regard.

Indexed as

exotic pethuman healthoutbreakspandemicspetwildlife tradezoonotic disease

Identifiers

PMID32932890
PMCPMC7552149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.