ArticlePloS one2021
Monitoring compliance of CITES lion bone exports from South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of the impact of restrictive wildlife trade measures on conservation of iconic species in southern Africa.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Pooled it
- Combining detection dogs with air extraction methodology to expose wildlife trafficking in containerized cargo.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Reviewing Evidence for the Impact of Lion Farming in South Africa on African Wild Lion Populations.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Unsustainable anthropogenic mortality threatens the long-term viability of lion populations in Mozambique.PloS one · 2025Article
- Contemporary Cultural Trade of Lion Body Parts.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From 2008 to 2018, South Africa permitted the export of captive-bred African lion (Panthera leo) skeletons to Southeast Asia under CITES Appendix II. Legal exports rose from approximately 50 individuals in 2008 to a maximum of 1,771 skeletons in 2016, and has led to ongoing concerns over possible laundering of non-lion, multiple-source and wild-sourced bones. South Africa is required under its obligations to CITES to employ mechanisms for monitoring and reporting trade, and to limit the potential for illegal trade and laundering of lion and other large felid bones. Monitoring tools for legal trade are critical to compliance with CITES. Here we evaluate the CITES-compliance procedure implemented by South Africa for export of lion bones and identify six essential general points for consideration in the implementation of animal export quota compliance protocols. We provide specific insight into the South African lion bone export monitoring system through: i) outlining the protocols followed; ii) assessing the utility of cranial morphology to identify species; iii) evaluating skeleton consignment weight as a monitoring tool; and iv) presenting molecular (DNA) species assignment and pairwise-comparative sample matching of individuals. We describe irregularities and illicit behaviour detected in the 2017 and 2018 lion bone quotas. Notably, we report that the compliance procedure successfully identified and prevented the attempted laundering of a tiger (P. tigris) skeleton in 2018. We emphasise the utility of mixed-method protocols for the monitoring of compliance in CITES Appendix II export quota systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.