Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34382939›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Gaps in global wildlife trade monitoring leave amphibians vulnerable.

Alice C Hughes, Benjamin Michael Marshall, Colin T Strine

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Using customs data to understand overlooked trade in non-CITES birds between Africa and Asia.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The U.S. market for imported wildlife not listed in the CITES multilateral treaty.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alice C Hughes *Centre for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Xishuangbanna, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4899-3158
Benjamin Michael Marshall *School of Biology, Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9554-0605
Colin T StrineSchool of Biology, Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Suranaree University of Technology · THXishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the biodiversity crisis continues, we must redouble efforts to understand and curb pressures pushing species closer to extinction. One major driver is the unsustainable trade of wildlife. Trade in internationally regulated species gains the most research attention, but this only accounts for a minority of traded species and we risk failing to appreciate the scale and impacts of unregulated legal trade. Despite being legal, trade puts pressure on wild species via direct collection, introduced pathogens, and invasive species. Smaller species-rich vertebrates, such as reptiles, fish, and amphibians, may be particularly vulnerable to trading because of gaps in regulations, small distributions, and demand of novel species. Here, we combine data from five sources: online web searches in six languages, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) trade database, Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) trade inventory, IUCN assessments, and a recent literature review, to characterise the global trade in amphibians, and also map use by purpose including meat, pets, medicinal, and for research. We show that 1215 species are being traded (17% of amphibian species), almost three times previous recorded numbers, 345 are threatened, and 100 Data Deficient or unassessed. Traded species origin hotspots include South America, China, and Central Africa; sources indicate 42% of amphibians are taken from the wild. Newly described species can be rapidly traded (mean time lag of 6.5 years), including threatened and unassessed species. The scale and limited regulation of the amphibian trade, paired with the triptych of connected pressures (collection, pathogens, invasive species), warrants a re-examination of the wildlife trade status quo, application of the precautionary principle in regard to wildlife trade, and a renewed push to achieve global biodiversity goals.

Indexed as

AmphibiansAnimals, WildBiodiversityAfrica, CentralAnimalsChinaCommerceDatabases, FactualEndangered SpeciesInternationalityReptilesSouth AmericaSpecies SpecificityCITESecologyendangered speciesLEMISonline traderegulationwildlife trade

Identifiers

PMID34382939
PMCPMC8425949
OpenAlexW3192259828

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.