Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35625090›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Confounding Rules Can Hinder Conservation: Disparities in Law Regulation on Domestic and International Parrot Trade within and among Neotropical Countries.

Pedro Romero-Vidal, Martina Carrete, Fernando Hiraldo, Guillermo Blanco, José L Tella

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Shifting drivers and predictable corridors of an illegal wildlife trade network.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Wildlife Crime: Issues and Promising Solutions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    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.

Pedro Romero-VidalDepartment of Physical, Chemical and Natural Systems, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 41013 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0647-6953
Martina CarreteDepartment of Physical, Chemical and Natural Systems, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 41013 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0491-2950
Fernando HiraldoDepartment of Conservation Biology, Doñana Biological Station CSIC, 41092 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9347-9895
Guillermo BlancoDepartment of Evolutionary Ecology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales CSIC, 28006 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5742-4929
José L TellaDepartment of Conservation Biology, Doñana Biological Station CSIC, 41092 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3038-7424

Funding

Loro Parque Fundación PP-146-2018-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife trade is a major driver of biodiversity loss worldwide. To regulate its impact, laws and regulations have been implemented at the international and national scales. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has regulated the international legal trade since 1975. However, an important volume of illegal trade-mainly within countries-continues to threaten several vertebrate groups, which could be due to a lack of specific legislation or enforcement of existing regulations. Our aim was to gain a more accurate picture of poaching and legal possession of native parrots as pets in the Neotropics, where illegal domestic trade is currently widespread. We conducted a systematic search of the laws of each of the 50 countries and overseas territories, taking into account their year of implementation and whether the capture, possession and/or sale of parrots is permitted. We compared this information with legal exports reported by CITES to assess differences between the enforcement of international and national trade regulations. We found that only two countries (Guyana and Suriname) currently allow the capture, trade and possession of native parrots, while Peru allowed international legal trade until recently. The other countries have banned parrot trade from years to decades ago. However, the timing of implementation of international and national trade regulations varied greatly between countries, with half of them continuing to export parrots legally years or decades after banning domestic trade. The confusion created by this complex legal system may have hindered the adoption of conservation measures, allowing poaching, keeping and trade of protected species within and between neighboring countries. Most countries legally exported Neotropical parrot species which were not native to those countries, indicating that trans-border smuggling often occurred between neighboring countries prior to their legal exportations, and that this illicit activity continues for the domestic trade. Governments are urged to effectively implement current legislation that prohibits the trapping and domestic trade of native parrots, but also to develop coordinated alliances and efforts to halt illegal trade among them. Otherwise, illegal trade will continue to erode the already threatened populations of a large number of parrot species across the Neotropics.

Indexed as

conservationlaw regulationsparrotspoachingwildlife crimewildlife legislationswildlife trade

Identifiers

PMID35625090
PMCPMC9137931

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.