Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35924462›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

The U.S. market for imported wildlife not listed in the CITES multilateral treaty.

Freyja Watters, Oliver Stringham, Chris R Shepherd, Phillip Cassey

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Species-level, digitized wildlife trade data are essential for achieving biodiversity targets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Freyja WattersInvasion Science & Wildlife Ecology Lab, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0655-3549
Oliver StringhamInvasion Science & Wildlife Ecology Lab, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4224-7090
Chris R ShepherdMonitor Conservation Research Society, Big Lake Ranch, British Columbia, Canada.
Phillip CasseyInvasion Science & Wildlife Ecology Lab, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2626-0172
The University of Adelaide · AUWildlife Conservation Society Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The international wildlife trade presents severe conservation and environmental security risks, yet no international regulatory framework exists to monitor the trade of species not listed in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We explored the composition and dynamics of internationally regulated versus nonregulated trade, with a focus on importations of wild-caught terrestrial vertebrates entering the United States from 2009 to 2018. We used 10 years of species-level trade records of the numbers of live, wild-caught animals imported to the United States and data on International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates of extinction risk to determine whether there were differences in the diversity, abundance, and risk to extinction among imports of CITES-listed versus unlisted species. We found 3.6 times the number of unlisted species in U.S. imports compared with CITES-listed species (1366 vs. 378 species). The CITES-listed species were more likely to face reported conservation threats relative to unlisted species (71.7% vs. 27.5%). However, 376 unlisted species faced conversation threats, 297 species had unknown population trends, and 139 species were without an evaluation by the IUCN. Unlisted species appearing for the first time in records were imported 5.5 times more often relative to CITES-listed species. Unlisted reptiles had the largest rate of entry, averaging 53 unique species appearing in imports for the first time per year. Overall trade quantities were approximately 11 times larger for imports of unlisted species relative to imports of CITES-listed species. Countries that were top exporters of CITES-listed species were mostly different from exporters of unlisted species. Because of the vulnerabilities of unlisted, traded species entering the United States and increasing global demand, we strongly recommend governments adapt their policies to monitor and report on the trade of all wildlife.

Indexed as

Animals, WildCommerceAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesInternational CooperationInternationalityUnited Statesexotic petsinternational wildlife tradeIUCNLEMISmascotas exóticasmercado internacional de faunaregulación de faunaUICNwildlife regulation世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)国际野生动物贸易外来宠物美国鱼类及野生动物管理局执法管理信息系统(LEMIS)野生动物法规

Identifiers

PMID35924462
PMCPMC10092231
OpenAlexW4289841113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.