ArticleGlobal ecology and conservation2022
Discussion of wildlife trade before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in professional opinion pieces and scientific articles.
Article in Global ecology and conservation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wildlife trade is a multi-billion-dollar sector that impacts a wide range of species, and thus is of significant research and conservation interest. Wildlife trade has also become a prominent topic in the public-facing media, where coverage has intensified following the outbreak of the global COVID-19 pandemic due to the potential connection between wildlife trade and the origin of the SARS Cov2 virus. Given the importance of the media in shaping public understanding and discourse of complex topics such as wildlife trade, this could impact the implementation of and public support for policy decisions. In this study, we followed a standardised protocol to extract wildlife trade-related discussion from 285 professional opinion pieces (NGO reports or articles in conservation-themed forums) and 107 scientific articles published in two time periods: "pre-COVID" (June 1-December 31, 2019) and "during-COVID" (January 1-May 31, 2020). We compared opinion pieces and scientific articles across the two time periods and to each other to investigate potential differences in the presentation of wildlife trade and associated speakers. We found a shift in the way that wildlife trade was discussed in professional opinion pieces between the periods, in that the discussion became less specific in terms of defining the legality and purpose of trade, and the animal groups involved in the "during-COVID" period. The generalised framing of wildlife trade in our dataset also coincided with an increased discussion of highly generalised management strategies, such as blanket bans on wildlife trade. We also found that publications included more quotes from researchers in the "during-COVID" period. In both professional opinion pieces and scientific articles, we found that quotations or research were often from speakers whose affiliation region was different to the geographic range of the trade they were speaking about. This highlights the importance of incorporating local knowledge and considering the diversity of speakers and interviewees in both research and the public-facing media about the wildlife trade.
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.