ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wildlife Trade and Genetic Basis of Disease Susceptibility: A Review.International journal of immunogenetics · 2026Review
- How illegal wildlife trade adheres to and defies conventional market behavior.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- From Forest Extraction to Digital Markets: Illegal Macaw Trade and Adaptive Monitoring for Forest Wildlife Resilience.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Trait-Associated Gaps in IUCN Assessment and Conservation Prioritization for Echolocating Mammals.Integrative zoology · 2026Article
- Enhancing Wildlife Trade Monitoring in the European Union-No Need to Reinvent the Wheel.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The unsustainable use of wildlife is a primary driver of global biodiversity loss. No comprehensive global dataset exists on what species are in trade, their geographic origins, and trade's ultimate impacts, which limits our ability to sustainably manage trade. The United States is one of the world's largest importers of wildlife, with trade data compiled in the US Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS). The LEMIS provides the most comprehensive publicly accessible wildlife trade database of non-the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listed species. In total, 21,097 species and over 2.85 billion individuals were traded over the past 22 y (2000-2022). When LEMIS data are combined with CITES records, the United States imported over 29,445 wild species, including over 50% of all globally described species in some taxonomic groups. For most taxa, around half of the individuals are declared as sourced from the wild. Although the LEMIS provides the only means to assess trade volumes for many taxa, without any associated data on most wild populations, it is impossible to assess the impact on biodiversity, sustainability of trade, or any potential risk of pest or pathogen spread. These insights underscore the considerable underestimation of trade and the urgent need for other countries to adopt similar mechanisms to accurately record 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.