ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
From Forest Extraction to Digital Markets: Illegal Macaw Trade and Adaptive Monitoring for Forest Wildlife Resilience.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Illegal wildlife trade contributes to biodiversity loss, but trade in forest-dependent parrots is often examined through disconnected evidence streams, including field observations, declared trade records, seizures, online advertisements, and animal-welfare cases. Macaws provide a useful focal group because many species combine high market visibility with delayed maturity, long life spans, low reproductive output, and dependence on suitable nesting cavities. This structured narrative review synthesizes 80 sources, including peer-reviewed studies, CITES resources, official reports, policy documents, and the conservation literature. Sources were coded by taxonomic focus, geographic region, trade-chain level, source type, risk domain, and monitoring method and classified as direct macaw evidence, transferable parrot evidence, or broader wildlife-trade evidence. Direct studies, including long-term research from Peru, show that extraction may interact with habitat loss, nest-site limitation, chick survival, recruitment constraints, and population structure, although species-specific estimates of illegal extraction remain limited. Peruvian market studies further demonstrate the importance of domestic trade outside international reporting systems. CITES and seizure records can identify declared trade patterns and enforcement contacts but cannot provide complete measures of illegal activity. Captive-bred claims require documentary, biological, and, where appropriate, genetic verification, while digital markets disperse trade signals across public listings, seller networks, temporary posts, and private communication. The review proposes a multiscale adaptive monitoring framework connecting ecological evidence, trade and enforcement records, digital-market observations, source verification, and management response. Available evidence supports treating illegal and poorly regulated macaw trade as a plausible conservation stressor, but stronger species-specific datasets are needed to estimate prevalence, demographic effects, and intervention outcomes.
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.