The annual trade in exotic vertebrates as pets is a multi‐billion‐dollar global business. Thousands of species, and tens of millions of individual animals, are shipped both internationally and within countries to satisfy this demand. Most research on the exotic pet trade has focused on its contribution to native biodiversity loss and disease spread. Here, we synthesize information across taxa and research disciplines to document the exotic pet trade's contribution to vertebrate biological invasions. We show recent and substantial worldwide growth in the number of non‐native animal populations introduced via this invasion pathway, which demonstrates a strong potential to increase the number of invasive animals in the future. Key to addressing the invasion threat of exotic pets is learning more about the socioeconomic forces that drive the massive growth in the exotic pet market and the socioecological factors that underlie pet release by owners. These factors likely vary according to cultural pet‐keeping traditions across regions and whether purchases were legal or illegal. These gaps in our understanding of the exotic pet trade must be addressed in order to implement effective policy solutions.
The environmental and socio-economic impacts of invasive species have long been recognised to be unequal, with some species being benign while others are disastrous. Until recently there was no recognised standard impact scoring framework with which to compare impacts of species from very different taxa. The advent of the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Socio‐Economic Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (SEICAT) schemes allows for the possibility of assessing impact through a standard approach. However, both these schemes are still in their infancy and the associated costs of the research that informs them is unknown. We aimed to determine the study costs and complexity associated with assessing invasive species’ socio-economic and environmental impacts. We used amphibians as a model group to investigate papers from which EICAT and SEICAT scores could be drawn up to 2019. Our analysis shows that studies that resulted in higher impact scores were more costly. Furthermore, the costs of studies were best predicted by their complexity and the time taken to complete them. If impact scores from EICAT and SEICAT are allowed to inform policy, then we need to carefully consider whether species with low scores represent true impact, or require more research investment and time. Policy makers needing accurate assessments will need to finance larger, more complex, and rigorous studies. Assessing impacts in low and middle income countries may need investment using international research collaborations and capacity building with scientists from high income areas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.