Gaps in global wildlife trade monitoring leave amphibians vulnerable

Abstract

As the biodiversity crisis continues, we must redouble efforts to understand and curb pressures pushing species closer to extinction. One major driver is the unsustainable trade of wildlife. Trade in internationally regulated species gains the most research attention, but this only accounts for a minority of traded species and we risk failing to appreciate the scale and impacts of unregulated legal trade. Despite being legal, trade puts pressure on wild species via: direct collection, introduced pathogens, and invasive species. Smaller species-rich vertebrates, such reptiles, fish, and amphibians, may be particularly vulnerable to trading because of gaps in regulations, small distributions, and demand of novel species. Here we combine data from five sources: online web searches in six languages, CITES trade database, LEMIS trade inventory, IUCN assessments, and a recent literature review, to characterise the global trade in amphibians, and also map use by purpose including meat, pets, medicinal and for research. We show that 1,215 species are being traded (17% of amphibian species), almost three times previous recorded numbers, 345 are threatened, and 100 data deficient or unassessed. Traded species origin hotspots include South American, China, and Central Africa; sources indicate 42% of amphibians are taken from the wild. Newly described species can be rapidly traded (mean time lag of 6.5 years), including threatened and unassessed species. The scale and limited regulation of the amphibian trade, paired with the triptych of connected pressures (collection, pathogens, invasive species), warrants a re-examination of the wildlife trade status-quo, application of the precautionary principle in regards to wildlife trade, and a renewed push to achieve global biodiversity goals.

The demand for wildlife not protected by the CITES multilateral treaty

“…The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 4, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.03.482781 doi: bioRxiv preprint species, many of which have small or unknown ranges (Hughes et al, 2021;Marshall et al, 2020). Our results are consistent with these findings.…”

“…Recent research continues to highlight that the number of species involved in trade is greater than subsequently thought, particularly for understudied species groups popular as exotic pets (Fukushima et al, 2020;Hughes et al, 2021;Marshall et al, 2020Marshall et al, , 2022. Of all extant described species, 17% of amphibians and 36% of reptiles have been found in trade, with unlisted species potentially being vulnerable to exploitation due to lack of trade regulations and high demand, particularly for rare and novel species, many of which have small or unknown ranges (Hughes et al, 2021;Marshall et al, 2020). Our results are consistent with these findings.…”

“…Evidence for ongoing international trade in unlisted reptiles and songbirds has been found in popular pet trade destinations in Asia, Europe and the US, with animals being traded in contravention to national range state protection laws (Heinrich et al, 2021a;Heinrich et al, 2021b;Janssen & Leupen, 2019;Janssen & Shepherd, 2018;Leupen et al, 2018). Recent research continues to highlight that the number of species involved in trade is greater than subsequently thought, particularly for understudied species groups popular as exotic pets (Fukushima et al, 2020;Hughes et al, 2021;Marshall et al, 2020Marshall et al, , 2022. Of all extant described species, 17% of amphibians and 36% of reptiles have been found in trade, with unlisted species potentially being vulnerable to exploitation due to lack of trade regulations and high demand, particularly for rare and novel species, many of which have small or unknown ranges (Hughes et al, 2021;Marshall et al, 2020).…”

Commercial trade of wild animals: examining the use of the IUCN Red List and CITES Appendices as the basis for corporate trade policies

“…This raises questions about why these species, which are considered necessary to regulate for protection by CITES, are not included on the IUCN Red List. It is possible this is due to limitations of the Red List, for example the practical challenges of continuously monitoring such vast numbers of taxa as well as varying levels of resources and expertise (De Grammont and Cuaroń, 2006;Heinrich et al, 2020;Hughes et al, 2021). It is also plausible they are included on the CITES Appendices because their trade has been recognised as a threat to other species (via enabling trade in 'look-alike' species), which would indicate that referring to the IUCN Red List as a foundation for corporate trade policy might not be sufficient despite the IUCN Red List including a larger number of species as threatened overall.…”

“…For example, where a species is considered threatened by alternate factors such as climate change, habitat loss or conflict, trade could place beneficial economic value on the species that in turn aids conservation efforts. However, determining the impact of trade requires extensive monitoring and a copious amount of time, money, and expertise, meanwhile the negative effects of trade can have irreversible consequences for species survival (Frank and Wilcove, 2019;Marshall et al, 2020;Hughes et al, 2021).…”