Measuring the impact of the pet trade on Indonesian birds

Abstract

The trade in wild animals involves one-third of the world's bird species and thousands of other vertebrate species. Although a few species are imperiled as a result of the wildlife trade, the lack of field studies makes it difficult to gauge how serious a threat it is to biodiversity. We used data on changes in bird abundances across space and time and information from trapper interviews to evaluate the effects of trapping wild birds for the pet trade in Sumatra, Indonesia. To analyze changes in bird abundance over time, we used data gathered over 14 years of repeated bird surveys in a 900-ha forest in southern Sumatra. In northern Sumatra, we surveyed birds along a gradient of trapping accessibility, from the edge of roads to 5 km into the forest interior. We interviewed 49 bird trappers in northern Sumatra to learn which species they targeted and how far they went into the forest to trap. We used prices from Sumatran bird markets as a proxy for demand and, therefore, trapping pressure. Market price was a significant predictor of species declines over time in southern Sumatra (e.g., given a market price increase of approximately $50, the log change in abundance per year decreased by 0.06 on average). This result indicates a link between the market-based pet trade and community-wide species declines. In northern Sumatra, price and change in abundance were not related to remoteness (distance from the nearest road). However, based on our field surveys, high-value species were rare or absent across this region. The median maximum distance trappers went into the forest each day was 5.0 km. This suggests that trapping has depleted bird populations across our remoteness gradient. We found that less than half of Sumatra's remaining forests are >5 km from a major road. Our results suggest that trapping for the pet trade threatens birds in Sumatra. Given the popularity of pet birds across Southeast Asia, additional studies are urgently needed to determine the extent and magnitude of the threat posed by the pet trade.

Tropical birds are declining in the Hainan Island of China

“…First, wildlife-rearing farms play key roles in supplying wildlife for markets. Similar to other areas in South Asia (Corlett, 2007;Li and Li, 1998;Harris et al, 2016), illegal wildlife hunting and trade for food, TCM and pet are widespread in South China, including in provinces such as Guangxi, Guang Dong and Hainan (Gong et al, 2006;Lee et al, 2004;Li, 1996, 1998;Liang et al, 2011;Zhou et al, 2005). Most illegal hunting activities are not for subsistence but rather for wildlife trade, because hunters can obtain high economic benefits from wildlife trade Li, 1996, 1998;Li et al, 2000;Lee et al, 2004).…”

“…Several waterbird populations that have declined, including the Cinnamon Bittern (Ixobrychus cinnamomeus) and White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis), may be partly due to the loss of wetland from construction of the farms. A more recent study revealed that pet trade was a significant predictor of bird species decline in Indonesia (Harris et al, 2016). More research is needed for understanding how wildlife-rearing farms are linked to the bird decline in Hainan Island.…”

Saving two birds with one stone: solving the quandary of introduced, threatened species

“…; Harris et al . ). At the opposite end of the supply chain, markets where these species are sold are often the sources of introductions via deliberate or accidental releases (Carrete and Tella ).…”

Biodiversity conservation in a telecoupled world

“…These particular preferences generate strong telecoupled legal and illegal wildlife trade flows that pose a challenge to the viability of wild populations. For instance, market prices in the pet trade were found to be a strong predictor of bird species declines in the wild in Indonesia (Harris et al 2016). These trading dynamics are also replicated across agricultural and forestry commodities, typically between high-income importers and low-income exporters (e.g., Exporter 1 and Importer 1 in Fig.…”