Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
201,683 studies31 sourcesUpdated 55 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NCScience Advances

The true scale of global wildlife trade is obscured by data gaps

  • Alice C. Hughes1
  • Benjamin Michael Marshall1,2
  • Daniel W. S. Challender3
  • David P. Edwards4
  • Evan A. Eskew5
  • Julie L. Lockwood6
  • Oscar Morton7
  • Kelly Malsch8
  • Caroline Fukushima9,10
  • Amy Hinsley11
  • Vincent Nijman12,13
  • Shai Meiri1
12 more authors
  • Sharon Baruch-Mordo14
  • Michael F. Tlusty15,16
  • Rodrigo Oyanedel17,18
  • Jacqueline Jürgens19
  • Samuel Pironon20,21
  • Alyson T. Pavitt8
  • Nazli Demirel22
  • Molly R. C. Brown23
  • Oliver J. S. Tallowin23
  • Kim Friedman24,25
  • Rishi Sharma26
  • Neil D. Burgess8,26
26 affiliations
  1. 1School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Royal Parade, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  2. 2School of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
  3. 3Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science (ICCS) and Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade, Department of Biology and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  4. 4Department of Plant Sciences, Centre for Global Wood Security, and Conservation Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  5. 5Institute for Interdisciplinary Data Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
  6. 6Rutgers Climate and Energy Institute and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
  7. 7School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
  8. 8United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK.
  9. 9The Biodiversity and Sustainability Solutions (BISONS) Lab, Department of Biodiversity Sciences, University of Turku, Turku 20014, Finland.
  10. 10Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Laboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), CHANGE - Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa 1749-016, Portugal.
  11. 11Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  12. 12Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
  13. 13EcoVerde Global Consulting, Oxford, UK.
  14. 14TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
  15. 15School for the Environment, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
  16. 16Global Ocean Conservation Program, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA, USA.
  17. 17MAR FUTURA, Navidad, Chile.
  18. 18Instituto Milenio en Socio-Ecología Costera (SECOS), Santiago, Chile.
  19. 19German Federal Agency For Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany.
  20. 20School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
  21. 21Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK.
  22. 22Institute of Marine Sciences and Management, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkiye.
  23. 23International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Cambridge, UK.
  24. 24Fisheries and Aquaculture Division (NFI), Assessment & Management Team (NFIFM), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
  25. 25The University of Western Australia Oceans Institute, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
  26. 26Centre for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate (CMEC), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Overexploitation of wildlife is one of the greatest global drivers of biodiversity loss. Yet, despite this well-established risk, data on extraction and trade are both incomplete and highly fragmented. The IPBES Global analysis estimated 50,000 species to be in trade, yet our review of wildlife trade monitoring programs found at least double that, at 107,356 species in use and trade globally. This included up to 47,685 animal species, covering 42% of all described vertebrate species. Most countries lack any systematic data on trade for species not listed in Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with the exception of the US-specific dataset Law Enforcement Management Information System, which frequently had higher diversity of species in trade than global databases. This highlights the importance of national monitoring efforts and the need for standardized collation of wildlife trade data beyond CITES-listed species. Without these changes, global indicators on trade meant to guide sustainability and conservation will continue to focus on less than 2% of traded species.

Related

  1. A Wrinkle in Space-Time: Spatial machine learning uncovers stage-specific drivers and hidden hotspots of illegal wildlife trade
    Hannah Murray, Alexander Perigon, Bienvenu M. Takem Mbi +5
    EcoEvoRxivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textEcologyEcoEvoRxiv
  2. A Scoping Review of Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease in Wildlife: Global Evidence to Inform Preparedness in Nonendemic Regions
    Emma G. Gardner, Erin N. Casper, Murray Gillies +2
    Transboundary and Emerging DiseasesPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textPlant biologyPMC
  3. Global geometry of the genotype-phenotype map illuminates a trade-off between penetrance and mutational adaptability
    Yutaro Ikeda, Kunihiko Kaneko, Tetsuhiro S. Hatakeyama
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textEvolutionary biologyBiological & medical physicsarXiv
  4. Global proteolysis during starvation governs proteome remodeling and a survival-regrowth trade-off in bacteria.
    Gabriel Manzanarez, Rohan Balakrishnan, Harish Kannan +9
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textGenetics & genomicsEurope PMC
  5. Scale matters: the arbuscular mycorrhiza - root hair trade-off from individual plants to communities
    E. Matthus, J. Hennecke, K. M. Barfuss +3
    bioRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textEcologybioRxiv

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{hughes2026true,
  title = {{The true scale of global wildlife trade is obscured by data gaps}},
  author = {Alice C. Hughes and Benjamin Michael Marshall and Daniel W. S. Challender and David P. Edwards and Evan A. Eskew and Julie L. Lockwood and Oscar Morton and Kelly Malsch and Caroline Fukushima and Amy Hinsley and Vincent Nijman and Shai Meiri and Sharon Baruch-Mordo and Michael F. Tlusty and Rodrigo Oyanedel and Jacqueline Jürgens and Samuel Pironon and Alyson T. Pavitt and Nazli Demirel and Molly R. C. Brown and Oliver J. S. Tallowin and Kim Friedman and Rishi Sharma and Neil D. Burgess},
  journal = {Science Advances},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1126/sciadv.aei3504},
  url = {https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.aei3504},
  note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - The true scale of global wildlife trade is obscured by data gaps
AU  - Alice C. Hughes
AU  - Benjamin Michael Marshall
AU  - Daniel W. S. Challender
AU  - David P. Edwards
AU  - Evan A. Eskew
AU  - Julie L. Lockwood
AU  - Oscar Morton
AU  - Kelly Malsch
AU  - Caroline Fukushima
AU  - Amy Hinsley
AU  - Vincent Nijman
AU  - Shai Meiri
AU  - Sharon Baruch-Mordo
AU  - Michael F. Tlusty
AU  - Rodrigo Oyanedel
AU  - Jacqueline Jürgens
AU  - Samuel Pironon
AU  - Alyson T. Pavitt
AU  - Nazli Demirel
AU  - Molly R. C. Brown
AU  - Oliver J. S. Tallowin
AU  - Kim Friedman
AU  - Rishi Sharma
AU  - Neil D. Burgess
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/30
JO  - Science Advances
DO  - 10.1126/sciadv.aei3504
UR  - https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.aei3504
AB  - Overexploitation of wildlife is one of the greatest global drivers of biodiversity loss. Yet, despite this well-established risk, data on extraction and trade are both incomplete and highly fragmented. The IPBES Global analysis estimated 50,000 species to be in trade, yet our review of wildlife trade monitoring programs found at least double that, at 107,356 species in use and trade globally. This included up to 47,685 animal species, covering 42% of all described vertebrate species. Most countries lack any systematic data on trade for species not listed in Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with the exception of the US-specific dataset Law Enforcement Management Information System, which frequently had higher diversity of species in trade than global databases. This highlights the importance of national monitoring efforts and the need for standardized collation of wildlife trade data beyond CITES-listed species. Without these changes, global indicators on trade meant to guide sustainability and conservation will continue to focus on less than 2% of traded species.
SN  - 2375-2548
ER  -