A global study published in Science Advances on October 30 estimates that 107,356 wildlife species are used or traded, more than twice the earlier estimate of about 50,000. Led by Alice Hughes at Australia's University of Melbourne, the research warns that incomplete records obscure pressures on biodiversity.
The team reviewed monitoring programmes and international, national and regional databases. Its total covers animals, plants and fungi, including non-commercial uses. Yonhap's account stresses that the figure does not mean every species is confirmed in commercial international trade. The study expands the evidence base rather than demonstrating that trade suddenly doubled.
The paper's abstract identifies up to 47,685 animal species and says the vertebrates included represent 42% of described vertebrate species. Most countries lack systematic records for species outside the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES. The authors highlight the US wildlife trade database as an important exception.
In the university's release, published by Phys.org, Hughes explains that wildlife commerce reaches beyond ivory or other familiar illicit products. It includes timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, flowers and fungi, and much is legal. A species appearing in the review is therefore not automatically evidence of criminal activity or unsustainable exploitation.
The researchers say missing information on quantities, origins and wild populations makes it difficult to judge whether use threatens survival. Uneven reporting also limits comparisons between countries. They warn that conservation indicators cannot adequately represent the variety of wildlife involved when monitoring covers only a small share of species.
The team proposes standardising records and sharing them internationally, including for species outside CITES. Existing customs and animal-health inspection procedures could help collect comparable information, Hughes says. The proposed changes would support assessments of sustainability; they are recommendations from the research, not a newly adopted global monitoring system.
Comments