The number of shipments in the CITES Trade Database does not accurately reflect the volume of traded wildlife

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F60076658%3A12220%2F21%3A43903800" target="_blank" >RIV/60076658:12220/21:43903800 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320720309757?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320720309757?via%3Dihub</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108917" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108917</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The number of shipments in the CITES Trade Database does not accurately reflect the volume of traded wildlife

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Volume estimation of the wildlife trade is crucial for effective biodiversity protection. Recently, Mair et al. (Biol. Conserv. 2019, 239, 108260) used the number of shipments reported in the CITES Trade Database as an estimate of the total traded volume of species to rapidly assess the appropriateness of species listings in CITES Appendices. The aims of the present study were to (1) test the presumed relationship between the number of shipments and the volume of various traded terms converted to whole organism equivalents (WOEs) and (2) compare the distribution of species in defined trade volume categories based on different calculation methods. The number of shipments did not reflect traded volume in 15% of species. Different calculation methods led to different categorisations for more than one-third of the species. In general, the number of shipments underestimates the volume of species traded in small-sized terms that allow trade in larger and less-frequent shipments and vice versa. In contrast, WOEs quantification does not consider the species that are traded in non-convertible terms (e. g., meat) or units (e.g., kilograms). Due to the structure of the data in the CITES Trade Database, it is not possible to find the only objective method of trade quantification for the whole data set. However, we recommend to use shipments approach only to exclude species with zero trade, and evaluate the real volume using WOEs where possible

Název v anglickém jazyce

The number of shipments in the CITES Trade Database does not accurately reflect the volume of traded wildlife

Popis výsledku anglicky

Volume estimation of the wildlife trade is crucial for effective biodiversity protection. Recently, Mair et al. (Biol. Conserv. 2019, 239, 108260) used the number of shipments reported in the CITES Trade Database as an estimate of the total traded volume of species to rapidly assess the appropriateness of species listings in CITES Appendices. The aims of the present study were to (1) test the presumed relationship between the number of shipments and the volume of various traded terms converted to whole organism equivalents (WOEs) and (2) compare the distribution of species in defined trade volume categories based on different calculation methods. The number of shipments did not reflect traded volume in 15% of species. Different calculation methods led to different categorisations for more than one-third of the species. In general, the number of shipments underestimates the volume of species traded in small-sized terms that allow trade in larger and less-frequent shipments and vice versa. In contrast, WOEs quantification does not consider the species that are traded in non-convertible terms (e. g., meat) or units (e.g., kilograms). Due to the structure of the data in the CITES Trade Database, it is not possible to find the only objective method of trade quantification for the whole data set. However, we recommend to use shipments approach only to exclude species with zero trade, and evaluate the real volume using WOEs where possible

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10613 - Zoology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Biological Conservation

ISSN

0006-3207

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

253

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2021-02-15

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

5

Strana od-do

1-5

Kód UT WoS článku

000609483300009

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85098067552