Thousands of reptile species threatened by under-regulated global trade

Abstract

Wildlife trade is a key driver of the biodiversity crisis. Unregulated, or under-regulated wildlife trade can lead to unsustainable exploitation of wild populations. International efforts to regulate wildlife mostly miss 'lower-value' species, such as those imported as pets, resulting in limited knowledge of trade in groups like reptiles. Here we generate a dataset on web-based private commercial trade of reptiles to highlight the scope of the global reptile trade. We find that over 35% of reptile species are traded online. Three quarters of this trade is in species that are not covered by international trade regulation. These species include numerous endangered or range-restricted species, especially hotspots within Asia. Approximately 90% of traded reptile species and half of traded individuals are captured from the wild. Exploitation can occur immediately after scientific description, leaving new endemic species especially vulnerable. Pronounced gaps in regulation imply trade is having unknown impacts on numerous threatened species. Gaps in monitoring demand a reconsideration of international reptile trade regulations. We suggest reversing the status-quo, requiring proof of sustainability before trade is permitted.

Fig. 1. Summary of the number of reptile species detected in the trade between 2000 and 2019, and their status within CITES and the IUCN RedList.

Large numbers indicate the total in each of the three data sources, whereas the smaller numbers report the overlap between datasets (e.g., only 622 of the 3943 species were detected in all three datasets). CITES-appendix breakdown covers all potentially covered species, i.e., any historical name match indicating protection. Clade classifications are from Reptile Database listings. IUCN classifications: DD, data deficient; LC, least concern; NT, near threatened; VU, vulnerable; EN, endangered; CR, critically endangered. Species listed as lower risk/least concern are included in LC, species listed as lower risk/near threatened are included in NT. NE, not evaluated. NE species include those not evaluated by the IUCN and those we could not confidently match with a species name.

Fig. 2. Number and uniqueness of species detected during 2004–2018.

a The raw species counts from CITES trade database, LEMIS and detected on the top reptile selling website (all keywords). b Trend in number of species detected on the most species-rich reptile trading website. Solid lollipops show residuals from a linear relationship between the number of pages available in a year and the number of species detected using all keywords. Light coloured lollipops show the residual species counts each year detected by only scientific names. c The number of species detected on the most species-rich reptile trading website unique to each year in the online trade. The red line shows the unique species detected using all keywords, while the blue line shows the species detected by scientific name only. d The number of species detected on the most species-rich reptile trading website listed in any CITES appendix in that year. Whether a species was included in a CITES appendix was determined by exact matching of Reptile Database name with CITES listed name.

Fig. 3. Maps showing the species distributions of all traded reptile species based on species listed in trade in the three data sources (Online, LEMIS and CITES).

Reptile range maps of traded species are from the GARD database. a Number of traded species from any given location. Supplementary Fig. 5 shows the number of species listed in trade in each of the three sources separately. b Percentage of species in trade where over 50 species exist. Yellow colours indicate under 50% and red-black over 50% (areas with low diversity may have a high percentage of species in trade based on low numbers of species in total only diverse areas are shown here, whereas Fig. S5 shows percentage of species in trade for all species richness levels). c Origin of traded species listed as Endangered or Critically Endangered by the IUCN showing the number of species with that status in any given location. d Origin of traded species listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN and the number of Vulnerable species.

Fig. 4. Time lag between post-1999 species descriptions and their appearance in the online trade or in the LEMIS database.

a Species detected during the temporal online sampling from the most species-rich website (solid lines), or in the LEMIS data (dashed lines) that allowed for an earliest-year-detected. The period 2000–2001 is only covered by LEMIS data. LEMIS data shown here excludes non-commercially traded species. b Counts of species described after 1999 but only detected in the 2019 snapshot data: the actual appearance date in the trade is likely before 2019. c Frequency plot of species lag times.