A global indicator of utilized wildlife populations: Regional trends and the impact of management

•Utilized vertebrate populations declined by 50% on average from 1970 to 2016•Body size is an important predictor of trends in utilized populations•Importantly, that are managed more likely be increasing•Reversal decline crucial for biodiversity and people The use wildlife supports many their food, medicine, livelihoods. Ensuring this sustainable central conservation ensure the persistence species alongside continued utilization people. Using than 11,000 population trends, we conducted a global analysis local-scale data better understand how respond utilization. We found between 2016 showed steeper negative were not (−3%). If these continue, then may threaten survival detrimental who rely use. also highlight might reversed. Encouragingly, under targeted management, whether or not, fared those managed. This evidence can used track progress toward international national targets species. Sustainable core aspiration but subject intense debate scientific literature, including extent which impacting management mitigate any impact. Although positive outcomes known specific taxa local communities, regional picture lacking. dataset time series derive indices “utilized” “not utilized” populations. Our results show globally tend rapidly, especially Africa Americas. Crucially, where managed, they increasing. inform assessments provide operational indicator Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Direct wild one ways fundamental subsistence livelihoods people.1Hutton J.M. Leader-Williams N. incentive-driven conservation: realigning human interests.Oryx. 2003; 37: 215-226https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605303000395Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 2Díaz S. Demissew Carabias J. Joly C. Lonsdale M. Ash Larigauderie A. Adhikari J.R. Arico Báldi et al.The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature people.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015; 14: 1-16https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002Crossref (1137) 3Bongaarts IPBES, 2019. Summary policymakers assessment report ecosystem services Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform Ecosystem Services.Popul. Dev. Rev. 2019; 45: 680-681https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12283Crossref 4Alves R.R.N. Albuquerque U.P. Chapter 1 - introduction: animals our lives.in: Nóbrega Alves R.R. Ethnozoology. Academic Press, 2018: 1-7https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809913-1.00001-6Crossref (4) 5Díaz Pascual U. Stenseke Martín-López B. Watson R.T. Molnár Z. Hill R. Chan K.M.A. Baste I.A. Brauman K.A. al.Assessing nature's contributions people.Science. 2018; 359: 270-272https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826Crossref PubMed (982) 6Cooney Roe D. Dublin H. Booker F. Wild Life, Livelihoods: Involving Communities Wildlife Management Combatting Illegal Trade. United Nations Environment Programme, 2018http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22864/WLWL_Report_web.pdfGoogle Scholar Consequently, unsustainable impact anthropogenic activity species, particularly peoples’ wellbeing, presents threat ecosystems as well health development.7Pascual Balvanera P. Díaz Pataki G. Roth E. Başak Dessane Islar Kelemen al.Valuing nature’s people: approach.Curr. 2017; 26-27: 7-16https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006Crossref (700) 8Golden C.D. Allison E.H. Cheung W.W.L. Dey M.M. Halpern B.S. McCauley D.J. Smith Vaitla Zeller Myers S.S. Nutrition: fall fish catch threatens health.Nature. 2016; 534: 317-320https://doi.org/10.1038/534317aCrossref (293) 9Ingram Coad L. Milner-Gulland E.J. Parry Wilkie Bakarr M.I. Benítez-López Bennett E.L. Bodmer Cowlishaw al.Wild meat still menu: research, policy, practice 2002 2020.Annu. Resour. 2021; 46: 221-254https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-041020-063132Crossref (20) Moreover, prohibition have serious consequences people, risks food security,10Booth Clark Amponsah-Mensah K. Antunes A.P. Brittain Castilho L.C. Campos-Silva J.V. Constantino P.d.A.L. Li Y. al.Investigating removing systems.Curr. Biol. 31: 1788-1797.e1783https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.079Abstract Full Text PDF (21) so striving key. importance resources has been recognized embedded bodies conventions nature.11United NationsConvention Biological Diversity. Nations, 1992Google 12Hickey M.J. Acceptance within CITES community.Vt. Law 1998; 23: 861Google 13IUCNThe IUCN Policy Statement Use Living Resources. IUCN, 2000Google 14United General AssemblyTransforming World: 2030 Agenda Development. Assembly, 2015Google 15IPBESReport Plenary Services Work its Sixth Session. 2018Google However, achieving remains challenge. As part Convention Diversity’s Strategic Plan 2011–20, Aichi target 4.2 was set keep impacts natural safe ecological limits 2020. Progress assessed “poor” final decadal review targets,16Secretariat convention biological diversity.Glob. Biodivers. Outlook. 2020; 5Google research behind limited sustainability.9Ingram Overexploitation highly prevalent biodiversity,9Ingram Scholar,17Marsh S.M.E. Hoffmann Burgess N.D. Brooks T.M. Challender D.W.S. Cremona P.J. Hilton-Taylor de Micheaux F.L. Lichtenstein Böhm Prevalence inferred Red List Threatened Species.Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13844Crossref with showing harvesting, logging, fishing, hunting often occur at levels.3Bongaarts Together activities such logging agriculture, trapping higher probability compared other threats, hotspots largely concentrated tropics.18Harfoot M.B.J. Johnston Balmford Butchart S.H.M. Dias M.P. Hazin Isaac N.J.B. al.Using map threats terrestrial vertebrates scale.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5: 1510-1519https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01542-9Crossref (14) Combined pressures land change reduced distribution tropical mammals, large-bodied most impacted.19Gallego-Zamorano Santini Hilbers J.P. Huijbregts M.A.J. Schipper A.M. effects distributions mammals.Conserv. 34: 1271-1280https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13459Crossref (19) effect hunting, commercial use, implicated 97 bird 254 mammal species,20Benítez-López Alkemade Ingram Verweij P.A. Eikelboom J.A.J. populations.Science. 356: 180-183https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaj1891Crossref (233) 301 mammals threatened extinction lists primary threat.21Ripple W.J. Abernethy Betts M.G. Chapron Dirzo Galetti Levi T. Lindsey Macdonald D.W. Machovina al.Bushmeat risk world's mammals.R. Soc. Open Sci. 3: 160498https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160498Crossref (256) In marine realm, percentage stocks biologically levels decreased 90% 65.8% 1974 2017,22FAOThe State World Fisheries Aquaculture Sustainability Action. FAO, 2020Google although recent suggest scientifically now increasing average, intensively faring better.23Hilborn Amoroso R.O. Anderson C.M. Baum J.K. Branch T.A. Costello Moor C.L. Faraj Hively Jensen O.P. al.Effective fisheries instrumental improving stock status.Proc. Natl. Acad. U S 117: 2218-2224https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909726116Crossref (193) role evident some notable examples land. rise community-based resource over 30 years ago, include managing place centralized policies, yielded economic benefits countries.6Cooney Scholar,24Anderson Mehta community based management: addressing critical challenges rural sector.https://rmportal.net/library/content/global-assessment-cbnrm-challenges-rural-sector/at_download/fileGoogle Scholar,25Roe Nelson Sandbrook Community Natural Resources Africa: Impacts, Experiences Future Directions. International Institute Development, 2009Google Similarly, even regions heavily impacted centuries,26Ceballos Ehrlich P.R. Mammal losses crisis.Science. 2002; 296: 904-907https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069349Crossref (604) Scholar,27Laliberte A.S. Ripple Range contractions North American carnivores ungulates.Bioscience. 2004; 54: 123-138https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0123:rconac]2.0.co;2Crossref recoveries recorded result efforts stem use.28Deinet Ieronymidou McRae Burfield I.J. Foppen R.P. Collen al.Wildlife Comeback Europe: Recovery Selected Bird Species. Zoological Society London, UK2013Google Scholar,29Sanderson E.W. Redford K.H. Weber Aune Baldes Berger Carter Curtin Derr Dobrott future Bison: conceiving long-term, large-scale wildlife.Conserv. 2008; 22: 252-266https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00899.xCrossref (108) To (hereafter called “utilized species” populations”; see “definitions” experimental procedures) scale, existing indicators focused level; e.g., Index internationally traded medicine Planet species.30Butchart list measure sustainability invasive alien species.Bird Conserv. Int. 18: S245-S262https://doi.org/10.1017/s095927090800035xCrossref Scholar,31Tierney Almond Stanwell-Smith Zöckler Walpole Hutton Bie it lose it: measuring substantial use.Oryx. 2014; 48: 420-429https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605313000653Crossref These cannot integrate potential heterogeneity because factors influencing individual same differently, identified harvesting.32Di Minin Toivonen Heikinheimo V. J.E.M. Goettsch Jenkins Moilanen Identifying centers harvesting species.Sci. Adv. eaau2879https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2879Crossref (38) environment, measured fishing pressure proportion unsustainable.22FAOThe At smaller harvest models assess status population, detailed information management.33Salo Sirén Kalliola Diagnosing Species Harvest: Resource Conservation. 2013Crossref propose large views needed present population-based approach site-level aggregated scale. insights available level through incorporating population-level into analysis. follow approach, develop following method calculate (LPI),34Loh Green R.E. Ricketts Lamoreux Kapos Randers Index: using biodiversity.Philos. Trans. B: 2005; 360: 289-295https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1584Crossref (304) 35Collen Loh Whitmee Mcrae Amin Baillie Monitoring abundance: living index.Conserv. 2009; 317-327https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01117.xCrossref (252) 36McRae Deinet Freeman diversity-weighted index: controlling taxonomic bias indicator.PLoS One. 12: e0169156https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169156Crossref (88) multi-species relative abundance monitor targets.37Butchart S.H. Van Strien Scharlemann J.E. Bomhard Brown Bruno biodiversity: declines.Science. 2010; 328: 1164-1168Crossref (3026) 38Tittensor D.P. S.L. Boyce D.G. Britten G.L. Leadley P.W. Regan E.C. A mid-term targets.Science. 346: 241-244Crossref (739) 39Green Harfoot S.L.L. Baldwin-Cantello W. Simonson W.D. Below canopy: forest drivers.Proc. B 287: 20200533https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.0533Crossref explore differences respect groups (IPBES) test sensitivity quality. Database, underpins index, collates collected locally around world, divided different deliver suite change; suitable within-species comparisons identification correlates predicting mixed-effect models.40Collen Palma A.D. Carranza Cooper Predicting extinction.Philos. 2011; 366: 2577-2586https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0015Crossref (73) Scholar,41Hardesty-Moore Titcomb G.C. Dillon E.M. Stears Klope Bui Orr Young H.S. al.Migration Anthropocene: collective navigation, environmental system taxonomy shape vulnerability migratory species.Philos. 373: 20170017https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0017Crossref (25) contrast complete only non-utilized (“matched”). Finally, models, (see help policy identify results, thus, feed directly processes thematic species15IPBESReport development comprised 11,123 2,944 5,811 1,348 coded utilized, 5,312 1,996 (Table S1). For populations, (n = 3,233), followed 2,098), birds 331), reptiles 142), amphibians 7). Fish had whereas reverse true birds, reptiles, Compared expected body mass values all skewed larger-bodied masses (Figure Geographically, sample contained 146 countries 1; Table S2). Utilized not-utilized regions, there noticeable clusters parts Africa, Central Asia, Canada. largest Results smallest regions; availability throughout dropped after 2012, shorter finishing 2015 2013 terrestrial/freshwater marine, respectively. Threat 3,195 populations—1,694 1,501 S3). There difference greater listed overexploitation Nearly three-quarters collecting Of 46% 23% unmanaged (the remainder no information; S4). index shows decrease 69% freshwater 2; value 2016, 0.31; range, 0.21–0.44) 34% 0.66; 0.52–0.85) 2016. overall trend steep decline, considerable 46.3% increase, 48.9% decrease, 4.8% stable index. 53.2% 42.6% 4.2% stable. tested robustness length. check when vary duration,43Wauchope Amano Sutherland When trust trends? quantifying sampling interval duration.Methods 10: 2067-2078https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13302Crossref short exhibit extreme fluctuating index.44Leung Hargreaves A.L. Greenberg D.A. McGill Dornelas Clustered versus catastrophic declines.Nature. 588: 267-271Crossref (27) Scholar,45Buschke F.T. Hagan J.G. Coetzee B.W. Random fluctuations index.Nat. 1145-1152Crossref (2) observed similar seen restricting thresholds minimum length numbers years. stringent threshold applied, trajectories 5 years, shallower reported 10 since grouped disparate worse 2) temperate 3). greatest subsets; both 3; 2015, 0.07; 0.03–0.16; 2013, 0.08; 0.04–0.17). Asia-Pacific near-continuous 83% 0.17; 0.09–0.31); fluctuates trend, high variation underlying ends baseline 1970, above 1.07; 0.31–3.76). Americas trajectory very 67% 0.33; 0.19–0.58), fluctuated ended significant 0.78–1.45). Europe Asia slow increase initial ending 41% 1.41; 0.95–2.13). period 0.76; 0.43–1.30). Both respective indices. utilization, analysis, removed reptile amphibian two low general category, resulting proportional comparing make unbalanced comparisons, dividing systems consider context utilization; indeed, chelonians group use.46Stanford C.B. Iverson J.B. Rhodin A.G.J. Paul van Dijk Mittermeier R.A. Kuchling Berry Bertolero Bjorndal Blanck T.E.G. al.Turtles tortoises trouble.Curr. 30: R721-R735https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.04.088Abstract (66) Comparing fish, period, except 3% 4A; 0.97; 0.80–1.18). comparison, 0.50; 0.41–0.62). After 1985, overlap confidence intervals each means significantly different. mixed-effects relationship class, size, response variable. Utilization consistently useful declining ones (Tables S6–S9). Removing produced predictions (ΔAIC −10, χ2 11.835, p < 0.01). general, did interaction group, highlighting comprehensive (mammals, terrestrial, freshwater, systems), interacting class top model, coefficients slightly positive, larger birds; however, span zero, non-significant (Figures 4B 4C).