ABSTRACT
The trade in wild animals involves one-third of the world's bird species and thousands of other vertebrate species. Although a few species are imperiled as a result of the wildlife trade, the lack of field studies makes it difficult to gauge how serious a threat it is to biodiversity. We used data on changes in bird abundances across space and time and information from trapper interviews to evaluate the effects of trapping wild birds for the pet trade in Sumatra, Indonesia. To analyze changes in bird abundance over time, we used data gathered over 14 years of repeated bird surveys in a 900-ha forest in southern Sumatra. In northern Sumatra, we surveyed birds along a gradient of trapping accessibility, from the edge of roads to 5 km into the forest interior. We interviewed 49 bird trappers in northern Sumatra to learn which species they targeted and how far they went into the forest to trap. We used prices from Sumatran bird markets as a proxy for demand and, therefore, trapping pressure. Market price was a significant predictor of species declines over time in southern Sumatra (e.g., given a market price increase of approximately $50, the log change in abundance per year decreased by 0.06 on average). This result indicates a link between the market-based pet trade and community-wide species declines. In northern Sumatra, price and change in abundance were not related to remoteness (distance from the nearest road). However, based on our field surveys, high-value species were rare or absent across this region. The median maximum distance trappers went into the forest each day was 5.0 km. This suggests that trapping has depleted bird populations across our remoteness gradient. We found that less than half of Sumatra's remaining forests are >5 km from a major road. Our results suggest that trapping for the pet trade threatens birds in Sumatra. Given the popularity of pet birds across Southeast Asia, additional studies are urgently needed to determine the extent and magnitude of the threat posed by the pet trade.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Reserves are the principal means to conserve forests and biodiversity, but the question of whether reserves work is still debated. In the Amazon, fires are closely linked to deforestation, and thus can be used as a proxy for reserve effectiveness in protecting forest cover. We ask whether reserves in the Brazilian Amazon provide effective protection against deforestation and consequently fires, whether that protection is because of their location or their legal status, and whether some reserve types are more effective than others. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Previous work has shown that most Amazonian fires occur close to roads and are more frequent in El Niño years. We quantified these relationships for reserves and unprotected areas by examining satellite-detected hot pixels regressed against road distance across the entire Brazilian Amazon and for a decade with 2 El Niño-related droughts. Deforestation fires, as measured by hot pixels, declined exponentially with increasing distance from roads in all areas. Fewer deforestation fires occurred within protected areas than outside and the difference between protected and unprotected areas was greatest near roads. Thus, reserves were especially effective at preventing these fires where they are known to be most likely to burn; but they did not provide absolute protection. Even within reserves, at a given distance from roads, there were more deforestation fires in regions with high human impact than in those with low impact. The effect of El Niño on deforestation fires was greatest outside of reserves and near roads. Indigenous reserves, limited-use reserves, and fully protected reserves all had fewer fires than outside areas and did not appear to differ in their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Taking time, regional factors, and climate into account, our results show that reserves are an effective tool for curbing destructive burning in the Amazon.