In brief
In a 2026 study published in Science Advances, researchers from the University of Melbourne identified 107,356 species—plants, animals and fungi—traded globally, more than double previous estimates. The findings highlight severe data gaps in tracking wildlife trade and call for standardized, globally coordinated reporting. Even the study acknowledges that the actual scale could be larger than reported.
Researchers from the University of Melbourne announced on 31 October that more than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide, a figure that more than doubles earlier estimates of about 50,000 species in commerce.
The study, published in the journal Science Advances, catalogued 107,356 species involved in trade, spanning plants, animals and fungi. The analysis noted that the trade network extends far beyond the headline cases of elephants, tigers and pangolins to include timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, cut flowers, ornamental fish and fungi—most of which are legally traded.
Professor Alice Hughes, the study’s lead researcher from the University of Melbourne’s School of BioSciences, warned that for many of these species, data on trade volume and origins are nonexistent. “For most of these species we have little to no data. There is no data on quantity and origins, let alone the population level data to assess if trade poses a risk to species survival,” she said.
“For most of these species we have little to no data. There is no data on quantity and origins, let alone the population level data to assess if trade poses a risk to species survival.”
Hughes added that the global biodiversity framework’s existing trade targets cover only about 2 to 3 percent of species in trade, leaving the remaining 97 percent unaccounted for in sustainability assessments.
The researchers called for a standardized data collection system and a more comprehensive, transparent and globally coordinated reporting structure. They suggested that existing customs and animal‑health inspection mechanisms could be adapted and expanded to improve monitoring of wildlife trade.
The study’s findings emerge amid increasing concern that insufficient data on the scale and impact of wildlife commerce hampers efforts to safeguard biodiversity. By revealing a much larger spectrum of traded species, the research underscores that many species may be vulnerable even as their exploitation proceeds within legal markets.
While the study provides the most extensive inventory to date, it also acknowledges significant uncertainties. The authors point out that major gaps in global monitoring mean the true scale of the trade could be far greater than the figure reported. They also note that without detailed quantity, origin and population data, it remains unclear how trade is affecting the long‑term viability of many species.
