Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37891684›Full record

ReviewMovement ecology2023

A synthesis of recent tools and perspectives in migratory connectivity studies.

Killian A Gregory, Charlotte Francesiaz, Frédéric Jiguet, Aurélien Besnard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Movement ecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Global review of shorebird tracking data to identify research gaps and conservation priorities.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Conservation-focused mapping of avian migratory routes using a pan-European automated telemetry network.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Killian A GregoryMaster de Biologie, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France. killian.gregory@ens-lyon.fr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0316-5041
Charlotte FrancesiazOFB, DRAS, Juvignac, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2944-695X
Frédéric JiguetCESCO, MNHN-CNRS-Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0606-7332
Aurélien BesnardCEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE-PSL University, IRD, Montpellier, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2289-9761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Migration movements connect breeding and non-breeding bird populations over the year. Such links, referred to as migratory connectivity, have important implications for migratory population dynamics as they dictate the consequences of localised events for the whole population network. This calls for concerted efforts to understand migration processes for large-scale conservation. Over the last 20 years, the toolbox to investigate connectivity patterns has expanded and studies now consider migratory connectivity over a broader range of species and contexts. Here, we summarise recent developments in analysing migratory connectivity, focusing on strategies and challenges to pooling various types of data to both optimise and broaden the scope of connectivity studies. We find that the different approaches used to investigate migratory connectivity still have complementary strengths and weaknesses, whether in terms of cost, spatial and temporal resolution, or challenges in obtaining large sample sizes or connectivity estimates. Certain recent developments offer particularly promising prospects: robust quantitative models for banding data, improved precision of geolocators and accessibility of telemetry tracking systems, and increasingly precise probabilistic assignments based on genomic markers or large-scale isoscapes. In parallel, studies have proposed various ways to combine the information of different datasets, from simply comparing the connectivity patterns they draw to formally integrating their analyses. Such data combinations have proven to be more accurate in estimating connectivity patterns, particularly for integrated approaches that offer promising flexibility. Given the diversity of available tools, future studies would benefit from a rigorous comparative evaluation of the different methodologies to guide data collection to complete migration atlases: where and when should data be collected during the migratory cycle to best describe connectivity patterns? Which data are most favourable to combine, and under what conditions? Are there methods for combining data that are better than others? Can combination methods be improved by adjusting the contribution of the various data in the models? How can we fully integrate connectivity with demographic and environmental data? Data integration shows strong potential to deepen our understanding of migratory connectivity as a dynamic ecological process, especially if the gaps can be bridged between connectivity, population and environmental models.

Indexed as

Data poolingIntegrated modellingMigration patternsMovement ecologyPopulation dynamicsTransition probabilities

Identifiers

PMID37891684
PMCPMC10605477

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.