ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026
Stress, Well-Being, and Reproduction in Wildlife.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To reverse the trend of declining wildlife populations globally, individuals must be provided with conditions that allow them to thrive, not just survive. It is no longer only the remit of conservation breeding programs to ensure animal well-being to promote reproduction; in situ conservation efforts must also consider how environmental and anthropogenic pressures impact wild populations and how to mitigate them, especially with regard to reproduction and survival. Stress and welfare are complex concepts that necessitate an understanding of how stressors affect animals on both individual and population levels, and how the subsequent impact on reproduction can vary. There are species differences in how factors impact well-being, related in part to natural history, which are also shaped by individual perceptions and coping abilities. A multitude of stress-related responses then have the potential to disrupt reproduction on many levels and, ultimately, fitness. A major limitation to advancing welfare science is the lack of definitive tests to verify welfare status, that is, is the animal thriving, or just surviving? While analyses of circulating or excreted glucocorticoids (GCs) have for decades been the primary method of assessing stress, today we recognize the need for more comprehensive indicators that reflect multiple physiological systems, including behavior, to assess both negative and positive welfare states. In this chapter, we discuss the potential for stress not only to disrupt but also sometimes to facilitate reproduction, including the key role that GCs play. We then discuss several other physiological biomarkers that have the potential to assess well-being in the context of reproduction and conclude with multi-biomarker approaches, which, if applied to wildlife, could be powerful tools for conservation and could help to elucidate the complex relationship between stress and reproduction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41718868What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.