Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42677153›Full record

ArticleConservation physiology2026

Biologging and biotelemetry tools bridge behaviour and physiology to advance the conservation and management of wildlife.

Steven J Cooke, Maria Thaker, Jessica Kendall-Bar, Emily S Choy, Emily Bennitt, Kim Birnie-Gauvin, Morgan L Piczak, L Monica Trondrud, Luc LaRochelle, Shane K Maloney and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Steven J CookeDepartment of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-0659
Maria ThakerCentre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 560012, India.
Jessica Kendall-BarCenter for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Emily S ChoyDepartment of Biology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
Emily BennittOkavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Shorobe Road, Maun, Botswana.
Kim Birnie-GauvinSection for Freshwater Fisheries and Ecology, Technical University of Denmark, Vejlsøvej 39, Silkeborg 8600, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9242-0560
Morgan L PiczakDepartment of Forest and Conservation Science, University of British Columbia, 2424 Mail Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0816-3221
L Monica TrondrudDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Behaviour, National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment Occitanie-Toulouse, 24, Chemin de Borde Rouge, Auzeville-Tolosane 31320, France.
Luc LaRochelleDepartment of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.
Shane K MaloneySchool of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Andrea FullerBrain Function Research Group, Department of Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Road, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-8151

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The early days of animal tagging and tracking using electronic tags were largely restricted to biologists who were electronics hobbyists capable of creating their own devices. Studies were typically characterized by low sample sizes due to lack of storage, large tags with short lifespans and fickle technology, yet those early studies were also important in revealing what was possible. Today, there is an ever-expanding array of commercially available biologging and biotelemetry tools that employ a wide range of sensors that enable us to study the behaviour and physiology of animals, from insects to whales, from the depths of the oceans to high in the atmosphere. The use of multiple sensors can allow us to explore animal-environment interactions and better inform conservation and management. From the identification of problems to the testing of solutions, biologging and biotelemetry are ideal for generating robust, ecologically relevant and management-relevant data. In this perspective article, we first briefly summarize the history of biologging and biotelemetry and consider the ethical aspects of the use of these tools. We then use the Conservation Measures Partnership IUCN Threat Classification and Conservation Action Classification to summarize the key ways in which these tools can be applied to support conservation and management. Finally, we identify opportunities to further advance the ability of those tools to generate effective and durable conservation solutions for the benefit of wildlife and people. This paper is not a comprehensive review but rather a forward-looking and practical perspective that spans applications, taxa, regions and issues.

Indexed as

Animal biologybiologgingbiotelemetryconservationsensorsthreats

Identifiers

PMID42677153
PMCPMC13528243

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.