重新权衡 5% 标签建议:评估标签对蝙蝠行为和身体状况的潜在影响

IF 4.3 2区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY Mammal Review Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1111/mam.12369
Melissa B. Meierhofer, Elena Tena, Thomas M. Lilley, Dina K. N. Dechmann, Christian C. Voigt, Tanya S. Troitsky, Luc de Bruyn, Elizabeth Braun de Torrez, Katrine Eldegard, Morten Elmeros, Ralf Gyselings, Dillan Hoyt, René Janssen, Kristin A. Jonasson, Adrià López‐Baucells, Mariia Matlova, Markus Melber, Santiago Perea, Laura Stidsholt, Valeria Valanne, Mebin George Varghese, Giorgio Zavattoni, Theodore J. Weller
{"title":"重新权衡 5% 标签建议:评估标签对蝙蝠行为和身体状况的潜在影响","authors":"Melissa B. Meierhofer, Elena Tena, Thomas M. Lilley, Dina K. N. Dechmann, Christian C. Voigt, Tanya S. Troitsky, Luc de Bruyn, Elizabeth Braun de Torrez, Katrine Eldegard, Morten Elmeros, Ralf Gyselings, Dillan Hoyt, René Janssen, Kristin A. Jonasson, Adrià López‐Baucells, Mariia Matlova, Markus Melber, Santiago Perea, Laura Stidsholt, Valeria Valanne, Mebin George Varghese, Giorgio Zavattoni, Theodore J. Weller","doi":"10.1111/mam.12369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nConsiderable advances and breakthroughs in wildlife tracking technology have occurred in recent years, allowing researchers to gain insights into the movements and behaviours of a broad range of animals. Considering the accessibility and increase in use of tracking devices in wildlife studies, it is important to better understand the effects on these on animals.\n\nOur endeavour revisits a guideline established in 1988, which proposes that bats may encounter body condition or health problems and alter their behaviour when carrying tags weighing more than 5% of their body mass. Through a systematic literature review, we conducted a meta‐analysis to identify the impacts of tags on bats, including 367 papers from 1976 to 2023 that discussed, mentioned, employed, or quantified tagging of bats.\n\nWe noted that the proportion of studies exceeding the 5% rule has not changed in recent years. However, the impact of tags was quantified in few studies for behaviour (n = 7) and body condition (n = 10) of bats. We were unable to assess whether tags weighing less or more than 5% of the bat's body mass impacted bats, but our meta‐analysis did identify that tags, irrespective of mass, affect the behaviour and body condition of bats.\n\nAlthough the overall magnitude of measured effects of tags on bats was small, progress has been made to advance our understanding of tag mass on bats. Naturally, there is a bias in reporting of significant results, illustrating the need of reporting results when there is no apparent effect of tags on bats. Our findings highlight the need for rigorous reporting of behaviour and body condition data associated with tagging of animals and illustrate the importance for studies comparing how tracking devices of different dimensions and masses may impact bat species to ensure research meets rigorous ethical standards.\n\n","PeriodicalId":49893,"journal":{"name":"Mammal Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re‐weighing the 5% tagging recommendation: assessing the potential impacts of tags on the behaviour and body condition of bats\",\"authors\":\"Melissa B. Meierhofer, Elena Tena, Thomas M. Lilley, Dina K. N. Dechmann, Christian C. Voigt, Tanya S. Troitsky, Luc de Bruyn, Elizabeth Braun de Torrez, Katrine Eldegard, Morten Elmeros, Ralf Gyselings, Dillan Hoyt, René Janssen, Kristin A. Jonasson, Adrià López‐Baucells, Mariia Matlova, Markus Melber, Santiago Perea, Laura Stidsholt, Valeria Valanne, Mebin George Varghese, Giorgio Zavattoni, Theodore J. Weller\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mam.12369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\nConsiderable advances and breakthroughs in wildlife tracking technology have occurred in recent years, allowing researchers to gain insights into the movements and behaviours of a broad range of animals. Considering the accessibility and increase in use of tracking devices in wildlife studies, it is important to better understand the effects on these on animals.\\n\\nOur endeavour revisits a guideline established in 1988, which proposes that bats may encounter body condition or health problems and alter their behaviour when carrying tags weighing more than 5% of their body mass. Through a systematic literature review, we conducted a meta‐analysis to identify the impacts of tags on bats, including 367 papers from 1976 to 2023 that discussed, mentioned, employed, or quantified tagging of bats.\\n\\nWe noted that the proportion of studies exceeding the 5% rule has not changed in recent years. However, the impact of tags was quantified in few studies for behaviour (n = 7) and body condition (n = 10) of bats. We were unable to assess whether tags weighing less or more than 5% of the bat's body mass impacted bats, but our meta‐analysis did identify that tags, irrespective of mass, affect the behaviour and body condition of bats.\\n\\nAlthough the overall magnitude of measured effects of tags on bats was small, progress has been made to advance our understanding of tag mass on bats. Naturally, there is a bias in reporting of significant results, illustrating the need of reporting results when there is no apparent effect of tags on bats. Our findings highlight the need for rigorous reporting of behaviour and body condition data associated with tagging of animals and illustrate the importance for studies comparing how tracking devices of different dimensions and masses may impact bat species to ensure research meets rigorous ethical standards.\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":49893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mammal Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mammal Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12369\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mammal Review","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12369","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,野生动物追踪技术取得了长足的进步和突破,使研究人员能够深入了解各种动物的行动和行为。考虑到追踪装置在野生动物研究中的普及和使用,更好地了解这些装置对动物的影响非常重要。我们的研究重新审视了 1988 年制定的一项准则,该准则提出,当蝙蝠携带的标签重量超过其体重的 5%时,它们可能会遇到身体状况或健康问题,并改变其行为。通过系统的文献回顾,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以确定标签对蝙蝠的影响,其中包括 1976 年至 2023 年期间讨论、提及、使用或量化蝙蝠标签的 367 篇论文。然而,很少有研究量化了标签对蝙蝠行为(7 篇)和身体状况(10 篇)的影响。我们无法评估重量小于或大于蝙蝠体重 5%的标签是否会对蝙蝠产生影响,但我们的荟萃分析确实发现,无论标签质量如何,都会影响蝙蝠的行为和身体状况。当然,在报告显著结果时会出现偏差,这说明在标签对蝙蝠没有明显影响时也需要报告结果。我们的发现强调了严格报告与动物标签相关的行为和身体状况数据的必要性,并说明了比较不同尺寸和质量的追踪装置如何影响蝙蝠物种的研究的重要性,以确保研究符合严格的道德标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Re‐weighing the 5% tagging recommendation: assessing the potential impacts of tags on the behaviour and body condition of bats
Considerable advances and breakthroughs in wildlife tracking technology have occurred in recent years, allowing researchers to gain insights into the movements and behaviours of a broad range of animals. Considering the accessibility and increase in use of tracking devices in wildlife studies, it is important to better understand the effects on these on animals. Our endeavour revisits a guideline established in 1988, which proposes that bats may encounter body condition or health problems and alter their behaviour when carrying tags weighing more than 5% of their body mass. Through a systematic literature review, we conducted a meta‐analysis to identify the impacts of tags on bats, including 367 papers from 1976 to 2023 that discussed, mentioned, employed, or quantified tagging of bats. We noted that the proportion of studies exceeding the 5% rule has not changed in recent years. However, the impact of tags was quantified in few studies for behaviour (n = 7) and body condition (n = 10) of bats. We were unable to assess whether tags weighing less or more than 5% of the bat's body mass impacted bats, but our meta‐analysis did identify that tags, irrespective of mass, affect the behaviour and body condition of bats. Although the overall magnitude of measured effects of tags on bats was small, progress has been made to advance our understanding of tag mass on bats. Naturally, there is a bias in reporting of significant results, illustrating the need of reporting results when there is no apparent effect of tags on bats. Our findings highlight the need for rigorous reporting of behaviour and body condition data associated with tagging of animals and illustrate the importance for studies comparing how tracking devices of different dimensions and masses may impact bat species to ensure research meets rigorous ethical standards.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mammal Review
Mammal Review 生物-动物学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.10%
发文量
29
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mammal Review is the official scientific periodical of the Mammal Society, and covers all aspects of mammalian biology and ecology, including behavioural ecology, biogeography, conservation, ecology, ethology, evolution, genetics, human ecology, management, morphology, and taxonomy. We publish Reviews drawing together information from various sources in the public domain for a new synthesis or analysis of mammalian biology; Predictive Reviews using quantitative models to provide insights into mammalian biology; Perspectives presenting original views on any aspect of mammalian biology; Comments in response to papers published in Mammal Review; and Short Communications describing new findings or methods in mammalian biology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Holocene biogeography of the southwestern European white‐toothed shrew (Crocidura iculisma, Eulipotyphla) through its fossil record Use of lure sticks for non‐invasive genetic sampling of European wildcat populations: lessons learnt and hints for future insights Neotropical non‐primate canopy mammals: historical trends, omissions, and geographic gaps in the knowledge Setts of European badger Meles meles in open habitats: trend or exception?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1