The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A phylogenetically controlled meta‐analysis of biologging device effects on birds: Deleterious effects and a call for more standardized reporting of study data
Abstract
The use of biologging devices continues to increase with technological advances yielding remarkable ecological insights and generating new research questions. However, as devices develop and are deployed more widely, there is a need to update our knowledge of the potential ethical impacts to allow scientists to balance these against the knowledge gained. We employed a suite of phylogenetically controlled meta‐analyses on a dataset comprising more than 450 published effect sizes across 214 different studies to examine the effects of biologger tagging on five key traits in birds. Overall, we found small but significant negative effects of tagging on survival, reproduction, parental care. In addition, tagging was positively associated with foraging trip duration, but had no effect on body mass. Meta‐regressions revealed that flying style, migration distance and proportional tag mass were significant influences producing these deleterious effects, with attachment type and position additionally important covariates influencing survival‐ and reproduction‐based effect sizes. There was a positive correlation between the effects of tagging on survival and reproduction, highlighting that effects may be cumulative, with the full effects of tagging not necessarily apparent in studies focused on single traits. We discuss the tradeoff between these negative effects and the advances gained through the use of biologgers. Finally, given the number of studies from our initial literature search that lacked sufficient data for inclusion in analyses, we provide recommendations on the essential information that all biologging studies should report in order to facilitate future assessments of impacts on animals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x · Cited by 10,356
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility
Lunn, D. J., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2000) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1023/a:1008929526011 · Cited by 5,368
MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmmR Package
Hadfield, J. D. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i02 · Cited by 4,799
Cited by
Optimizing the use of biologgers for movement ecology research
Williams, H. J., Taylor, L. A., Benhamou, S., Bijleveld, A. I., Clay, T. A., de Grissac, S., Demšar, U., English, H. M., Franconi, N., Gómez‐Laich, A., et al. (2020) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13094 · Cited by 333
Gillies, N., Fayet, A. L., Padget, O., Syposz, M., Wynn, J., Bond, S., Evry, J., Kirk, H., Shoji, A., Dean, B., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72199-w · Cited by 50
Using on-board sound recordings to infer behaviour of free-moving wild animals
Greif, S., & Yovel, Y. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.184689 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Bodey, T. W., Cleasby, I. R., Bell, F., Parr, N., Schultz, A., Votier, S. C., & Bearhop, S.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-12-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 946-955
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2769546885
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 14.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A phylogenetically controlled meta‐analysis of biologging device effects on birds: Deleterious effects and a call for more standardized reporting of study data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12934
- The paper
- Bodey, T. W., Cleasby, I. R., Bell, F., Parr, N., Schultz, A., Votier, S. C., & Bearhop, S. (2018). A phylogenetically controlled meta‐analysis of biologging device effects on birds: Deleterious effects and a call for more standardized reporting of study data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12934
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.