Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

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

Bodey, Thomas W., Cleasby, Ian R., Bell, Fraser, Parr, Nicole, Schultz, Anthony, Votier, Stephen C., Bearhop, Stuart·2018·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.12934

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 312

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.