Minimum reporting standards can promote animal welfare and data quality in biologging research

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 3 of this Preprint.

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.

Downloads

Download Preprint

Supplementary Files
Authors

Allison Payne, Conner Hale , Jessica Kendall-Bar, Roxanne S Beltran

Abstract

1. Over the last six decades, the biologging research community has reduced instrument impacts on study animals by miniaturizing devices, employing sophisticated release mechanisms, and developing other novel technological advancements. However, biologging devices can still impact animal physiology, behavior, and demography - the very biological metrics the instruments are meant to measure. Recent meta-analyses have emphasized the subjectivity of field-wide “rules of thumb” such as the 3% rule, but opportunities to quantify impacts more objectively can be expensive or impossible to implement when instrumenting new species. There is therefore a time-sensitive need for systematic reporting of biologging instrument characteristics based on known impacts to animal welfare and data quality. 
2. We comprehensively reviewed 175 biologging impact studies from the last 25 years to draw broad, multispecies connections between instrument characteristics and animal physiology, behavior, and/or demography. We build on impact studies that focus on a single species, instrument type, or attachment method to offer solutions applicable across those taxa, technologies, and methodologies. 
3. From our review, we distilled eight best practices for biologging researchers with a particular focus on minimum reporting standards as a low-cost, high-impact way to promote animal welfare and data quality. We propose a minimum reporting standard, informed by our review and presented as a machine-readable checklist, that biologging researchers can include with their manuscripts or data submissions to provide data for future meta-analyses. We also present an example of a completed checklist to demonstrate the feasibility of such a standard.
4. Robust biologging infrastructure, beginning with a minimum reporting standard informed by the literature on instrument impacts, will facilitate the expansion of biologging across the globe and across disciplines while preserving animal partnerships and improving data quality. As biologging instruments become less expensive and more accessible, researchers, journals, and funders are better positioned than ever to broaden and implement these standards.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32942/X29K7X

Subjects

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Keywords

Ethics, animal welfare, recommendations, tag impacts, wildlife, animal telemetry, animal welfare, impacts, wildlife, animal telemetry, Best practices

Dates

Published: 2024-02-28 22:54

Last Updated: 2025-03-03 23:10

Older Versions
License

CC-BY Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

Additional Metadata

Language:
English

Conflict of interest statement:
We declare no conflicts of interest.

Data and Code Availability Statement:
Not applicable