Title |
Troubling issues at the frontier of animal tracking for conservation and management
|
---|---|
Published in |
Conservation Biology, February 2017
|
DOI | 10.1111/cobi.12895 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Steven J. Cooke, Vivian M. Nguyen, Steven T. Kessel, Nigel E. Hussey, Nathan Young, Adam T. Ford |
Abstract |
Developments in electronic tagging and tracking, including biotelemetry and biologging, have provided unprecedented insight into the ecology of wild animals (Cooke et al. 2004) and revealed hidden movement patterns, habitat associations, animal-environment interactions, and mortality rates for even the most cryptic of species (Hussey et al. 2015; Kays et al. 2015). Natural history, ecology (including movement ecology), conservation, and resource management have all benefitted from the application of this technology. Yet, as use of electronic tagging in research and public awareness of this technology has increased, a number of troubling and unanticipated issues have emerged. We submit that these issues need to be addressed proactively by the diverse range of people involved in animal-tracking studies - manufacturers, funders, researchers, and animal-care committees. Ignoring these issues may have serious negative consequences for individual animals, animal populations, conservation, and the future use, regulation, and public perception of electronic tracking. We recount examples of such issues in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial realms. We did not consider issues related to the effects of capturing and fitting animals with tracking devices; these are discussed at length elsewhere (e.g., Wilson and McMahon 2006; Cooke et al. 2013). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 20 | 17% |
Canada | 17 | 14% |
United States | 15 | 12% |
Australia | 7 | 6% |
Spain | 4 | 3% |
Germany | 3 | 2% |
Ireland | 2 | 2% |
Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
India | 2 | 2% |
Other | 12 | 10% |
Unknown | 37 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 77 | 64% |
Scientists | 36 | 30% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 287 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 58 | 20% |
Researcher | 55 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 18% |
Other | 23 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 19 | 6% |
Other | 33 | 11% |
Unknown | 53 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 125 | 43% |
Environmental Science | 62 | 21% |
Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 2% |
Earth and Planetary Sciences | 5 | 2% |
Other | 16 | 5% |
Unknown | 71 | 24% |