Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29942517›Full record

ArticleConservation physiology2018

The conservation physiology toolbox: status and opportunities.

Christine L Madliger, Oliver P Love, Kevin R Hultine, Steven J Cooke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christine L MadligerFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8554-0764
Oliver P LoveDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Ave., Ontario, Canada.
Kevin R HultineDepartment of Research, Conservation and Collections, Desert Botanical Garden, 1201 N. Galvin Parkway, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Steven J CookeFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5407-0659
Carleton University · CADesert Botanical Garden · USUniversity of Windsor · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For over a century, physiological tools and techniques have been allowing researchers to characterize how organisms respond to changes in their natural environment and how they interact with human activities or infrastructure. Over time, many of these techniques have become part of the conservation physiology toolbox, which is used to monitor, predict, conserve, and restore plant and animal populations under threat. Here, we provide a summary of the tools that currently comprise the conservation physiology toolbox. By assessing patterns in articles that have been published in 'Conservation Physiology' over the past 5 years that focus on introducing, refining and validating tools, we provide an overview of where researchers are placing emphasis in terms of taxa and physiological sub-disciplines. Although there is certainly diversity across the toolbox, metrics of stress physiology (particularly glucocorticoids) and studies focusing on mammals have garnered the greatest attention, with both comprising the majority of publications (>45%). We also summarize the types of validations that are actively being completed, including those related to logistics (sample collection, storage and processing), interpretation of variation in physiological traits and relevance for conservation science. Finally, we provide recommendations for future tool refinement, with suggestions for: (i) improving our understanding of the applicability of glucocorticoid physiology; (ii) linking multiple physiological and non-physiological tools; (iii) establishing a framework for plant conservation physiology; (iv) assessing links between environmental disturbance, physiology and fitness; (v) appreciating opportunities for validations in under-represented taxa; and (vi) emphasizing tool validation as a core component of research programmes. Overall, we are confident that conservation physiology will continue to increase its applicability to more taxa, develop more non-invasive techniques, delineate where limitations exist, and identify the contexts necessary for interpretation in captivity and the wild.

Indexed as

biomarkerglucocorticoidtechniquesToolsvalidation

Identifiers

PMID29942517
PMCPMC6007632
OpenAlexW2809046430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.