Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38725032›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2024

Effects of tag mass on the physiology and behaviour of common noctule bats.

Marit Kelling, Shannon E Currie, Sara A Troxell, Christine Reusch, Manuel Roeleke, Uwe Hoffmeister, Tobias Teige, Christian C Voigt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

8 authors.

Marit KellingLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany. kelling@izw-berlin.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8715-9177
Shannon E CurrieLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5956-0481
Sara A TroxellLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.
Christine ReuschLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7704-5683
Manuel RoelekeUniversity of Potsdam, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5298-8071
Uwe HoffmeisterNatura Büro für Zoologische und Botanische Fachgutachten, Leipzig, Germany.
Tobias TeigeBüro für Faunististische und Ökologische Fachgutachten, Berlin, Germany.
Christian C VoigtLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0706-3974

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG-GRK 2118/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExternal tags, such as transmitters and loggers, are often used to study bat movements. However, physiological and behavioural effects on bats carrying tags have rarely been investigated, and recommendations on the maximum acceptable tag mass are rather based on rules of thumb than on rigorous scientific assessment.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive three-step assessment of the potential physiological and behavioural effects of tagging bats, using common noctules Nyctalus noctula as a model. First, we examined seasonal changes in body mass. Second, we predicted and then measured potential changes in flight metabolic rate in a wind tunnel. Third, we conducted a meta-analysis of published data to assess effects of different tag masses on the weight and behaviour of bats.

resultsIndividual body mass of common noctules varied seasonally by 7.0 ± 2.6 g (range: 0.5-11.5 g). Aerodynamic theory predicted a 26% increase in flight metabolic rate for a common noctule equipped with a 3.8 g tag, equating to 14% of body mass. In a wind tunnel experiment, we could not confirm the predicted increase for tagged bats. Our meta-analysis revealed a weak correlation between tag mass and emergence time and flight duration in wild bats. Interestingly, relative tag mass (3-19% of bat body mass) was not related to body mass loss, but bats lost more body mass the longer tags were attached. Notably, relatively heavy bats lost more mass than conspecifics with a more average body mass index.

conclusionBecause heavy tags (> 3 g) were generally used for shorter periods of time than lighter tags (~ 1 g), the long-term effects of heavy tags on bats cannot be assessed at this time. Furthermore, the effects of disturbance and resource distribution in the landscape cannot be separated from those of tagging. We recommend that tags weighing 5-10% of a bat's mass should only be applied for a few days. For longer studies, tags weighing less than 5% of a bat's body mass should be used. To avoid adverse effects on bats, researchers should target individuals with average, rather than peak, body mass indices.

Indexed as

BiologgingBody conditionEnergeticMetabolic powerNyctalus noctulaRadio-trackingTransmitter

Identifiers

PMID38725032
PMCPMC11084088

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.