ArticleBiology open2025
Short-range Bluetooth monitoring method for tracking, monitoring and follow-up of low-mobility wild species, Choloepus hoffmanni sp.
Article in Biology open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wildlife monitoring provides essential information for research, management, and release of rehabilitated animals. A handmade backpack with a tracker connected to a smartphone through Bluetooth signal was used to track rescued and rehabilitated two-toed sloths, Choloepus hoffmanni. The design of the equipment consisted of a malleable structure with biodegradable sections to favor independent detachment and a tied Tile tracking device in the dorsal surface, which, combined with transects, constitute a short-range Bluetooth monitoring method (SBMM). An experiment was conducted to compare the detection success of two-toed sloth detections through direct observation and SBMM in a forest patch. Direct observation technique was unsuccessful at detecting the two-toed sloth (0/4); in contrast, all the trials with the SBMM registered the presence of the two-toed sloth (10/10), 70% managed to pinpoint the location between three trees, 50% located the tree where the animal was, and 40% were able to visually detect it. Additionally, four two-toed sloths (three rehabilitated, one translocated) were monitored in situ in forests, and the backpack persisted a total of 110 days. In 84.3% of the 70 SBMM in situ implementation events examined, observation of the animal was achieved. In all cases, the backpack was released without human intervention. This method facilitates low-cost detection of low-mobility animals, especially after rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.