Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40904747›Full record

ArticleConservation physiology2025

The lab-field continuum in conservation physiology research: leveraging multiple approaches to inform policy and practice.

Sandra A Binning, Kerri Lynn Ackerly, Steven J Cooke, Marco Fusi, Daniel F Gomez Isaza, Emily A Hardison, Sidney Martin, Amelia Munson, Mar Pineda, Gail D Schwieterman and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

13 authors.

Sandra A BinningDépartement de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, 1375 Ave. Thérèse-Lavoie-Roux, Montréal, QC H2V 0B3, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2804-9979
Kerri Lynn AckerlyThe University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute, Department of Marine Science, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, TX 78373  USA.
Steven J CookeDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.
Marco FusiDove Marine Laboratory, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK.
Daniel F Gomez IsazaAustralian Institute of Marine Science, Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre, 64 Fairway, Crawley 6009, WA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3112-8683
Emily A HardisonDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, 4249 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.
Sidney MartinDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, 11335 Saskatchewan Dr. NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada.
Amelia MunsonDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,  Skogsmarksgränd 17, Umeå, 907 36, Sweden.
Mar PinedaSchool of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Science Way, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0483-710X
Gail D SchwietermanSchool of Marine Sciences and the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, 168 College Ave, Orono, ME 04469, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6356-0337
Martin ReichardInstitute of Vertebrate Biology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Květná 8, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9306-0074
Andrea RummelDepartment of BioSciences, Rice University, 6100 Main St, Houston, TX 77005, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2627-8038
Tamzin A BlewettDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, 11335 Saskatchewan Dr. NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the field of conservation physiology, there is often a trade off between conducting research in controlled laboratory settings or in inherently variable field environments. However, this belief sets up a false dichotomy where laboratory experiments are perceived as providing precise, mechanistic understanding with low variability at the cost of environmental realism while field studies are ecologically relevant but criticized for generating inconsistent evidence that is difficult to interpret and replicate. Despite the perceived binary view, these approaches are not in opposition to one another, but rather form a continuum along increasing ecological complexity. Here, we argue that it is possible to mindfully and purposefully design studies and develop integrative collaborations in conservation physiology that span the lab-field continuum to address pressing environmentally-relevant questions that can be used to inform policy and practice. We first outline the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to knowledge generation. We then highlight ways to bridge the lab-field divide though leveraging the advantages provided by different approaches to build a more comprehensive understanding of the natural world, including how recent technological advances can help connect lab- and field-based research. Next, we discuss the importance of partnership and collaboration across sectors for informing our understanding of ecological patterns and physiological processes. Finally, we reflect on how to best translate physiological research into action and the reciprocal role that environmental practitioners can have in driving research questions in conservation physiology.

Indexed as

Accessibilitybehavioural ecologyknowledge-brokersmesocosm experimentsmodellingpartner-integrated work flowvideo tracking

Identifiers

PMID40904747
PMCPMC12404662

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.