ArticleConservation physiology2025
The lab-field continuum in conservation physiology research: leveraging multiple approaches to inform policy and practice.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The elephant (bird) in the room: unknown mechanisms and unresolved impacts of low DNA yields in avian microbiome research.Animal microbiome · 2026Article
- Challenging 10 misconceptions in conservation physiology.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.