ArticleBiodiversity and conservation2026
Are we truly helping those in need: A comprehensive assessment of semen technologies in wild bird species.
Article in Biodiversity and conservation, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Semen technologies (STs) have been increasingly used in birds as a tool to overcome difficulties commonly faced by conservation breeding programs. Yet their application faces challenges not only related to avian physiology but also in terms of efficiency and welfare of the animals being handled. Significant advances have been made in some taxonomic groups in recent decades. Nevertheless, these approaches are not as widely disseminated as they are in mammals. Here, we compiled data from 178 scientific articles on STs to better understand the distribution of research among taxonomic groups and reproductive areas, the reasons for this arrangement, and discuss the future priorities for making these tools more effective within global bird conservation. Most available information refers exclusively to semen collection (42%, i.e., methods, parameters, etc.), while a small fraction of the literature describes the use of the complete cycle of STs (16%). These figures highlight that, despite decades of research, refinement in avian STs remains unbalanced with more emphasis on acquiring basic knowledge about semen/sperm than on integrative application of biotechnologies. We observed that STs have been applied to less than 2% of bird species, mostly targeting non-threatened species often chosen for their charisma, monetary value, or ease of maintenance in captivity. This survey provides insights for researchers, breeders, zoos, organizations and funding agencies worldwide to reflect on future paths and guidelines for the development of reproductive technologies in birds making them more useful in preserving species truly in need. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10531-026-03397-7.
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.