DOI: 10.5061/dryad.bcc2fqzsp
title: Description of biologging instrument impacts from scoping literature review

description: Over the last six decades, the biologging research community has reduced
 instrument effects on study animals by miniaturizing devices, employing
 sophisticated release mechanisms, and developing other novel technological
 advancements. However, biologging devices can still impact animal
 physiology, behavior, and demography - the very biological metrics the
 instruments are meant to measure. Recent meta-analyses have emphasized the
 subjectivity of field-wide “rules of thumb” such as the 3% rule, but
 opportunities to quantify effects more objectively can be expensive or
 impossible to implement when instrumenting new species. There is therefore
 a time-sensitive need for systematic reporting of biologging instrument
 characteristics based on known effects to animal welfare and data quality.
 We used 202 biologging impact studies from the last thirty years to draw
 broad, multispecies connections between instrument characteristics and
 animal physiology, behavior, and/or demography. We build on impact studies
 that focus on a single species, instrument type, or attachment method to
 offer solutions applicable across those taxa, technologies, and
 methodologies. From the literature, we distilled eight best practices for
 biologging researchers with a particular focus on minimum reporting
 standards as a low-cost, high-impact way to promote animal welfare and
 data quality. We propose a preliminary minimum reporting standard,
 informed by the literature and presented as a machine-readable checklist,
 that biologging researchers can include with their manuscripts or data
 submissions to provide data for future meta-analyses. We also present an
 example of a completed checklist to demonstrate the feasibility of such a
 standard and a plan for community input and adoption via the International
 Bio-Logging Society. Robust biologging infrastructure, beginning with a
 minimum reporting standard informed by the literature on instrument
 impacts, will facilitate the expansion of biologging across the globe and
 across disciplines while ensuring animal welfare and improving data
 quality. As biologging instruments become less expensive and more
 accessible, researchers, journals, and funders are better positioned than
 ever to broaden and implement these standards. 
description: # Description of biologging instrument impacts from scoping literature
 review Dataset DOI:
 [10.5061/dryad.bcc2fqzsp](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.bcc2fqzsp) ##
 Description of the data and file structure Non-systematic literature
 review of biologging studies.  ### Files and variables #### File:
 bestprac.qmd **Description:** Markdown document with code to reproduce
 figures. #### File: litreview-update.csv **Description:**  ##### Variables
 * key: Unique study ID. * transport: the transport modality of the animal
 (walk, swim, fly, or multiple) * species: Scientific name of the species
 being studied. Cells are blank when a project looked at more than 10
 species.  * common_name: Common name of the species being studied. Cells
 contain the number of species studied instead when a project looked at
 more than 10 species.  * impact: Type of impact studied (Demography,
 behavior, or physiology). May be multiple. * impact_found: Y/N if impacts
 were found in any of the areas studied. * multispecies: Y/N whether the
 study looked at more than one species.  * group: Broad taxonomic groups
 (fish, mammals, birds, etc.) for panel A.  #### File: meta-update.csv
 **Description:**  ##### Variables * key: Unique study ID. * transport: the
 transport modality of the animal (walk, swim, fly, or multiple) * species:
 Scientific name of the species being studied. Cells are blank when a
 project looked at more than 10 species.  * common_name: Common name of the
 species being studied. Cells contain the number of species studied instead
 when a project looked at more than 10 species.  * impact: Type of impact
 studied (Demography, behavior, or physiology). May be multiple. *
 impact_found: Y/N if impacts were found in any of the areas studied. *
 multispecies: Y/N whether the study looked at more than one species.  *
 group: Broad taxonomic groups (fish, mammals, birds, etc.) for panel A.  *
 n_species: Number of species studied in the paper.