RF Safe

Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the

Frontiers in Veterinary Science · 2024 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 218

The paper discusses potential risks and benefits of radio telemetry/tracking technologies for wildlife, noting that negative physiological effects from EMF and impacts from device attachment/implantation may occur, and recommends greater caution and best mana…

Study snapshot

PublicationFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2024
Study typereview
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices Manville AM, Levitt BB, Lai HC. Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11. 2024. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709. Abstract This paper discusses the potential health risks and benefits to tagged wildlife from the use of radio tracking, radio telemetry, and related microchip and data-logger technologies used to study, monitor and track mostly wildlife in their native habitats. Domestic pets, especially canids, are briefly discussed as radio-tagging devices are also used on/in them. Radio tracking uses very high frequency (VHF), ultra- high frequency (UHF), and global positioning system (GPS) technologies, including via satellites where platform terminal transmitters (PTTs) are used, as well as geo-locating capabilities using satellites, radio- frequency identification (RFID) chips, and passive integrated responder (PIT) tags, among others. Such tracking technologies have resulted in cutting-edge findings worldwide that have served to protect and better understand the behaviors of myriad wildlife species. As a result, scientists, field researchers, technicians, fish and wildlife biologists and managers, plus wildlife and other veterinarian specialists, frequently opt for its use without fully understanding the ramifications to target species and their behaviors. These include negative physiological effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) to which many nonhuman species are exquisitely sensitive, as well as direct placement/use-attachment impacts from radio collars, transmitters, and implants themselves. This paper provides pertinent studies, suggests best management practices, and compares technologies currently available to those considering and/or using such technologies. The primary focus is on the health and environmental risk/benefit decisions that should come into play, including ethical considerations, along with recommendations for more caution in the wildlife and veterinarian communities before such technologies are used in the first place. Open access paper: frontiersin.org

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview
Effect directionmixed
PopulationWildlife (mostly in native habitats); domestic pets (canids) briefly discussed
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 72% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The paper discusses potential risks and benefits of radio telemetry/tracking technologies for wildlife, noting that negative physiological effects from EMF and impacts from device attachment/implantation may occur, and recommends greater caution and best management practices when using such technologies.

Outcomes measured

  • Potential health risks and benefits to tagged animals
  • Negative physiological effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF)
  • Behavioral ramifications to target species
  • Direct attachment/placement impacts from collars, transmitters, implants
  • Environmental risk/benefit and ethical considerations
  • Best management practices recommendations

Limitations

  • No specific study designs, sample sizes, or quantitative effect estimates are provided in the abstract
  • Frequencies/exposure levels (e.g., MHz, SAR) and exposure durations are not specified in the abstract
  • Findings are described generally as a discussion/review rather than reporting new primary data in the abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "radio telemetry and tracking devices (VHF/UHF/GPS/satellite, RFID/PIT tags, microchips, data-loggers)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Wildlife (mostly in native habitats); domestic pets (canids) briefly discussed",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Potential health risks and benefits to tagged animals",
    "Negative physiological effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF)",
    "Behavioral ramifications to target species",
    "Direct attachment/placement impacts from collars, transmitters, implants",
    "Environmental risk/benefit and ethical considerations",
    "Best management practices recommendations"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The paper discusses potential risks and benefits of radio telemetry/tracking technologies for wildlife, noting that negative physiological effects from EMF and impacts from device attachment/implantation may occur, and recommends greater caution and best management practices when using such technologies.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "No specific study designs, sample sizes, or quantitative effect estimates are provided in the abstract",
    "Frequencies/exposure levels (e.g., MHz, SAR) and exposure durations are not specified in the abstract",
    "Findings are described generally as a discussion/review rather than reporting new primary data in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.72,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "wildlife",
    "radio telemetry",
    "radio tracking",
    "tracking devices",
    "VHF",
    "UHF",
    "GPS",
    "satellites",
    "PTT",
    "RFID",
    "PIT tags",
    "microchips",
    "data loggers",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "physiological effects",
    "behavior",
    "best management practices",
    "ethics"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Mentions scientists, field researchers, technicians, and wildlife/veterinary professionals using telemetry/tracking technologies, implying potential occupational context (though not detailed)."
    }
  ]
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library