Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices-state of the science and best management practices.

Albert M Manville, B Blake Levitt, Henry C Lai
Author Information
  1. Albert M Manville: Advanced Academic Program's Environmental Sciences and Policy Division, School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, United States.
  2. B Blake Levitt: National Association of Science Writers, Berkeley, CA, United States.
  3. Henry C Lai: Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Electromagn Biol Med. 2021 Apr 3;40(2):264-273 [PMID: 33539186]
  2. BMC Vet Res. 2008 Dec 10;4:51 [PMID: 19077193]
  3. Science. 2016 Jan 8;351(6269):aad2622 [PMID: 26744408]
  4. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016 Mar 22;10:55 [PMID: 27047356]
  5. Amino Acids. 2016 Jan;48(1):213-7 [PMID: 26319644]
  6. Vet J. 2004 Sep;168(2):188-90 [PMID: 15301769]
  7. Front Public Health. 2022 Nov 25;10:1000840 [PMID: 36505009]
  8. J Wildl Dis. 1978 Jan;14(1):97-101 [PMID: 633522]
  9. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):191-9 [PMID: 19264463]
  10. Environ Res. 2001 Jun;86(2):198-207 [PMID: 11437466]
  11. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May 27;37(1):81-122 [PMID: 34047144]
  12. Toxicol Pathol. 1999 Sep-Oct;27(5):519-27 [PMID: 10528631]
  13. Rev Environ Health. 2023 May 18;: [PMID: 37195230]
  14. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Feb 1;543(Pt A):662-669 [PMID: 26615484]
  15. Electromagn Biol Med. 2022 Apr 3;41(2):230-255 [PMID: 35438055]
  16. Rev Environ Health. 2023 Apr 07;: [PMID: 37021652]
  17. Vet Pathol. 2006 Jul;43(4):545-8 [PMID: 16846997]
  18. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27;37(4):531-558 [PMID: 34563106]
  19. Sci Total Environ. 2015 Jun 15;518-519:58-60 [PMID: 25747364]
  20. Ecol Evol. 2021 Jun 20;11(14):9610-9620 [PMID: 34306647]
  21. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 1997 Aug;49(3-4):197-200 [PMID: 9314053]
  22. Environ Health. 2022 Oct 18;21(1):92 [PMID: 36253855]
  23. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2006 Mar;57(4):255-65 [PMID: 16427258]
  24. Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:116-40 [PMID: 23261519]
  25. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2022 Nov;31(11):2219-2230 [PMID: 36590324]
  26. Sci Total Environ. 2021 May 1;767:144913 [PMID: 33636787]
  27. Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 12;5:14914 [PMID: 26456585]
  28. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 08;37(3):327-406 [PMID: 34243228]
  29. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2002;80:1-395 [PMID: 12071196]
  30. Physiol Res. 2023 Apr 30;72(2):199-208 [PMID: 37159854]
  31. Health Phys. 2020 May;118(5):483-524 [PMID: 32167495]
  32. Ecol Appl. 2022 Oct;32(7):e2679 [PMID: 35588285]
  33. Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jul 22;276(1667):2635-41 [PMID: 19386652]
  34. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2001 Feb;52(6):483-91 [PMID: 11256750]
  35. Sci Total Environ. 2014 Oct 15;496:314-316 [PMID: 25089692]
  36. PLoS One. 2020 Jul 27;15(7):e0235750 [PMID: 32716917]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0wildlifetechnologiesradiotrackingusedspeciespaperhealthusetelemetryfrequencyincludingsatellitestransmitterswellusingRFIDchipsPITtagsbehaviorsfishveterinarianeffectselectromagneticfieldsEMFbestmanagementpracticesenvironmentaldiscussespotentialrisksbenefitstaggedrelatedmicrochipdata-loggerstudymonitortrackmostlynativehabitatsDomesticpetsespeciallycanidsbrieflydiscussedradio-taggingdevicesalsoon/inRadiouseshighVHFultra-highUHFglobalpositioningsystemGPSviaplatformterminalPTTsgeo-locatingcapabilitiesradio-frequencyidentificationpassiveintegratedresponderamongothersresultedcutting-edgefindingsworldwideservedprotectbetterunderstandmyriadresultscientistsfieldresearcherstechniciansbiologistsmanagersplusspecialistsfrequentlyoptwithoutfullyunderstandingramificationstargetincludenegativephysiologicalmanynonhumanexquisitelysensitivedirectplacement/use-attachmentimpactscollarsimplantsprovidespertinentstudiessuggestscomparescurrentlyavailableconsideringand/orprimaryfocusrisk/benefitdecisionscomeplayethicalconsiderationsalongrecommendationscautioncommunitiesfirstplaceHealthdevices-statesciencedata-loggerstelemetry/trackingradiofrequencyradiationRFR

Similar Articles

Cited By