@article {McCarty2009Behavior,
	title = {Behavior of Buff-Breasted Sandpipers (Tryngites subruficollis) during Migratory Stopover in Agricultural Fields},
	journal = {PLoS ONE},
	volume = {4},
	number = {11},
	year = {2009},
	month = {November},
	pages = {e8000+},
	publisher = {Public Library of Science},
	abstract = {Understanding the behavior of birds in agricultural habitats can be the first step in evaluating the conservation implications of birds{\textquoteright} use of landscapes shaped by modern agriculture. The existence and magnitude of risk from agricultural practices and the quality of resources agricultural lands provide will be determined largely by how birds use these habitats. Buff-breasted Sandpipers ( Tryngites subruficollis ) are a species of conservation concern. During spring migration large numbers of Buff-breasted Sandpipers stopover in row crop fields in the Rainwater Basin region of Nebraska. We used behavioral observations as a first step in evaluating how Buff-breasted Sandpipers use crop fields during migratory stopover.},
	keywords = {behaviour, conservation, migration, migratory-birds, migratory-species},
	doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0008000},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008000},
	author = {McCarty, John P. and Jorgensen, Joel G. and Wolfenbarger, LaReesa L.}
}
@article {Martin2007Optimal,
	title = {Optimal Conservation of Migratory Species},
	journal = {PLoS ONE},
	volume = {2},
	number = {8},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {e751+},
	publisher = {Public Library of Science},
	abstract = {Migratory animals comprise a significant portion of biodiversity worldwide with annual investment for their conservation exceeding several billion dollars. Designing effective conservation plans presents enormous challenges. Migratory species are influenced by multiple events across land and sea{\^a}{\texteuro} {\textquotedblright} regions that are often separated by thousands of kilometres and span international borders. To date, conservation strategies for migratory species fail to take into account how migratory animals are spatially connected between different periods of the annual cycle (i.e. migratory connectivity) bringing into question the utility and efficiency of current conservation efforts.},
	keywords = {biodiversity, conservation, migration, migratory-species},
	doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0000751},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000751},
	author = {Martin, Tara G. and Chad{\`e}s, Iadine and Arcese, Peter and Marra, Peter P. and Possingham, Hugh P. and Norris, D. Ryan}
}
@article {GarciaVasquez2009Lifehistory,
	title = {Life-history characteristics of the large Amazonian migratory catfishBrachyplatystoma rousseauxiiin the Iquitos region, Peru},
	journal = {Journal of Fish Biology},
	volume = {75},
	number = {10},
	year = {2009},
	month = {December},
	pages = {2527{\textendash}2551},
	keywords = {amazonia, conservation, migration, migratory-fishes, protein},
	issn = {00221112},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02444.x},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02444.x},
	author = {Garc\'{\i}a V{\'a}squez, A. and Alonso, J. C. and Carvajal, F. and Moreau, J. and Nu{\~n}ez, J. and Renno, J. F. and Tello, S. and Montreuil, V. and Duponchelle, F.}
}
@article {Barron2010Metaanalysis,
	title = {Meta-analysis of transmitter effects on avian behaviour and ecology},
	journal = {Methods in Ecology and Evolution},
	volume = {1},
	number = {2},
	year = {2010},
	month = {February},
	pages = {180{\textendash}187},
	address = {Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois, 606 E. Healey Street, Champaign, IL 61821, USA},
	abstract = {1. Researchers often attach transmitters and other devices to free-living birds without a clear understanding of potential deleterious consequences to their study organisms, and thus to their data. Studies investigating this topic have generally been limited to a single species or type of device. 2. To achieve a broader understanding we used a meta-analysis of 84 studies to ask: (1) Do devices have an overall effect on birds? (2) Which aspects of avian behaviour and ecology are affected? (3) What attributes of birds influence transmitter effects? (4) What attributes of devices influence their effects? (5) Are effects partially a consequence of capture and restraint? 3. We found a significant negative effect of devices on birds, both overall and for 8 of the 12 specific aspects analysed. The most substantial effects were that birds with devices had markedly increased energy expenditure and were much less likely to nest. 4. Effects were independent of attributes of the birds (sex, age, primary method of locomotion and body mass). We also found no evidence that proportionally heavier devices had greater effects, although researchers generally avoided using heavy devices. Breast-mounted and harness attachments increased device-induced behaviours such as preening, however, and the risk of device-induced mortality differed between attachment methods. 5. Other than foraging behaviours, no effects were a consequence of capture or restraint. 6.Synthesis and applications. We provide the first comprehensive evidence that transmitters and other devices negatively affect birds and may bias resulting data. Researchers should balance the benefits of using these techniques against potential costs to the birds and reliability of the data obtained.},
	keywords = {birds, conservation, methods, migration, sensors, transmitters},
	issn = {2041210X},
	doi = {10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00013.x},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00013.x},
	author = {Barron, Douglas G. and Brawn, Jeffrey D. and Weatherhead, Patrick J.}
}
