FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2108278364> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2108278364 endingPage "20" @default.
• W2108278364 startingPage "18" @default.
• W2108278364 abstract "We were pleased to see that our recent point-of-view article (McDonald and Griffi th 2011) has lead to further discussion on this important issue (Katzner et al. 2012). One of our primary goals was to encourage researchers to consider both the potential impacts of their sampling methodologies upon subjects, and also the level of information that particular methods are likely to provide. Whilst we are therefore pleased that Katzner et al. (2012) have continued the discussion and helped to raise the profi le of important issues surrounding the biological sampling of avian tissues, we are disappointed that they have misrepresented our original message. Th e primary critique raised by Katzner et al. (2012) centres on our reputed suggestion that blood sampling was a ‘ one-size-fi ts-all approach ’ to ornithology. Th is main criticism of our article is somewhat weakened by the fact that nowhere in our article did we either state or imply this to be the case. In fact, the opposite is true, in several places in our article we explicitly suggested that feather sampling may well be the best practise in some situations. Th e clearest statement to this eff ect is on the very fi rst page of our article: ‘ Note that we support the obtainment of feather material, after applying an appropriate degree of ethical rigour, when no other means exists for obtaining these data ’ . At present, there is a lack of data that has specifi cally tested for impacts of feather sampling, be it feather plucking or clipping, which makes it very diffi cult to judge the longterm impacts of these techniques. Again, we implore ornithologists to publish data on any potential impacts (or lack thereof ) of feather sampling at their earliest opportunity. Th e main thrust of our article was two-fold. First, to highlight the relatively poor DNA extraction rates associated with feather versus blood sources. Second, to identify some studies that determined signifi cant negative impacts of feather sampling. Th e latter are typically swept under the carpet as ‘ insignifi cant ’ – perusal of the literature suggests that this is not the case for a range of species (Chai and Dudley 1999, Th ompson et al. 2010). Katzner et al. (2012) raise four points in their article that they claim contradict our views, we address each below. 1. Science methodology should be driven by research questions" @default.
• W2108278364 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2108278364 creator A5059406287 @default.
• W2108278364 creator A5075126259 @default.
• W2108278364 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W2108278364 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2108278364 title "Feather sampling provides an unreliable source of DNA that may well have significant long-term impacts: a reply to Katzner et al." @default.
• W2108278364 cites W1740898679 @default.
• W2108278364 cites W2021808005 @default.
• W2108278364 cites W2061527890 @default.
• W2108278364 cites W2106327419 @default.
• W2108278364 cites W2122601350 @default.
• W2108278364 cites W2132632011 @default.
• W2108278364 cites W2163594555 @default.
• W2108278364 cites W2173286578 @default.
• W2108278364 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-048x.2011.05692.x" @default.
• W2108278364 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2108278364 type Work @default.
• W2108278364 sameAs 2108278364 @default.
• W2108278364 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2108278364 countsByYear W21082783642013 @default.
• W2108278364 countsByYear W21082783642016 @default.
• W2108278364 countsByYear W21082783642018 @default.
• W2108278364 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2108278364 hasAuthorship W2108278364A5059406287 @default.
• W2108278364 hasAuthorship W2108278364A5075126259 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C106131492 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C127745971 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C140779682 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C31972630 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C61797465 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConcept C90856448 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C106131492 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C121332964 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C127745971 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C140779682 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C31972630 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C41008148 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C61797465 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C62520636 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C70721500 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C78458016 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C86803240 @default.
• W2108278364 hasConceptScore W2108278364C90856448 @default.
• W2108278364 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2108278364 hasLocation W21082783641 @default.
• W2108278364 hasOpenAccess W2108278364 @default.
• W2108278364 hasPrimaryLocation W21082783641 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W1796991611 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W1967590628 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W1979065031 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W2008893084 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W2081715163 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W2188651226 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W2194027516 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W3003111937 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W3003441477 @default.
• W2108278364 hasRelatedWork W4302549962 @default.
• W2108278364 hasVolume "43" @default.
• W2108278364 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2108278364 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2108278364 magId "2108278364" @default.
• W2108278364 workType "article" @default.