Daniel Gomez Isaza

In the field of conservation physiology, there is often a trade off between conducting research in controlled laboratory settings or in inherently variable field environments. However, this belief sets up a false dichotomy where laboratory experiments are perceived as providing precise, mechanistic understanding with low variability at the cost of environmental realism while field studies are ecologically relevant but criticized for generating inconsistent evidence that is difficult to interpret and replicate. Despite the perceived binary view, these approaches are not in opposition to one another, but rather form a continuum along increasing ecological complexity. Here, we argue that it is possible to mindfully and purposefully design studies and develop integrative collaborations in conservation physiology that span the lab-field continuum to address pressing environmentally-relevant questions that can be used to inform policy and practice. We first outline the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to knowledge generation. We then highlight ways to bridge the lab-field divide though leveraging the advantages provided by different approaches to build a more comprehensive understanding of the natural world, including how recent technological advances can help connect lab- and field-based research. Next, we discuss the importance of partnership and collaboration across sectors for informing our understanding of ecological patterns and physiological processes. Finally, we reflect on how to best translate physiological research into action and the reciprocal role that environmental practitioners can have in driving research questions in conservation physiology.