ArticlePloS one2015
Population census of a large common tern colony with a small unmanned aircraft.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elephant habituation to drones as a behavioural observation tool.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Best practice guidance for recreational and professional drones near colonial breeding birds.PloS one · 2025Article
- Airborne imagery does not preclude detectability issues in estimating bird colony size.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An Efficient Method for Monitoring Birds Based on Object Detection and Multi-Object Tracking Networks.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Article
- Multi-Object Tracking in Heterogeneous environments (MOTHe) for animal video recordings.PeerJ · 2023Article
- A colonial-nesting seabird shows no heart-rate response to drone-based population surveys.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Monitoring Colonies of Large Gulls Using UAVs: From Individuals to Breeding Pairs.Micromachines · 2022Article
- Drones, automatic counting tools, and artificial neural networks in wildlife population censusing.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- The behavioral responses of a nocturnal burrowing marsupial (Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Measuring disturbance at swift breeding colonies due to the visual aspects of a drone: a quasi-experiment study.Current zoology · 2021Article
- Article
- Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS)-Based Wildlife Detection: A Review and Case Studies in Maritime Antarctica.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Review
- Drone Surveys Do Not Increase Colony-wide Flight Behaviour at Waterbird Nesting Sites, But Sensitivity Varies Among Species.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Article
- Can drones count gulls? Minimal disturbance and semiautomated image processing with an unmanned aerial vehicle for colony-nesting seabirds.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Evaluating behavioral responses of nesting lesser snow geese to unmanned aircraft surveys.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Article
- Seabird species vary in behavioural response to drone census.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Automated detection and enumeration of marine wildlife using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and thermal imagery.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) may be useful for conducting high-precision, low-disturbance waterbird surveys, but limited data exist on their effectiveness. We evaluated the capacity of a small UAS to census a large (>6,000 nests) coastal Common tern (Sterna hirundo) colony of which ground surveys are particularly disruptive and time-consuming. We compared aerial photographic tern counts to ground nest counts in 45 plots (5-m radius) throughout the colony at three intervals over a nine-day period in order to identify sources of variation and establish a coefficient to estimate nest numbers from UAS surveys. We also compared a full colony ground count to full counts from two UAS surveys conducted the following day. Finally, we compared colony disturbance levels over the course of UAS flights to matched control periods. Linear regressions between aerial and ground counts in plots had very strong correlations in all three comparison periods (R2 = 0.972-0.989, P < 0.001) and regression coefficients ranged from 0.928-0.977 terns/nest. Full colony aerial counts were 93.6% and 94.0%, respectively, of the ground count. Varying visibility of terns with ground cover, weather conditions and image quality, and changing nest attendance rates throughout incubation were likely sources of variation in aerial detection rates. Optimally timed UAS surveys of Common tern colonies following our method should yield population estimates in the 93-96% range of ground counts. Although the terns were initially disturbed by the UAS flying overhead, they rapidly habituated to it. Overall, we found no evidence of sustained disturbance to the colony by the UAS. We encourage colonial waterbird researchers and managers to consider taking advantage of this burgeoning technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.