ArticleScientific reports2020
Drone Surveys Do Not Increase Colony-wide Flight Behaviour at Waterbird Nesting Sites, But Sensitivity Varies Among Species.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seasonal Role Reversal of Baer's Pochard in Waterbird Association Networks.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- 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
- Environmental drivers of vigilance behaviour in painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala) nesting colonies.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- On the move: Influence of animal movements on count error during drone surveys.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Airborne imagery does not preclude detectability issues in estimating bird colony size.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Drones as a tool to study and monitor endangered Grey Crowned Cranes (Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The popularity of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to survey colonial waterbirds has increased in the past decade, but disturbance associated with this bourgeoning technology requires further study. Disturbance was investigated by conducting aerial surveys with a consumer-grade quadcopter (DJI Phantom 3), while concurrently recording behavioural reactions on video. Surveys of mixed-species waterbird colonies (1-6 species per colony) were flown in horizontal transects at heights of 122, 91, 61, and 46 m, which is a typical range for collecting aerial imagery and producing high-resolution mosaicked orthophotos of nesting bird sites. An upper limit of 122 m was used due to local regulations prohibiting higher-altitude flights without federal authorization. Behavioural reactions were tallied every minute and a disturbance score was calculated for each sampling period. When compared to control periods, we found no evidence that colony-wide escape (i.e., flight) behaviour increased during drone flights, at any altitude flown. However, disturbance score increased significantly by 53% for surveys at 46 m. Some species were more sensitive to surveys than others. Laughing Gulls, in particular, exhibited a significant (125%) increase in escape behaviour for surveys at 91 m. Our results indicate when used in a capacity to gather high-resolution imagery for estimating breeding pairs, UAV surveys affected some species more than others, but severe reactions did not appear to increase for mixed-species colonies as a whole. Further study on safe operating thresholds is essential, especially at local and regional scales.
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.