ArticlePloS one2020
Real-time drone derived thermal imagery outperforms traditional survey methods for an arboreal forest mammal.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the density of raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and water deer (Hydropotes inermis) using thermal real-time drone surveys and distance sampling.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Balancing High Densities and Conservation Targets to Optimise Koala Management Strategies.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Thermal drone surveys to detect arboreal fauna: Improving population estimates and threatened species monitoring.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
- Drones in ecology: ten years back and forth.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Home ranges and movements of an arboreal folivore after wildfire: comparing rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated animals in burnt and unburnt woodlands.Movement ecology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Automated Object-Detection Algorithms for Koala Detection in Infrared Aerial Imagery.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluating Thermal Infrared Drone Flight Parameters on Spider Monkey Detection in Tropical Forests.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparing the cost-effectiveness of drones, camera trapping and passive acoustic recorders in detecting changes in koala occupancy.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Health Assessments of Koalas after Wildfire: A Temporal Comparison of Rehabilitated and Non-Rescued Resident Individuals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Multiyear monitoring of threatened iconic arboreal mammals in a mid-elevation conservation reserve in eastern Australia.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Regulated timber harvesting does not reduce koala density in north-east forests of New South Wales.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) are cryptic and currently face regional extinction. The direct detection (physical sighting) of individuals is required to improve conservation management strategies. We provide a comparative assessment of three survey methods for the direct detection of koalas: systematic spotlighting (Spotlight), remotely piloted aircraft system thermal imaging (RPAS), and the refined diurnal radial search component of the spot assessment technique (SAT). Each survey method was repeated on the same morning with independent observers (03:00-12:00 hrs) for a total of 10 survey occasions at sites with fixed boundaries (28-76 ha) in Port Stephens (n = 6) and Gilead (n = 1) in New South Wales between May and July 2019. Koalas were directly detected on 22 occasions during 7 of 10 comparative surveys (Spotlight: n = 7; RPAS: n = 14; and SAT: n = 1), for a total of 12 unique individuals (Spotlight: n = 4; RPAS: n = 11; SAT: n = 1). In 3 of 10 comparative surveys no koalas were detected. Detection probability was 38.9 ± 20.03% for Spotlight, 83.3 ± 11.39% for RPAS and 4.2 ± 4.17% for SAT. Effective detectability per site was 1 ± 0.44 koalas per 6.75 ± 1.03 hrs for Spotlight (1 koala per 6.75 hrs), 2 ± 0.38 koalas per 4.35 ± 0.28 hrs for RPAS (1 koala per 2.18 hrs) and 0.14 ± 0.14 per 6.20 ± 0.93 hrs for SAT (1 koala per 43.39 hrs). RPAS thermal imaging technology appears to offer an efficient method to directly survey koalas comparative to Spotlight and SAT and has potential as a valuable conservation tool to inform on-ground management of declining koala populations.
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.