Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34075108›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Fewer bat passes are detected during small, commercial drone flights.

Gabrielle Ednie, David M Bird, Kyle H Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gabrielle EdnieDepartment of Natural Resource Science, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 2E3, Canada. gab.ednie@gmail.com.
David M BirdDepartment of Natural Resource Science, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 2E3, Canada.
Kyle H ElliottDepartment of Natural Resource Science, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 2E3, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in technological capabilities, operational simplicity and cost efficiency have promoted the rapid integration of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into ecological research, providing access to study taxa that are otherwise difficult to survey, such as bats. Many bat species are currently at risk, but accurately surveying populations is challenging for species that do not roost in large aggregations. Acoustic recorders attached to UAVs provide an opportunity to survey bats in challenging habitats. However, UAVs may alter bat behaviour, leading to avoidance of the UAV, reduced detection rates and inaccurate surveys. We evaluated the number of bat passes detected with and without the presence of a small, commercial UAV in open habitats. Only 22% of bat passes were recorded in the presence of the UAV (0.23 ± 0.09 passes/min) compared to control periods without the UAV (1.03 ± 0.17 passes/min), but the effect was smaller on the big brown bat/silver-haired bat (Eptesicus fuscus/Lasionycteris noctivagans) acoustic complex. Noise interference from the UAV also reduced on-board bat detection rates. We conclude that acoustic records attached to UAVs may inaccurately survey bat populations due to low and variable detection rates by such recorders.

Identifiers

PMID34075108
PMCPMC8169876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.