Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34737377›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Responses of turkey vultures to unmanned aircraft systems vary by platform.

Morgan B Pfeiffer, Bradley F Blackwell, Thomas W Seamans, Bruce N Buckingham, Joshua L Hoblet, Patrice E Baumhardt, Travis L DeVault, Esteban Fernández-Juricic

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Efficacy and Underpinnings of the Effigy in Wildlife Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Morgan B PfeifferU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH, 44870, USA. Morgan.B.Pfeiffer@usda.gov.
Bradley F BlackwellU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH, 44870, USA.
Thomas W SeamansU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH, 44870, USA.
Bruce N BuckinghamU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH, 44870, USA.
Joshua L HobletU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH, 44870, USA.
Patrice E BaumhardtDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA.
Travis L DeVaultSavannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Aiken, SC, 29802, USA.
Esteban Fernández-JuricicDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA.

Funding

Federal Aviation Administration IA No: 692M15-19-T-00017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A challenge that conservation practitioners face is manipulating behavior of nuisance species. The turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) can cause substantial damage to aircraft if struck. The goal of this study was to assess vulture responses to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for use as a possible dispersal tool. Our treatments included three platforms (fixed-wing, multirotor, and a predator-like ornithopter [powered by flapping flight]) and two approach types (30 m overhead or targeted towards a vulture) in an operational context. We evaluated perceived risk as probability of reaction, reaction time, flight-initiation distance (FID), vulture remaining index, and latency to return. Vultures escaped sooner in response to the fixed-wing; however, fewer remained after multirotor treatments. Targeted approaches were perceived as riskier than overhead. Vulture perceived risk was enhanced by flying the multirotor in a targeted approach. We found no effect of our treatments on FID or latency to return. Latency was negatively correlated with UAS speed, perhaps because slower UAS spent more time over the area. Greatest visual saliency followed as: ornithopter, fixed-wing, and multirotor. Despite its appearance, the ornithopter was not effective at dispersing vultures. Because effectiveness varied, multirotor/fixed-wing UAS use should be informed by management goals (immediate dispersal versus latency).

Identifiers

PMID34737377
PMCPMC8569017

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.