Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36289247›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Optimal settings and advantages of drones as a tool for canopy arthropod collection.

Jamie C Madden, Émile Brisson-Curadeau, Jessica P Gillung, David M Bird, Kyle H Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Jamie C MaddenDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. jamie.madden@mail.mcgill.ca.
Émile Brisson-CuradeauDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Jessica P GillungLyman Entomological Museum, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
David M BirdDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Kyle H ElliottDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing field of aeroecology is limited by difficulties associated with sampling in the air column. Aerial insects are particularly hard to sample, despite being the main prey in the air column, with some recent studies attempting to use drones as a collection method. We conducted a study to determine the optimal drone settings for collecting insects above the canopy, where drones are seldom used. By attaching a net to the body of a small, commercial drone, we tested yield from different height, speed, and net settings in wetlands, as well as compared insect diversity across different habitat canopies. Height was the most important setting; grazing the canopy yielded significantly more insects than flying one meter above it. Speed, drone type, and net size did not influence the number of insects caught per trial. Wetland canopies had higher abundance, diversity, and species richness in its arthropod populations compared to forest canopies or lakes. Compared to the yield of Lindgren funnels-a traditional sampling method in entomology-drones captured higher diversity and abundance of insects in a fraction of the time. This study confirms that drones are an efficient and accurate way to collect canopy arthropods.

Indexed as

ArthropodsAnimalsEcosystemForestsInsectaUnmanned Aerial Devices

Identifiers

PMID36289247
PMCPMC9606009

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.