ArticleScientific reports2022
Optimal settings and advantages of drones as a tool for canopy arthropod collection.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards a FAIR metadata framework for drone and uncrewed aerial vehicle data.Scientific data · 2025Article
- An adhesive drone trap to study the flight altitude preferences of winged ants.Current zoology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.