Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38503812›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Efficacy of an inflatable deterrent for reducing New World vulture human-wildlife conflict.

Bryan M Kluever, Betsy A Evans, Noah M Osterhoudt, Eric A Tillman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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. Efficacy and Underpinnings of the Effigy in Wildlife Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Bryan M KlueverUnited States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, Gainesville, FL, 32641, USA. Bryan.Kluever@usda.gov.
Betsy A EvansUnited States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, Gainesville, FL, 32641, USA.
Noah M OsterhoudtUnited States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, Gainesville, FL, 32641, USA.
Eric A TillmanUnited States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, Gainesville, FL, 32641, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing urbanization coupled with spatial expansion and numerical increase of New World vulture populations has engendered a rise in human-vulture conflict, creating a need for effective tools to mitigate vulture-related damage. Visual frightening devices that mimic the presence of human or other predators can be employed in human-vulture conflict scenarios to increase perceived risk by the pest species, thereby eliciting an antipredator behavioral response, such as fleeing. One visual frightening device, inflatable scarecrows, recently proved effective at reducing passerine attendance at feral swine feeders, but their effectiveness when directed at other species and conflict scenarios has varied. Our primary objective was to evaluate an inflatable deterrent for reducing the number of black (Coragyps atratus) and turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) present (hereafter abundance) at 13 human-vulture conflict sites throughout the southeastern United States. We predicted that vulture abundance would be substantially reduced when inflatable deterrents were deployed. Because we suspected other factors might also influence vulture site abundance, we also examined the exploratory variables of weather, site size (area), and vulture tolerance to human approach in relation to vulture site abundance using a model selection approach. Black vulture site abundance was more pervasive than turkey vultures, occurring at all sites and accounting for 85% of daily vulture counts (10.78 ± 0.52 vultures/site/day) whereas turkey vultures were only present at 62% of sites (2.12 ± 0.21). Across all sites, inflatable scarecrows were effective at reducing vulture abundance by 82% during the seventeen-day treatment period when deterrents were deployed (3.50 ± 0.20), but only a 48% reduction during the twenty-one-day post-treatment phase (15.34 ± 1.39) was observed. Site size and weather did not influence tool effectiveness. Human tolerance at sites, as determined by vulture flight initiation distance, was influential, with tool effectiveness being reduced at sites where local human tolerance was high. We recommend inflatable scarecrows as a tool to reduce vulture-wildlife conflict to private property and recreation at sites where the conflict is spatially restricted (e.g., parking lot or recreation area), conducive to scarecrow deployment (e.g., flat stable surfaces), and where vulture site human tolerance is low to moderate.

Indexed as

Animals, WildFalconiformesAnimalsHumansSoutheastern United StatesSwineWeather

Identifiers

PMID38503812
PMCPMC10951350

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.