Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39286441›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Heating decoys to mimic thermal signatures of live animals for drones.

Landon R Jones, Cerise Mensah, Jared A Elmore, Kristine O Evans, Morgan B Pfeiffer, Bradley F Blackwell, Raymond B Iglay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Landon R JonesDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
Cerise MensahDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
Jared A ElmoreDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
Kristine O EvansDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
Morgan B PfeifferU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Ohio Field Station, OH 44870, USA.
Bradley F BlackwellU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Ohio Field Station, OH 44870, USA.
Raymond B IglayDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thermal sensors mounted on drones (unoccupied aircraft systems) are popular and effective tools for monitoring cryptic animal species, although few studies have quantified sampling error of animal counts from thermal images. Using decoys is one effective strategy to quantify bias and count accuracy; however, plastic decoys do not mimic thermal signatures of representative species. Our objective was to produce heat signatures in animal decoys to realistically match thermal images of live animals obtained from a drone-based sensor. We tested commercially available methods to heat plastic decoys of three different size classes, including chemical foot warmers, manually heated water, electric socks, pad, or blanket, and mini and small electric space heaters. We used criteria in two categories, 1) external temperature differences from ambient temperatures (ambient difference) and 2) color bins from a palette in thermal images obtained from a drone near the ground and in the air, to determine if heated decoys adequately matched respective live animals in four body regions. Three methods achieved similar thermal signatures to live animals for three to four body regions in external temperatures and predominantly matched the corresponding yellow color bins in thermal drone images from the ground and in the air. Pigeon decoys were best and most consistently heated with three-foot warmers. Goose and deer decoys were best heated by mini and small space heaters, respectively, in their body cavities, with a heated sock in the head of the goose decoy. The materials and equipment for our best heating methods were relatively inexpensive, commercially available items that provide sustained heat and could be adapted to various shapes and sizes for a wide range of avian and mammalian species. Our heating methods could be used in future studies to quantify bias and validate methodologies for drone surveys of animals with thermal sensors.•We determined optimal heating methods for plastic animal decoys with inexpensive and commercially available equipment to mimic thermal signatures of live animals.•Methods could be used to quantify bias and improve thermal surveys of animals with drones in future studies.

Indexed as

Animal surveyBest practicesHeating animal decoys to mimic thermal signatures for dronesRPASUASUAV

Identifiers

PMID39286441
PMCPMC11404203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.