ArticleEcology and evolution2024
On the move: Influence of animal movements on count error during drone surveys.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- On the move: Influence of animal movements on count error during drone surveys.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of remote sensing to monitor animal populations has greatly expanded during the last decade. Drones (i.e., Unoccupied Aircraft Systems or UAS) provide a cost- and time-efficient remote sensing option to survey animals in various landscapes and sampling conditions. However, drone-based surveys may also introduce counting errors, especially when monitoring mobile animals. Using an agent-based model simulation approach, we evaluated the error associated with counting a single animal across various drone flight patterns under three animal movement strategies (random, directional persistence, and biased toward a resource) among five animal speeds (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 m/s). Flight patterns represented increasing spatial independence (ranging from lawnmower pattern with image overlap to systematic point counts). Simulation results indicated that flight pattern was the most important variable influencing count accuracy, followed by the type of animal movement pattern, and then animal speed. A awnmower pattern with 0% overlap produced the most accurate count of a solitary, moving animal on a landscape (average count of 1.1 ± 0.6) regardless of the animal's movement pattern and speed. Image overlap flight patterns were more likely to result in multiple counts even when accounting for mosaicking. Based on our simulations, we recommend using a lawnmower pattern with 0% image overlap to minimize error and augment drone efficacy for animal surveys. Our work highlights the importance of understanding interactions between animal movements and drone survey design on count accuracy to inform the development of broad applications among diverse species and ecosystems.
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.