ArticlePloS one2025
Advancing bat monitoring: Assessing the impact of unmanned aerial systems on bat activity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
With the increasing height and rotor diameter of wind turbines, bat activity monitoring within the risk area becomes more challenging. This study investigates the impact of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) on bat activity and explores acoustic bat detection via UAS as a new data collection method in the vicinity of wind turbines. We tested two types of UAS, a multicopter and a Lighter Than Air (LTA) UAS, to understand how they may affect acoustically recorded and analyzed bat activity level for three echolocation groups: Pipistrelloid, Myotini, and Nyctaloid. We hypothesized (i) that the LTA UAS will not affect bat activity levels while a multicopter, due to higher noise emission, might have a negative impact. Our results support this hypothesis, because multicopter flights have a highly significant negative impact on bat activity levels with a medium effect size, particularly for the Myotini (P < 0.001, dm = 0.54) and Nyctaloid group (P < 0.001, dn = 0.55) and a small effect size for the Pipistrelloid group (P < 0.001, dp = 0.36). In contrast, the LTA UAS had no significant effect on bat activity for each echolocation group (P > 0.05 for each group), suggesting its suitability for non-intrusive acoustic monitoring. Furthermore, we hypothesized (ii) that larger UAS propellers prevent the deterrent effect on bats. However, despite the use of larger propellers for the multicopter UAS compared to previous studies, we observed a deterrence effect for all echolocation groups. Additionally, we hypothesized that (iii) any initial deterrence or attraction effect might decrease over time. Our results did not support this hypothesis because we did not observe any habituation of bats to UAS within the 15-minute flight period. Our study highlights the potential of UAS for bat monitoring but underscores the critical importance of selecting appropriate UAS types and operating noise levels for successful surveillance efforts.
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.