ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Evaluating the Visibility of Power-Line Bird-Collision Warning Devices Using an Avian Spectral-Response Weighting Model.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Collisions with overhead power lines are an important source of avian mortality, particularly for migratory and large-bodied birds. Although warning devices are widely installed to increase line visibility, their image-based visibility across viewing distances and directions remains poorly quantified. We evaluated eight power-line bird-collision warning devices using UAV-based multispectral imaging and an avian spectral-response weighting model. Images were acquired at 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 m under upward-looking, horizontal, and downward-looking viewing geometries. A composite visibility score quantified target-background separation within the multispectral images. Raw mean visibility increased from 0.351 at 5 m to 0.484 at 50 m; however, the distance effect was not significant after accounting for viewing angle and heterogeneous residual variance. Viewing angle was the dominant source of variation at 20-50 m, with substantially higher visibility under downward-looking views than under horizontal and upward-looking views. A significant distance × viewing-angle interaction further showed that distance-response patterns differed among viewing geometries: visibility increased with distance under downward-looking views but remained consistently low under horizontal and upward-looking views. The relative performance of the tested devices also changed under low-visibility conditions, with the self-luminous tag and circular tag B attaining the highest condition-standardized mean scores. These findings identify viewing geometry as a critical determinant of warning-device visibility and demonstrate that averages pooled across observation conditions can obscure important performance differences. Evaluation and deployment should therefore prioritize device visibility from below and during near-horizontal viewing, particularly for overhead ground or shield wires at medium and long distances. This condition-specific framework provides a quantitative basis for improving the design and placement of power-line bird-collision warning devices.
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.