Testing a key assumption of using drones as frightening devices: Do birds perceive drones as risky?

IF 2.6 2区 生物学 Q1 ORNITHOLOGY
Condor Pub Date : 2020-03-27 DOI:10.1093/condor/duaa014
Conor C. Egan, B. F. Blackwell, E. Fernández‐Juricic, Page E. Klug
{"title":"Testing a key assumption of using drones as frightening devices: Do birds perceive drones as risky?","authors":"Conor C. Egan, B. F. Blackwell, E. Fernández‐Juricic, Page E. Klug","doi":"10.1093/condor/duaa014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Wildlife managers have recently suggested the use of unmanned aircraft systems or drones as nonlethal hazing tools to deter birds from areas of human-wildlife conflict. However, it remains unclear if birds perceive common drone platforms as threatening. Based on field studies assessing behavioral and physiological responses, it is generally assumed that birds perceive less risk from drones than from predators. However, studies controlling for multiple confounding effects have not been conducted. Our goal was to establish the degree to which the perception of risk by birds would vary between common drone platforms relative to a predator model when flown at different approach types. We evaluated the behavioral responses of individual Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) to 3 drone platforms: a predator model, a fixed-wing resembling an airplane, and a multirotor, approaching either head-on or overhead. Blackbirds became alert earlier (by 13.7 s), alarm-called more frequently (by a factor of 12), returned to forage later (by a factor of 4.7), and increased vigilance (by a factor of 1.3) in response to the predator model compared with the multirotor. Blackbirds also perceived the fixed-wing as riskier than the multirotor, but less risky than the predator model. Overhead approaches mostly failed to elicit flight in blackbirds across all platform types, and no blackbirds took flight in response to the multirotor at either overhead or head-on approaches. Our findings demonstrate that birds perceived drones with predatory characteristics as riskier than common drone models (i.e. fixed-wing and multirotor platforms). We recommend that drones be modified with additional stimuli to increase perceived risk when used as frightening devices, but avoided if used for wildlife monitoring.","PeriodicalId":50624,"journal":{"name":"Condor","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/condor/duaa014","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Condor","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duaa014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORNITHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Wildlife managers have recently suggested the use of unmanned aircraft systems or drones as nonlethal hazing tools to deter birds from areas of human-wildlife conflict. However, it remains unclear if birds perceive common drone platforms as threatening. Based on field studies assessing behavioral and physiological responses, it is generally assumed that birds perceive less risk from drones than from predators. However, studies controlling for multiple confounding effects have not been conducted. Our goal was to establish the degree to which the perception of risk by birds would vary between common drone platforms relative to a predator model when flown at different approach types. We evaluated the behavioral responses of individual Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) to 3 drone platforms: a predator model, a fixed-wing resembling an airplane, and a multirotor, approaching either head-on or overhead. Blackbirds became alert earlier (by 13.7 s), alarm-called more frequently (by a factor of 12), returned to forage later (by a factor of 4.7), and increased vigilance (by a factor of 1.3) in response to the predator model compared with the multirotor. Blackbirds also perceived the fixed-wing as riskier than the multirotor, but less risky than the predator model. Overhead approaches mostly failed to elicit flight in blackbirds across all platform types, and no blackbirds took flight in response to the multirotor at either overhead or head-on approaches. Our findings demonstrate that birds perceived drones with predatory characteristics as riskier than common drone models (i.e. fixed-wing and multirotor platforms). We recommend that drones be modified with additional stimuli to increase perceived risk when used as frightening devices, but avoided if used for wildlife monitoring.
测试将无人机用作恐怖设备的一个关键假设:鸟类认为无人机有风险吗?
野生动物管理人员最近建议使用无人驾驶飞机系统或无人机作为非致命的恐吓工具,以阻止鸟类进入人类与野生动物发生冲突的地区。然而,目前尚不清楚鸟类是否将普通无人机平台视为威胁。根据实地研究评估行为和生理反应,一般认为鸟类对无人机的感知比天敌的风险要小。然而,控制多重混杂效应的研究尚未开展。我们的目标是确定在不同的接近方式下,鸟类对风险的感知在不同的无人机平台上相对于捕食者模型的差异程度。我们评估了个体红翼黑鹂(Agelaius phoeniceus)对3种无人机平台的行为反应:捕食者模型,类似飞机的固定翼和多旋翼,正面或头顶接近。与多旋翼机相比,黑鸟对捕食者模型的反应更早(提高13.7秒),更频繁地发出警报(提高12倍),更晚返回觅食(提高4.7倍),提高警惕性(提高1.3倍)。黑鸟还认为固定翼飞机比多旋翼飞机风险更大,但比捕食者模型风险更小。在所有平台类型中,头顶方法大多未能引起黑鸟的飞行,并且没有黑鸟在头顶或正面方法时对多旋翼做出飞行反应。我们的研究结果表明,鸟类认为具有捕食特征的无人机比普通无人机模型(即固定翼和多旋翼平台)风险更大。我们建议对无人机进行修改,增加额外的刺激,以增加用作恐怖装置时的感知风险,但避免用于野生动物监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Condor
Condor ORNITHOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Condor is the official publication of the Cooper Ornithological Society, a non-profit organization of over 2,000 professional and amateur ornithologists and one of the largest ornithological societies in the world. A quarterly international journal that publishes original research from all fields of avian biology, The Condor has been a highly respected forum in ornithology for more than 100 years. The journal is one of the top ranked ornithology publications. Types of paper published include feature articles (longer manuscripts) Short Communications (generally shorter papers or papers that deal with one primary finding), Commentaries (brief papers that comment on articles published previously in The Condor), and Book Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信