Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:39:53.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of disturbance effect on geese caused by an approaching unmanned aerial vehicle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2019

MADS BECH-HANSEN Open the ORCID record for MADS BECH-HANSEN [Opens in a new window] ,
RUNE M. KALLEHAUGE ,
JANNIK M. S. LAURITZEN ,
MATHIAS H. SØRENSEN ,
BJARKE LAUBEK ,
LASSE F. JENSEN ,
CINO PERTOLDI  and
DAN BRUHN
MADS BECH-HANSEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, Denmark.
RUNE M. KALLEHAUGE
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, Denmark.
JANNIK M. S. LAURITZEN
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, Denmark.
MATHIAS H. SØRENSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, Denmark.
BJARKE LAUBEK
Affiliation:
Vattenfall Renewable Wind DK A/S, Jupitervej 6 – 2nd floor, DK-6000Kolding, Denmark.
LASSE F. JENSEN
Affiliation:
Vattenfall Renewable Wind DK A/S, Jupitervej 6 – 2nd floor, DK-6000Kolding, Denmark.
CINO PERTOLDI
Affiliation:
Aalborg Zoo, Molleparkvej 63, DK-9000Aalborg, Denmark.
DAN BRUHN
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, Denmark.
*
*Author for correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are useful tools in ornithological studies. Importantly, though, UAV-caused disturbance has been noted to vary among species. This study evaluated guidelines for UAVs as a tool for researching geese. Twenty-four flocks of foraging geese were approached at an altitude of 50–100 m with a quadcopter UAV and disturbance effects were analysed across different horizontal distances between the UAV and the flocks. Geese were increasingly disturbed when approached by a UAV, with birds showing increased vigilance behaviour within approximately 300 m. Increasing UAV flight altitude as well as increasing take-off distance from the flocks both decreased the risk of bird flocks flushing. In conclusion, when monitoring geese using UAVs, flight altitudes of 100 m and take-off distances of ideally ∼500 m are recommended, to minimise initial disturbance and reducing the risk of birds flushing.

Type
Short Communication
Information
Bird Conservation International , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 169 - 175
Copyright
© BirdLife International, 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

#

Both authors contributed equally

References

Barnas, A., Newman, R., Felege, C. J., Corcoran, M. P., Hervey, S. D., Stechmann, T. J., Rockwell, R. F. and Ellis-Felege, S. N. (2017) Evaluating behavioral responses of nesting lesser snow geese to unmanned aircraft surveys. Ecol. Evol. 8: 1328–1338.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, G. (2008) What is the magnitude of the group-size effect on vigilance? Behav. Ecol. 19: 1361–1368.Google Scholar
Borrelle, S. B. and Fletcher, A. T. (2017) Will drones reduce investigator disturbance to surface-nesting birds? Mar. Ornithol. 45: 89–94.Google Scholar
Brisson-Curadeau, E., Bird, D., Burke, C., Fifield, A. D., Pace, P., Sherley, R. B. and Elliott, K. H. (2017) Seabird species vary in behavioural response to drone census. Sci. Rep. 7: 17884.Google Scholar
Chabot, D. and Bird, D. M. (2015) Wildlife research and management methods in the 21st century: Where do unmanned aircraft fit in? J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3: 137–155.Google Scholar
Christie, K. S., Gilbert, S. L., Brown, C. L., Hatfield, M. and Hanson, L. (2016) Unmanned aircraft systems in wildlife research: current and future applications of a transformative technology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14: 241–251.Google Scholar
Fox, A. D., Ebbinge, B. S., Mitchell, C., Heinicke, T., Aarvak, T., Colhoun, K., Clausen, P., Dereliev, S., Faragó, S., Koffijberg, K., Kruckenberg, H., Loonen, M. J. J. E, Madsen, J., Mooij, J., Musil, P., Nilsson, L., Pihl, S. and Van Der Jeugd, H. (2010) Current estimates of goose population sizes in western Europe, a gap analysis and an assessment of trends. Ornis Svecica 20: 115–127.Google Scholar
Goebel, M. E., Perryman, W. L., Hinke, J. T., Krause, D. J., Hann, N. A., Gardner, S. and LeRoi, D. J. (2015) A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biol. 38: 619–630.Google Scholar
Horn, S., de la Vega, C., Asmus, R., Schwemmer, P., Enners, L., Garthe, S., Binder, K. and Asmus, H. (2017) Interaction between birds and macrofauna within food webs of six intertidal habitats of the Wadden Sea. PLoS One 12: e0176381.Google Scholar
Lazarus, J. and Inglis, I. R. (1978) The breeding behaviour of the pink-footed goose: Parental care and vigilant behaviour during the fledging period. Behaviour 65: 62–88.Google Scholar
Linchant, J., Lisein, J., Semeki, J., Lejeune, P. and Vermeulen, C. (2015) Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mamm. Rev. 45: 239–252.Google Scholar
Lyons, M., Brandis, K., Callaghan, C., McCann, J., Mills, C., Ryall, S. and Kingsford, R. (2018) Bird interactions with drones, from individuals to large colonies. Australian Field Ornithol. 35: 51–56.Google Scholar
McEvoy, J. F., Hall, G. P. and McDonald, P. G. (2016) Evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle shape, flight path and camera type for waterfowl surveys: disturbance effects and species recognition. PeerJ. 4: e1831.Google Scholar
Mulero-Pázmány, M., Jenni-Eiermann, S., Strebel, N., Sattler, T., Negro, J. J. and Tablado, Z. (2017) Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 12: e0178448.Google Scholar
Randler, C. (2004) Coot benefit from feeding in proximity to geese. Waterbirds 27: 240–244.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, J. N., Fox, A. D., Boyd, H. and Stroud, D. A. (2000) Greenland White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons flavirostris benefit from feeding in mixed-species flocks. Ibis . 142: 139–158.Google Scholar
Sadrá-Palomera, F., Bota, G., Viñolo, C., Pallarés, O., Sazatornil, V., Brotons, L., Gomáriz, S. and Sadra, F. (2012) Fine-scale bird monitoring from light unmanned aircraft systems. Ibis. 154: 177–183.Google Scholar
Stöcker, C., Bennett, R., Nex, F., Gerke, M. and Zevenbergen, J. (2017) Review of the current state of UAV regulations. Remote Sens. 9: 459.Google Scholar
Urbaniak, G. C. and Plous, S. (2015) ‘Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [Computer software]’. [Accessed 01 February 2018]. Available from: http://www.randomizer.org/.Google Scholar
Vas, E., Lescroël, A., Duriez, O., Boguszewski, G. and Grémillet, D. (2015) Approaching birds with drones: first experiments and ethical guidelines. Biol. Lett. 11: 20140754.Google Scholar
Weimerskirch, H., Prudor, A. and Schull, Q. (2018) Flights of drones over sub-Antarctic seabirds show species- and status-specific behavioural and physiological responses. Polar Biol. 41: 259–266.Google Scholar
Weissensteiner, M. H., Poelstra, J. W. and Wolf, B. W. (2015) Low-budget ready-to-fly unmanned aerial vehicles: an effective tool for evaluating the nesting status of canopy-breeding bird species. J. Avian Biol. 46: 425–430.Google Scholar