MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EFFICACY OF AIRCRAFT LANDING LIGHTS IN STIMULATING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR IN BIRDS

2004· article· en· W2070184330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bradley F. Blackwell, Glen E. Bernhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCowbirdWildlifeLarusBrantaBiologyGooseZoologyAnimal behaviorEcologyAnimal scienceFisheryHerringParasitismHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aircraft collisions with wildlife (primarily birds) are costly in terms of injury or loss of human life, loss of the animals involved, damage to property and business, and the use of lethal control of wildlife at airports worldwide. One potential nonlethal technique to reduce bird–aircraft collisions—pulsed white and wavelength-specific aircraft-mounted light—has been considered for nearly 3 decades, but the efficacy of the technique has not been evaluated quantitatively. We tested the hypothesis that during daylight, captive birds exposed to an approaching ground-based vehicle exhibiting pulsing 250-W white aircraft landing lights would initiate avoidance behavior more quickly than birds experiencing an oncoming vehicle with nonpulsing (steady) or no lights (control). In experiments involving captive brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), European starlings (Sturnis vulgaris), herring gulls (Larus argentatus), and mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), only cow-birds exhibited a response to the landing lights, but not consistently. Specifically, cowbird groups (9 groups/treatment, 6 birds/group) responded more quickly to pulse versus control treatments, equating to a greater distance (x̄ ± SE) of the approaching vehicle from mid-cage per reacting bird (control: 35.8 ± 9.7 m, pulse: 50.5 ± 10.9 m; P = 0.015). However, in a subsequent experiment involving the exposure of cowbirds to control, pulse, and steady-light treatments, we observed no difference in response among treatment groups. Although 250-W white landing lights pulsed at 45 cycles/min influenced behavior of captive birds in response to an oncoming ground-based vehicle, the avoidance response was inconsistent across experiments with cowbirds, and we observed little or no avoidance behavior in experiments with other species. We suggest that further research is needed to investigate avian response to specific light wavelengths and pulse frequencies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207