Assessing the disturbance potential of small unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) on gray seals (<i>Halichoerus grypus</i>) at breeding colonies in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of small unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) for ecological studies and wildlife population assessments is increasing. These methods can provide significant benefits in terms of costs and reductions in human risk, but little is known if UAS-based approaches cause disturbance of animals during operations. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a series of UAS flights at gray seal breeding colonies on Hay and Saddle Islands in Nova Scotia, Canada. Using a small fixed-wing UAS, we assessed both immediate and short-term effects of surveys using sequential image analysis and between-flight seal counts in ten, 50 m2 random quadrats at each colony. Counts of adult gray seals and young-of-the-year animals between first and second flights revealed no changes in abundance in quadrats (matched pair t-test p > 0.69) and slopes approaching 1 for linear regression comparisons (r2 > 0.80). Sequential image analysis revealed no changes in orientation or posture of imaged animals. We also assessed the acoustic properties of the small UAS in relation to low ambient noise conditions using sound equivalent level (Leq) measurements with a calibrated U-MIK 1 and a 1/3 octave band soundscape approach. The results of Leq measurements indicate that small fixed-wing UAS are quiet, with most energy above 160 Hz, and that levels across 1/3 octave bands do not greatly exceed ambient acoustic measurements in a quiet field during operations at standard survey altitudes. As such, this platform is unlikely to acoustically disturb gray seals at breeding colonies during population surveys. The results of the present study indicate that the effects of small fixed-wing UAS on gray seals at breeding colonies are negligible, and that fixed-wing UAS-based approaches should be considered amongst best practices for assessing gray seal colonies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".