MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979981835

Applications Of An Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle And Remote Cameras For Studying A Sub-Arctic Ecosystem

2019· article· en· W6979981835 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Biology, University of North DakotaCalifornia Waterfowl AssociationTransport CanadaParks CanadaNational Geographic SocietyOffice of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDroneSnowGooseAerial surveyWildlifePopulationEcosystem
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The midcontinent population of lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) has increased dramatically since the 1960’s due to changing agricultural practices in their southern wintering areas. The destructive foraging and continued population growth of lesser snow geese has resulted in cascading negative impacts on northern ecosystems. Studying remote sub-Arctic ecosystems is logistically challenging, but the advent of remote sensing technologies (such as drones and remote cameras) may assist ecologists in understanding snow goose ecology. Before these tools can be integrated into snow goose research programs, precursor “proof-of-concept” studies are required to validate tool use. The objectives of this study were to investigate the use of unmanned aircraft systems (hereafter “drones”) and remote cameras for studying various aspects of lesser snow goose ecology within the sub-Arctic ecosystem of the Cape Churchill Peninsula, Manitoba, Canada. We first evaluated impacts of drone surveys on wildlife by measuring drone-induced behavioural responses of nesting lesser snow geese using mini-surveillance cameras. We monitored 25 nests with cameras from 2015-2016, comparing behaviours of birds on days with drone surveys, and on days without surveys. Days with drone surveys resulted in decreased low-vigilance behaviours, and increased high-vigilance behaviours. Similarly, overhead vigilance behaviours increased from a baseline 0.03% of observation time to 0.56% when the drone was overhead, indicating birds were likely observing the drone as it flew overhead. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were also monitored via video recording during drone flights in 2016, and they responded in a similar fashion to previously published tourism activity impact estimates (mean vigilance bout lengths during drone surveys = 18.7 ± 2.6 seconds). We estimated goose habitat degradation using photointerpretation of drone imagery and compared estimates to those made with ground-based linear transects. We compared estimates between ground-based transects and those made from unsupervised classification of drone imagery collected at altitudes of 75, 100, and 120 m above ground level (ground sampling distances of 2.4, 3.2, and 3.8 cm respectively). We found large time savings during the data collection step of drone surveys, but these savings were ultimately lost during imagery processing. Based on photointerpretation, overall accuracy of drone imagery was generally high (88.8% to 92.0%) and Kappa coefficients were similar to previously published habitat assessments from drone imagery. Mixed model estimates indicated 75m drone imagery overestimated barren (F2,182 = 100.03, P < 0.0001) and shrub classes (F2,182 = 160.16, P < 0.0001) compared to ground estimates. Inconspicuous graminoid and forb species (non-shrubs) were difficult to detect from drone imagery and were underestimated compared to ground-based transects (F2,182 = 843.77, P < 0.0001). Remote cameras were also used as a remote sensing tool to estimate impacts of Ursid predators on nesting lesser snow geese. From 2013-2018 we deployed 233 remote cameras on goose nests and reviewed images for occurrences of bears and associated avian predators. We recorded the amount of time that female geese spent on and of their nest on days with bears (bear-days), and the day before (control-days). Contrary to predictions, geese spent less total time off-nest on bear-days than control-days (β = -0.32 ± 0.13, P < 0.05). Avian predators were observed more frequently on bear-days (13/18 days) than their paired control-days (2/18 days), and bear presence has a positive effect on avian predator occurrence (β = 3.035 ± 0.916, P < 0.001). We suspect that geese spend more time on-nest in response to bears to defend nests from increased activity of avian predators, and we examined these behaviours using agent-based models. In mixed predator scenarios (bears and avian predators), birds that left their nest early would reduce the probability of nest loss by bears, but had increased risk by avian predators. This work demonstrates that the relationship between nesting geese and bear predators is more complex than commonly depicted, and provides a foundation for future examination of the continued impact of bears on nesting birds. This work demonstrates the value of remote sensing tools for understanding sub-Artic ecosystems and other regions where ecological research is logistically challenging.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207