Cited by 85Wildlife Ecology and ConservationWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationMarine animal studies overview

Terrestrial mammalian wildlife responses to Unmanned Aerial Systems approaches

Open access
Bennitt, Emily, Bartlam-Brooks, Hattie L. A., Hubel, Tatjana Y., Wilson, Alan M.·2019·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are increasingly being used recreationally, commercially and for wildlife research, but very few studies have quantified terrestrial mammalian reactions to UAS approaches. We used two Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) UAS to approach seven herbivore species in the Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana, after securing the relevant permissions. We recorded responses to 103 vertical and 120 horizontal approaches, the latter from three altitudes above ground level (AGL). We ran mixed logistic regressions to identify factors triggering (i) any response and (ii) an evasive response. We included effects of activity, altitude, direction of approach, distance, habitat, herd type, herd size, other species, target species, time, VTOL type and wind strength. Response triggers were linked to altitude, distance, habitat and target species. Elephant (Loxodonta africana), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and zebra (Equus quagga) were most affected by VTOL approach, impala (Aepyceros melampus) and lechwe (Kobus leche) were least responsive, and tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus) displayed intermediate sensitivity. VTOLs flown lower than 60 m AGL and closer than 100 m horizontal distance from target animals triggered behavioural responses in most species. Enforced regulations on recreational UAS use in wildlife areas are necessary to minimise disturbance to terrestrial mammals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-019-38610-x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Flying at lower altitudes, for example lower than 150 m, can have a significant impact on group and individual behavior of mammals, although the severity of wildlife disturbance from drone deployments depends heavily on the focal species, the equipment used, and characteristics of the drone flight.

    “A recent study80 showed that flying at lower altitudes (e.g., lower than 150 m) can have a significant impact on group and individual behavior of mammals, although the severity of wildlife disturbance from drone deployments will depend heavily on the focal species, the equipment used, and characteristics of the drone flight (such as approach speed and altitude)81”

    From Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation (2022) · cites this paper as [81]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [46]Bates, D. lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. Springer (2010).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bennitt, E., Bartlam-Brooks, H. L. A., Hubel, T. Y., & Wilson, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Botswana (BW)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Bennitt, Emily
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2019-02-14
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
2142-2142
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914187338
Cited by
85
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RVC Research Online (Royal Veterinary College) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • RCUK | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/H013016/1)
  • RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/J018007/1)
  • EC | European Research Council (323041)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
unmanned aerial systems, wildlife disturbance, terrestrial mammals, herbivores, altitude effects, distance of closest approach, elephants, giraffe, wildebeest, zebra, impala
MeSH terms
Aircraft, Animals, Animals, Wild, Behavior, Animal, Female, Male, Mammals, Ecosystem, Remote Sensing Technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review