Sociability strongly affects the behavioural responses of wild guanacos to drones
1.Jones, G. P., Pearlstine, L. G. & Percival, H. F. An assessment of small unmanned aerial vehicles for wildlife research. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34, 750–758 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
2.Jones, G. P. The feasibility of using small unmanned aerial vehicles for wildlife research. Masters Thesis. (University of Florida, 2003).3.Watts, A. C. et al. Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) for ecological research and natural-resource monitoring (Florida). Ecol. Restor. 26, 13–14 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
4.Chabot, D. Systematic Evaluation of a Stock Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) System for Small-Scale Wildlife Survey Applications. Masters Thesis. (McGill University, 2009).5.Koski, W. R. et al. Evaluation of an unmanned airborne system for monitoring marine mammals. Aquat. Mamm. 35, 347–357 (2009).MathSciNet
Article
Google Scholar
6.Soriano, P., Caballero, F. & Ollero, A. RF-based particle filter localization for wildlife tracking by using an UAV. Int. Symp. Robot. 40, 239–244 (2009).
Google Scholar
7.Sukkarieh, S. UAV based search for a radio tagged animal using particle filters at Stuttgart. In Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation (ACRA) (2009).8.Abd-Elrahman, A., Pearlstine, L. & Percival, F. Development of pattern recognition algorithm for automatic bird detection from unmanned aerial vehicle imagery. Surv. L. Inf. Sci. 65, 37–45 (2005).
Google Scholar
9.Singh, K. K., Frazier, A. E. & Frazier, A. E. A meta-analysis and review of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) imagery for terrestrial applications. Int. J. Remote Sens. 00, 1–21 (2018).
Google Scholar
10.Rebolo-Ifran, N., Grilli, M. G. & Lambertucci, S. Drones as a threat to wildlife: YouTube complements science in providing evidence about their effect. Environ. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892919000080 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
11.Weston, M. A., O’Brien, C., Kostoglou, K. N. & Symonds, M. R. E. E. Escape responses of terrestrial and aquatic birds to drones: Towards a code of practice to minimize disturbance. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 777–785 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
12.Vas, E., Lescroël, A., Duriez, O., Boguszewski, G. & Grémillet, D. Approaching birds with drones: First experiments and ethical guidelines. Biol. Lett. 11, 20140754 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
Google Scholar
13.Pomeroy, P., O’Connor, L. & Davies, P. Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems in gray and harbor seals during breeding and molt in the UK. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3, 102–113 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
14.Giles, A. B. et al. Responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) to small drones. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3440 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
15.Mulero-Pázmány, M. et al. Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 12, 1–14 (2017).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
16.Bennitt, E., Bartlam-Brooks, H. L. A., Hubel, T. Y. & Wilson, A. M. Terrestrial mammalian wildlife responses to unmanned aerial systems approaches. Sci. Rep. 9, 2142 (2019).ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
17.Irigoin-Lovera, C., Luna, D. M., Acosta, D. A. & Zavalaga, C. B. Response of colonial Peruvian guano birds to flying UAVs: Effects and feasibility for implementing new population monitoring methods. PeerJ 7, e8129 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
Google Scholar
18.McEvoy, J. F., Hall, G. P. & McDonald, P. G. Evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle shape, flight path and camera type for waterfowl surveys: Disturbance effects and species recognition. PeerJ 2016, e1831 (2016).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
19.Barnas, A. F., Felege, C. J., Rockwell, R. F. & Ellis-Felege, S. N. A pilot(less) study on the use of an unmanned aircraft system for studying polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Polar Biol. 41, 1055–1062 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
20.Jarrett, D., Calladine, J., Cotton, A., Wilson, M. W. & Humphreys, E. Behavioural responses of non-breeding waterbirds to drone approach are associated with flock size and habitat. Bird Study 67, 190–196 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
21.Bevan, E. et al. Measuring behavioral responses of sea turtles, saltwater crocodiles, and crested terns to drone disturbance to define ethical operating thresholds. PLoS One 13, e0194460 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
Google Scholar
22.Stankowich, T. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: A review and meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2159–2173 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
23.Weston, M. A., Mcleod, E. M., Blumstein, D. T. & Guay, P. J. A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds. Emu 112, 269–286 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
24.Wisdom, M. J., Ager, A. A., Preisler, H. K., Cimon, N. J. & Johnson, B. K. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk. In Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 531–550 (2004).25.Penny, S. G., White, R. L., Scott, D. M., MacTavish, L. & Pernetta, A. P. Using drones and sirens to elicit avoidance behaviour in white rhinoceros as an anti-poaching tactic. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20191135 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
26.Frid, A. & Dill, L. M. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 11 (2002).
Google Scholar
27.Dill, L. M. & Frid, A. Behaviourally mediated biases in transect surveys: A predation risk sensitivity approach. Can. J. Zool. 98, 697–704 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
28.Pulliam, R. H. On the advantage of flocking. J. Theor. Biol. 38, 419–422 (1973).ADS
CAS
PubMed
Article
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
29.Taraborelli, P., Gregorio, P., Moreno, P., Novaro, A. & Carmanchahi, P. Cooperative vigilance: The guanaco’ s (Lama guanicoe) key antipredator mechanism. Behav. Process. 91, 82–89 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
30.Delm, M. M. Vigilance for predators: Detection and dilution effects. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 337–342 (1990).Article
Google Scholar
31.Roberts, G. Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim. Behav. 51, 1077–1086 (1996).Article
Google Scholar
32.Brunton, E., Bolin, J., Leon, J. & Burnett, S. Fright or flight? Behavioural responses of kangaroos to drone-based monitoring. Drones 3, 1–11 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
33.Lent, P. C. Mother-infant relationships in ungulates. Behav. Ungulates Relat. Manag. I, 14–55 (1974).
Google Scholar
34.Franklin, W. Contrasting socioecologies of South America´s wild camelids: The vicuña and the guanaco. Adv. Study Mamm. Behav. 7, 573–629 (1983).
Google Scholar
35.Ortega, I. M. & Franklin, W. L. Social organization, distribution and movements of a migratory guanaco population in the Chilean Patagonia. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 68, 489–500 (1995).
Google Scholar
36.Schroeder, N. M., Panebianco, A., Musso, R. G. & Carmanchahi, P. An experimental approach to evaluate the potential of drones in terrestrial mammal research: A gregarious ungulate as a study model. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 191482 (2020).ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
Google Scholar
37.Lima, S. L. Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group size effect. Anim. Behav. 49, 11–20 (1995).Article
Google Scholar
38.Marino, A. & Baldi, R. Vigilance patterns of territorial guanacos (Lama guanicoe): The role of reproductive interests and predation risk. Ethology 114, 413–423 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
39.Taraborelli, P. et al. Different factors that modify anti-predator behaviour in guanacos (Lama guanicoe). Acta Theriol. (Warsz) 59, 529–539 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
40.Donadio, E. & Buskirk, S. W. Flight behavior in guanacos and vicuñas in areas with and without poaching in western Argentina. Biol. Conserv. 127, 139–145 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
41.Marino, A. & Johnson, A. Behavioural response of free-ranging guanacos (Lama guanicoe) to land-use change: Habituation to motorised vehicles in a recently created reserve. Wildl. Res. 39, 503–511 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
42.Malo, J. E., Acebes, P. & Traba, J. Measuring ungulate tolerance to human with flight distance: A reliable visitor management tool?. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 3477e3488 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
43.Marino, A. Indirect measures of reproductive effort in a resource-defense polygynous ungulate: Territorial defense by male guanacos. J. Ethol. 30, 83–91 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
44.Marino, A. & Ricardo, B. Vigilance patterns of territorial guanacos (Lama guanicoe): the role of reproductive interests and predation risk. Ethology 114, 413–423 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
45.Merino, M. L. & Cajal, C. J. Estructura social de la población de guanacos (Lama guanicoe Muller, 1776) en la costa norte de Península Mitre, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 28, 129–138 (1993).Article
Google Scholar
46.Marino, A. & Baldi, R. Ecological correlates of group-size variation in a resource-defense ungulate, the sedentary Guanaco. PLoS ONE 9, e89060 (2014).ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
47.Fattorini, N. et al. Temporal variation in foraging activity and grouping patterns in a mountain-dwelling herbivore: Environmental and endogenous drivers. Behav. Process. 167, 103909 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
48.Blank, D., Ruckstuhl, K. & Yang, W. Influence of population density on group sizes in goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa Guld., 1780). Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 58, 981–989 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
49.Isvaran, K. Intraspecific variation in group size in the blackbuck antelope: The roles of habitat structure and forage at different spatial scales. Oecologia 154, 435–444 (2007).ADS
PubMed
Article
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
50.Mahoney, S. P., Mawhinney, K., McCarthy, C., Anions, D. & Taylor, S. Caribou reactions to provocation by snowmachines in Newfoundland. Rangifer 21, 35 (2001).Article
Google Scholar
51.Ruiz Blanco, M. et al. Supervivencia y causas de mortalidad durante el primer año de vida de guanacos en el norte de patagonia. In XXVII Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología 151 (2014).52.Weimerskirch, H., Prudor, A. & Schull, Q. Flights of drones over sub-Antarctic seabirds show species- and status-specific behavioural and physiological responses. Polar Biol. 41, 259–266 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
53.McIntosh, R. R., Holmberg, R. & Dann, P. Looking without landing-using Remote Piloted Aircraft to monitor fur seal populations without disturbance. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, (2018).54.Mesquita, G. P., Rodríguez-Teijeiro, J. D., Wich, S. A. & Mulero-Pázmány, M. Measuring disturbance at swift breeding colonies due to the visual aspects of a drone: a quasi-experiment study. Curr. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoaa038 (2020).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
55.Scobie, C. A. & Hugenholtz, C. H. Wildlife monitoring with unmanned aerial vehicles: Quantifying distance to auditory detection. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 40, 781–785 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
56.Rümmler, M. C., Esefeld, J., Hallabrin, M. T., Pfeifer, C. & Mustafa, O. Emperor penguin reactions to UAVs: First observations and comparisons with effects of human approach. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 23, 100545 (2021).
Google Scholar
57.Zbyryt, A., Dylewski, Ł, Morelli, F., Sparks, T. H. & Tryjanowski, P. Behavioural responses of adult and young White Storks Ciconia ciconia in nests to an unmanned aerial vehicle. Acta Ornithol. 55, 243–251 (2020).
Google Scholar
58.Christiansen, F., Rojano-Doñate, L., Madsen, P. T. & Bejder, L. Noise levels of multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles with implications for potential underwater impacts on marine mammals. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 277 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
59.Arona, L., Dale, J., Heaslip, S. G., Hammill, M. O. & Johnston, D. W. Assessing the disturbance potential of small unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) on gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) at breeding colonies in Nova Scotia, Canada. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4467 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
60.Goebel, M. E. et al. A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biol. 38, 619–630 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
61.Cracknell, A. P. UAVs: Regulations and law enforcement. Int. J. Remote Sens. 38, 3054–3067 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
62.ANAC, A. N. de A. C. Reglamento de Vehículos Aéreos no Tripulados (VANT) y de Sistemas de Vehículos Aéreos no Tripulados (SVANT). (2019).63.Brisson-Curadeau, É. et al. Seabird species vary in behavioural response to drone census. Sci. Rep. 7, 17884 (2017).ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
64.Rümmler, M.-C., Mustafa, O., Maercker, J., Peter, H.-U. & Esefeld, J. Sensitivity of Adélie and Gentoo penguins to various flight activities of a micro UAV. Polar Biol. 41, 2481–2493 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
65.Ditmer, M. A. et al. Bears habituate to the repeated exposure of a novel stimulus, unmanned aircraft systems. Conserv. Physiol. 7, 1–7 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
66.Young, J. K. & Franklin, W. L. Territorial Fidelity of male guanacos in the Patagonia of Southern Chile. J. Mammal. 85, 72–78 (2004).Article
Google Scholar
67.Martínez Carretero, E. La Provincia Fitogeográfica de la Payunia. Boletín la Soc. Argentina Botánica 39, 195–226 (2004).
Google Scholar
68.Schroeder, N. M. et al. Spatial and seasonal dynamic of abundance and distribution of guanaco and livestock: Insights from using density surface and null models. PLoS One 9, e85960 (2014).
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
69.Bolgeri, M. J. Caracterización de movimientos migratorios en guanacos (Lama guanicoe) y patrones de depredación por pumas (Puma concolor) en la Payunia, Mendoza. Phd Thesis. (Universidad Nacional del Comahue, 2016).70.Bolgeri, M. J. & Novaro, A. J. Variación espacial en la depredación por puma (Puma concolor) sobre guanacos (Lama guanicoe) en la Payunia, Mendoza,Argentina. Mastozoología Neotrop. 22, 255–264 (2015).
Google Scholar
71.Candia, R., Puig, S., Dalmasso, A., Videla, F. & Martínez Carretero, E. Diseño del Plan de Manejo para la reserva provincial La Payunia (Malargüe, Mendoza). Multequina 2, 5–87 (1993).
Google Scholar
72.Carmanchahi, P. D. et al. Physiological response of wild guanacos to capture for live shearing. Wildl. Res. 38, 61–68 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
73.Martin, P. & Bateson, P. Measuring Behaviour. An Introductory Guide. (Cambridge University Press, 2007).74.Ydenberg, R. C. & Dill, L. M. The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv. Study Behav. 16, 229–249 (1986).Article
Google Scholar
75.McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. Generalized Linear Models. Second Edition. (Chapman & Hall, 1989).76.Fox, J. & Monette, G. Generalized collinearity diagnostics. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 87, 178–183 (1992).Article
Google Scholar
77.Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Smith, G. M. Analysing Ecological Data. (Springer, 2007).78.Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge 651 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2277/052186706179.Korner-Nievergelt, F. et al. Bayesian Data Analysis in Ecology Using Linear Models with R, BUGS, and Stan. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.280.R Core Team. R Development Core Team. R A Lang. Environ. Stat. Comput. 55, 275–286 (2016).81.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd edn. (2019).82.Gelman, A. et al. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. R package version 1, 10–1 (2018).
Google Scholar More