Drones, Gulls and Urbanity: Interaction between New Technologies and Human Subsidized Species in Coastal Areas

Abstract

The use of drones has expanded the boundaries of several activities, which is expected to be utilized intensively in the near future. Interactions between urbanity and naturalness have been increasing while urban expansion amplifies the proximity between urban and natural areas. In this scenario, the interactions between drones and fauna could be augmented. Therefore, the aim of this study was to depict and evaluate the responses of the opportunistic and territorial seagull Larus livens to a small-sized drone during the non-breeding stage in urban areas and natural surroundings. The results evidenced that gulls do not react to drone sounds, coloration, or distance between them and the drone take-off spot. Clearly, the take-off vertical movement triggers an agonistic behavior that is more frequent in groups conformed by two adults, evidencing some kind of territorial response against the device, expressed as characteristic mobbing behavior. Thus, adult settled gulls in touristic and non-urbanized areas displayed agonistic behavior more frequently against the drone. Despite the coastal urban area being a free interaction environment, it evidences a low risk between drone management and territorial seabirds.

Biologically inspired herding of animal groups by robots

“…Experiments with ground‐based robots for herding sheep, for example, have shown significant habituation of the animals with the robot shepherd, compared to the presence of a real sheepdog (Evered et al, 2014). Flocks of birds do not always react to drones that show little resemblance to a predator (Egan et al, 2020), and in some cases even show aggressive behaviour (mobbing) towards drones (Frixione & Salvadeo, 2021). However, when a robotic falcon (Figure 1d) was presented to flocks of birds, responses to the robot predator were stable over time (Sankey et al, 2021; Storms et al, 2022).…”

“…For example, scarecrows and raptor models have been used to deter birds from farmland for over 3000 years (DeVault et al, 2013; Haining, 1988; Marsh et al, 1992), and people have used dogs to successfully herd livestock for more than 6000 years (Coppinger & Coppinger, 2014). Today, efficient methods for controlling or herding the movement of animal groups have the potential to provide solutions to a variety of animal conservation and management problems at sea (Frixione & Salvadeo, 2021; Horswill et al, 2022), over the land (Fàbregas et al, 2021; Jackson et al, 2012; McKnight, 1995) and in the air (Allan, 2000; Nilsson et al, 2021).…”

Interspecific relationships in a suboptimal habitat, an unexpected ally for the survival of the threatened Tenerife speckled lizard (Gallotia intermedia)

“…These interactions were classified into three basic types; 1) dives, in which seagulls perform a rapid "diving" flight towards the decoy and try to hit it with their legs; 2) Faecal attack, in which the birds defecated in mid-flight trying to hit the decoy; and 3) ground attacks, in this instance the animals try to land behind the decoy, out of its potential sight, and directly peck at the tail and rear legs of the decoy (Figure 1). This type of behaviour has been previously described in the literature as aggressive or territorial defensive behaviour (Frixione & Salvadeo, 2021;Larsen, 1991;Minias et al, 2020). To reduce our disturbance in the breeding colony, and to avoid potential behavioural changes in the individuals (Gaynor et al, 2018), we retired the decoy after two minutes of the first aggressive interaction.…”

“…These same ravines and platforms are used by L. michahellis colony for breeding and resting. The yellow-legged gull, like many other bird species, presents an aggressive anti-predator behaviour especially during the breeding season (Clode et al, 2000;Frixione & Salvadeo, 2021;Gameiro et al, 2022;Guidos et al, 2023).…”

Investigating nocturnal UAS treatments in an applied context to prevent gulls from nesting on rooftops

“…Antipredator behavior in birds likely differs at night because of limited sensory capabilities compared to daylight hours (Yorzinski and Platt 2012). Reduced sensory capabilities could explain why gulls are unlikely to engage in mobbing behaviors at night (Emlen et al 1966, Southern et al 1982, Frixione and Salvadeo 2021). Thus, enhancing perceived risk at night offers a promising approach to reduce the number of breeding gulls using a site.…”