Escape responses of terrestrial and aquatic birds to drones: Towards a code of practice to minimize disturbance

Abstract

Advances in human technology can lead to widespread and rapid increases in interactions between wildlife and potentially disturbing stimuli. The recreational use of drones is widespread and increasing, yet laws and codes of practice which aim to manage deleterious impacts (e.g. negative interactions with wildlife) are reactionary, unscientific and inadequate. One prominent potential negative effect of drones interacting with birds is disturbance; the disruption of normal states caused by responses such as escape. We measure avian escape responses to an approaching drone (n = 561 across 22 species) to inform the development of a code of practice to manage drone‐induced disturbance. Approaches were made at a relatively high and low altitude (10 and 4 m), and at different take‐off distances, both of which are candidate prescriptions for a code of practice. Flight‐initiation distance varied between species, but not between the altitudes tested. The probability of eliciting an escape response was high, and 14.6% higher at the lower altitude (at which 88.4% of overflies resulted in an escape response). Our response rates (from terrestrial and aquatic species) are higher than those reported for different birds in other places, most of which were water or seabirds. The probability of a drone take‐off in itself eliciting a response was low (<20%) when the drone take‐off was >40 m away, and decreased further with increasing distance from birds, with no escapes occurring >120 m. Policy implications. For our sample, no drone take‐off closer than 100 m, and no flight within 100 m would eliminate the vast majority of escape responses by birds. Required separation distances between drones and wildlife may exceed those required for other human activities, such as for walkers.

Using drones to reduce human disturbance while monitoring breeding status of an endangered raptor

“…However, the use of drones for research purposes should always be carefully evaluated. Studies using these vehicles must avoid any risk of death or physical damage for birds either by accidental collisions or deliberate attacks, and should minimize the disturbance or alteration of birds´ behavior that would result in nest failure (Weston et al., 2020). These conditions must be observed for any research involving drones but especially when species of conservation concern are targeted in the study.…”

Sociability strongly affects the behavioural responses of wild guanacos to drones

“…Although internet reports on drone-wildlife interactions have been growing exponentially since 2012 (see Fig. 1 in 11 ), by 2018 only 30 articles recording drone effects on wildlife were published, and of these only 50% were actually designed to detect such impacts 10 . The information to date comes mostly from studies on birds and marine mammals, which initially suggested that disturbance was unlikely or imperceptible 12 , 13 .…”

Using UAV‐mounted thermal cameras to detect the presence of nesting nightjar in upland clear‐fell: A case study in South Wales, UK

“…Weimerskirch et al (2018) noted significant approach distance effects, with distances <10 m provoking responses in the majority of breeding Antarctic bird species studied, whilst Bevan et al (2018) noted a direction of approach effect with vertical approaches the most likely to result in disturbance at a colony of breeding crested tern (Thalasseus bergii). Work by Weston et al (2020) identified not only approach distance but also proximity of take-off location as a key factor in the response of a species. Whilst work by McEvoy et al (2016) also identified the shape of the UAV (e.g.…”

“…Work by Weston et al. (2020) identified not only approach distance but also proximity of take‐off location as a key factor in the response of a species. Whilst work by McEvoy et al.…”