Responses (alarm-call, flight, and vigilance) of Red-winged Blackbirds to drone platforms. Results of alarm-call and flight are derived from generalized linear models with a binomial distribution. We omitted the multirotor treatment from both models due to only 1 bird alarm-calling and no birds taking flight. We omitted the overhead approach treatment from the flight model due to only 1 bird taking flight in response to overhead predator model. Vigilance results are derived from a general linear mixed model. We conducted trials in Cass County, North Dakota, between August and September, 2017.
| . | χ 2 . | P . |
|---|---|---|
| Alarm-call (n = 56) | ||
| Platform type | 8.2 | 0.004 |
| Approach type | 16.5 | <0.001 |
| Platform type * approach type | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 0.4 | 0.55 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 3.6 | 0.06 |
| Flight (n = 26) | ||
| Platform type | 0.1 | 0.71 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 5.3 | 0.02 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Vigilance (n = 60) | ||
| Time | 2.6 | 0.11 |
| Platform type | 10.5 | 0.005 |
| Platform type * time | 0.2 | 0.88 |
| . | χ 2 . | P . |
|---|---|---|
| Alarm-call (n = 56) | ||
| Platform type | 8.2 | 0.004 |
| Approach type | 16.5 | <0.001 |
| Platform type * approach type | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 0.4 | 0.55 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 3.6 | 0.06 |
| Flight (n = 26) | ||
| Platform type | 0.1 | 0.71 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 5.3 | 0.02 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Vigilance (n = 60) | ||
| Time | 2.6 | 0.11 |
| Platform type | 10.5 | 0.005 |
| Platform type * time | 0.2 | 0.88 |
Responses (alarm-call, flight, and vigilance) of Red-winged Blackbirds to drone platforms. Results of alarm-call and flight are derived from generalized linear models with a binomial distribution. We omitted the multirotor treatment from both models due to only 1 bird alarm-calling and no birds taking flight. We omitted the overhead approach treatment from the flight model due to only 1 bird taking flight in response to overhead predator model. Vigilance results are derived from a general linear mixed model. We conducted trials in Cass County, North Dakota, between August and September, 2017.
| . | χ 2 . | P . |
|---|---|---|
| Alarm-call (n = 56) | ||
| Platform type | 8.2 | 0.004 |
| Approach type | 16.5 | <0.001 |
| Platform type * approach type | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 0.4 | 0.55 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 3.6 | 0.06 |
| Flight (n = 26) | ||
| Platform type | 0.1 | 0.71 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 5.3 | 0.02 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Vigilance (n = 60) | ||
| Time | 2.6 | 0.11 |
| Platform type | 10.5 | 0.005 |
| Platform type * time | 0.2 | 0.88 |
| . | χ 2 . | P . |
|---|---|---|
| Alarm-call (n = 56) | ||
| Platform type | 8.2 | 0.004 |
| Approach type | 16.5 | <0.001 |
| Platform type * approach type | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 0.4 | 0.55 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 3.6 | 0.06 |
| Flight (n = 26) | ||
| Platform type | 0.1 | 0.71 |
| Ambient light intensity (µmol m–2 s–1) | 5.3 | 0.02 |
| Drone speed (m s–1) | 0.4 | 0.52 |
| Vigilance (n = 60) | ||
| Time | 2.6 | 0.11 |
| Platform type | 10.5 | 0.005 |
| Platform type * time | 0.2 | 0.88 |
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
