The performance of drones and artificial intelligence for monitoring sage-grouse at leks

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

We evaluated the effectiveness of drone-based survey protocols combined with an AI count model relative to traditional ground-based visual surveys for counting sage-grouse at leks. Drone-induced flushing of sage-grouse from leks occurred in 16% of flight attempts. Point-of-interest (POI) flight profiles outperformed linear flight profiles in counting accuracy for both AI and manual methods. POI flights provided more images and a larger field of view, resulting in counts similar to traditional ground-based visual (GBV) lek surveys, while linear flights consistently produced undercounts. Our custom AI counter (INDECS) yielded counts of sage-grouse similar to manual counts in POI surveys, but not in linear surveys. When integrated into modified N-mixture models, drone surveys with POI profiles yielded precise estimates of detection probabilities and abundance for all survey methods that resulted in similar inference to GBV surveys. Our results suggest that AI-enhanced drone surveys, particularly with POI flight profiles, offer a promising alternative to traditional surveys with reduced bias and improved consistency in sage-grouse population monitoring.
Full text 6,587 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
The performance of drones and artificial intelligence for monitoring sage-grouse at leks | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL Wildlife Biology This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 24 February 2025 V1 Latest version Share on The performance of drones and artificial intelligence for monitoring sage-grouse at leks Authors : Lance B. McNew 0000-0003-0006-7304 [email protected] , Jason Hanlon , and Ilya Buzytsky Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174040933.37798201/v1 Published Wildlife Biology Version of record Peer review timeline 437 views 244 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract We evaluated the effectiveness of drone-based survey protocols combined with an AI count model relative to traditional ground-based visual surveys for counting sage-grouse at leks. Drone-induced flushing of sage-grouse from leks occurred in 16% of flight attempts. Point-of-interest (POI) flight profiles outperformed linear flight profiles in counting accuracy for both AI and manual methods. POI flights provided more images and a larger field of view, resulting in counts similar to traditional ground-based visual (GBV) lek surveys, while linear flights consistently produced undercounts. Our custom AI counter (INDECS) yielded counts of sage-grouse similar to manual counts in POI surveys, but not in linear surveys. When integrated into modified N-mixture models, drone surveys with POI profiles yielded precise estimates of detection probabilities and abundance for all survey methods that resulted in similar inference to GBV surveys. Our results suggest that AI-enhanced drone surveys, particularly with POI flight profiles, offer a promising alternative to traditional surveys with reduced bias and improved consistency in sage-grouse population monitoring. Supplementary Material File (mcnew et al. main wb.docx) Download 589.19 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 24 February 2025 Peer review timeline Published Wildlife Biology Version of Record 4 Jun 2025 Published Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Collection Wildlife Biology Keywords artificial intelligence (ai) bayesian analysis machine-learning n-mixture model population monitoring unoccupied aerial system (uas) Authors Affiliations Lance B. McNew 0000-0003-0006-7304 [email protected] Montana State University View all articles by this author Jason Hanlon The Nature Conservancy View all articles by this author Ilya Buzytsky Bias Intelligence, Inc. View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 437 views 244 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Lance B. McNew, Jason Hanlon, Ilya Buzytsky. The performance of drones and artificial intelligence for monitoring sage-grouse at leks. Authorea . 24 February 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174040933.37798201/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.174040933.37798201/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9ff42bee791a1b23',t:'MTc3OTM3MjY5OQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: preprint-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-29T02:00:03.542394+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0