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

Authors

Morgan Pfeiffer, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, Sandusky OHFollow
Craig K. Pullins, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, O'Hare Int'l Airport
Scott F. Beckerman, USDA APHIS Wildlife ServicesFollow
Joshua L. Hoblet, USDA APHIS National Wildlife Research Center
Brad Blackwell, USDA APHIS WS NWRCFollow

ORCID IDs

Morgan B. Pfeiffer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1079-5295

Bradley F. Blackwell http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4664-8227

Date of this Version

2023

Citation

Wildlife Society Bulletin 2023;47:e1423.

doi:10.1002/wsb.1423

Comments

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, AND U.S. government work

Abstract

Ring‐billed (Larus delawarensis) and herring (L. argentatus) gulls are numerous and widespread in North America. These gulls rank among the top 9 species for risk of bird‐aircraft collisions (hereafter strikes). The ubiquitous presence of gulls in urban coastal environments, including rooftop nesting behavior, are factors impacting strike risk. Our purpose was to assess gull response to a small uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) in hazing flights at night during the nest‐building phase. We hypothesized that nocturnal UAS operation, like nocturnal predator disturbance, might reduce gull numbers and, thus, strike risk to aircraft. In spring 2021, we conducted UAS treatments over target roofs at least once every hour from 2000 until 0200, weather permitting, for 15 min and over a 14‐day period for each site. The UAS flew directly above (~4 m) and then descended (~4 m/s) within 1m of loafing gulls. No gulls interacted with the UAS and most flushed within 6 minutes. Generally, the first treatment of a night dispersed all gulls (min–max = 1–130 individuals) from the target roof for an extended period. Our operations were often grounded because of weather and our gull response data were limited because of few individuals present. We discuss our observations with particular attention to feasibility and possible implications such as shifting birds to other sites which, potentially, could be counterproductive for management.