Andrew Barnas

Dr. Andrew Barnas


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2020 in Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ABAndrew Barnas
Andrew Barnas
DCDominque Chabot
Dominque Chabot
AHAmanda J. Hodgson
Amanda J. Hodgson
David JohnstonDavid Johnston
David Johnston
DBDavid M. Bird
David M. Bird
SESusan N. Ellis-Felege
Susan N. Ellis-Felege
Drones are increasingly popular tools for wildlife research, but it is important that the use of these tools does not overshadow reporting of methodological details required for evaluation of study designs. The diversity in drone platforms, sensors, and applications necessitates the reporting of specific details for replication, but there is little guidance available on how to detail drone use in peer-reviewed articles. Here, we present a standardized protocol to assist researchers in reporting of their drone use in wildlife research. The protocol is delivered in six sections: Project Overview; Drone System and Operation Details; Payload, Sensor, and Data Collection; Field Operation Details; Data Post-Processing; and Permits, Regulations, Training, and Logistics. Each section outlines the details that should be included, along with justifications for their inclusion. To facilitate ease of use, we have provided two example protocols, retroactively produced for published drone-based studies by the authors of this protocol. Our hopes are that the current version of this protocol should assist with the communication, dissemination, and adoption of drone technology for wildlife research and management.

25 December 2017 in Ecology and Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ABAndrew Barnas
Andrew Barnas
RNRobert Newman
Robert Newman
CFChristopher J. Felege
Christopher J. Felege
MCMichael P. Corcoran
Michael P. Corcoran
SHSamuel D. Hervey
Samuel D. Hervey
SESusan N. Ellis‐Felege
Susan N. Ellis‐Felege
Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are relatively new technologies gaining popularity among wildlife biologists. As with any new tool in wildlife science, operating protocols must be developed through rigorous protocol testing. Few studies have been conducted that quantify the impacts UAS may have on unhabituated individuals in the wild using standard aerial survey protocols. We evaluated impacts of unmanned surveys by measuring UAS‐induced behavioral responses during the nesting phase of lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) in Wapusk National Park, Manitoba, Canada. We conducted surveys with a fixed‐wing Trimble UX5 and monitored behavioral changes via discreet surveillance cameras at 25 nests. Days with UAS surveys resulted in decreased resting and increased nest maintenance, low scanning, high scanning, head‐cocking and off‐nest behaviors when compared to days without UAS surveys. In the group of birds flown over, head‐cocking for overhead vigilance was rarely seen prior to launch or after landing (mean estimates 0.03% and 0.02%, respectively) but increased to 0.56% of the time when the aircraft was flying overhead suggesting that birds were able to detect the aircraft during flight. Neither UAS survey altitude nor launch distance alone in this study was strong predictors of nesting behaviors, although our flight altitudes (≥75 m above ground level) were much higher than previously published behavioral studies.Synthesis and applications: The diversity of UAS models makes generalizations on behavioral impacts difficult, and we caution that researchers should design UAS studies with knowledge that some minimal disturbance is likely to occur. We recommend flight designs take potential behavioral impacts into account by increasing survey altitude where data quality requirements permit. Such flight designs should considera prioriknowledge of focal species’ behavioral characteristics. Research is needed to determine whether any such disturbance is a result of visual or auditory stimuli.

9 August 2019 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ABAndrew Barnas
Andrew Barnas
BDBrian J. Darby
Brian J. Darby
GVGregory S. Vandeberg
Gregory S. Vandeberg
RRRobert F. Rockwell
Robert F. Rockwell
SESusan N. Ellis-Felege
Susan N. Ellis-Felege
Lesser snow goose (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) populations have dramatically altered vegetation communities through increased foraging pressure. In remote regions, regular habitat assessments are logistically challenging and time consuming. Drones are increasingly being used by ecologists to conduct habitat assessments, but reliance on georeferenced data as ground truth may not always be feasible. We estimated goose habitat degradation using photointerpretation of drone imagery and compared estimates to those made with ground-based linear transects. In July 2016, we surveyed five study plots in La Pérouse Bay, Manitoba, to evaluate the effectiveness of a fixed-wing drone with simple Red Green Blue (RGB) imagery for evaluating habitat degradation by snow geese. Ground-based land cover data was collected and grouped into barren, shrub, or non-shrub categories. We compared estimates between ground-based transects and those made from unsupervised classification of drone imagery collected at altitudes of 75, 100, and 120 m above ground level (ground sampling distances of 2.4, 3.2, and 3.8 cm respectively). We found large time savings during the data collection step of drone surveys, but these savings were ultimately lost during imagery processing. Based on photointerpretation, overall accuracy of drone imagery was generally high (88.8% to 92.0%) and Kappa coefficients were similar to previously published habitat assessments from drone imagery. Mixed model estimates indicated 75m drone imagery overestimated barren (F2,182 = 100.03, P < 0.0001) and shrub classes (F2,182 = 160.16, P < 0.0001) compared to ground estimates. Inconspicuous graminoid and forb species (non-shrubs) were difficult to detect from drone imagery and were underestimated compared to ground-based transects (F2,182 = 843.77, P < 0.0001). Our findings corroborate previous findings, and that simple RGB imagery is useful for evaluating broad scale goose damage, and may play an important role in measuring habitat destruction by geese and other agents of environmental change.

22 February 2018 in Polar Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ABAndrew Barnas
Andrew Barnas
CFChristopher J. Felege
Christopher J. Felege
RRRobert F. Rockwell
Robert F. Rockwell
SESusan N. Ellis-Felege
Susan N. Ellis-Felege

5 November 2022 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EGErica A. Geldart
Erica A. Geldart
ABAndrew Barnas
Andrew Barnas
CSChristina A. D. Semeniuk
Christina A. D. Semeniuk
HGH. Grant Gilchrist
H. Grant Gilchrist
CHChristopher M. Harris
Christopher M. Harris
OLOliver P. Love
Oliver P. Love
Aerial drones are increasingly being used as tools for ecological research and wildlife monitoring in hard-to-access study systems, such as in studies of colonial-nesting birds. Despite their many advantages over traditional survey methods, there remains concerns about possible disturbance effects that standard drone survey protocols may have on bird colonies. There is a particular gap in the study of their influence on physiological measures of stress. We measured heart rates of incubating female common eider ducks (Somateria mollissima) to determine whether our drone-based population survey affected them. To do so, we used heart-rate recorders placed in nests to quantify their heart rate in response to a quadcopter drone flying transects 30 m above the nesting colony. Eider heart rate did not change from baseline (measured in the absence of drone survey flights) by a drone flying at a fixed altitude and varying horizontal distances from the bird. Our findings suggest that carefully planned drone-based surveys of focal species have the potential to be carried out without causing physiological impacts among colonial-nesting eiders.

1 May 2019 in Journal of Computational Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CBConnor Bowley
Connor Bowley
MMMarshall Mattingly
Marshall Mattingly
ABAndrew Barnas
Andrew Barnas
SESusan Ellis-Felege
Susan Ellis-Felege
TDTravis Desell
Travis Desell