1. Evaluating the potential for drone technologies to be used as a tool to study turtle communities YangYu Zhou, Meagan A. Thomas, Michael E. Dorcas Department of Biology, Davidson College, Davidson, NC, 28035 The use of aerial surveys has become increasingly important for wildlife management. Drones are advantageous for several reasons: Can carry a variety of equipment (e.g. sensors, cameras). Can be controlled remotely or autonomously. Can access areas that are inaccessible to humans. Researchers can deploy drones quickly. Despite the recent popularity of drone use in wildlife research, few studies have tested the efficacy of drone flight techniques. This study navigates the challenges and complexities of this novel technology, working to improve efficacy of drone in wildlife monitoring. Conclusions Drone technology is an efficient way of detecting turtles and turtle species. RR has the most turtles detected and the lowest percent of unknown species, whereas DV has the least turtles detected and the highest percent of unknown species. The optimal flight height to detect turtles is between 4 meters and 5 meters above the water in order to minimize turtle sinking behavior. Flight speed is not a significant factor affecting turtle detectability or sinking behavior. Flight height and speed did not effect the amount of time it took volunteers to review footage. Future Directions Continue conducting drone flights to acquire more footage. Future research may use drone technology to examine the detectability of other turtle species in different environments. The general objective of this study is to examine factors affecting the efficacy of drones to study turtle populations. Specifically we will: 1.Determine the optimal flight height to detect turtles. 2.Determine the optimal flight speed to detect turtles. 3.Make recommendations for other researchers using drones to sample turtle populations. We thank Davidson College Studio M for lending us the equipment. We are thankful to Shannon E. Pittman for her advice on statistics. We gratefully appreciate members of the Davidson College Herpetology lab for their help reviewing drone footages. Funding provided by US Geological Survey and the Department of Biology at Davidson College. Introduction Objectives ResultsMethods Discussion Acknowledgements Drone flight path at River Run pond. Sample turtles at River Run (RR), Glen Grove (GG), Mallard Head (MH), Davis (DV) ponds. Drone: DJI Phantom 1 custom fitted with gimbal and GoPro 3 camera. Futuba T8FG transmitter. Flights are conducted between 11:00 and 15:00 hours between 7/1/2015 and 8/10/2015. Fly drone across 4 different heights and 4 different speeds (total of 16 combinations). Each flight video is reviewed by at least 2 different reviewers independently, who count the number of turtles, turtle species, basking location, and their behaviors. Percentage of unknown species was used as a measure of species recognition. Footage review time was used as a measure of effort. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine whether or not height or speed affected sinking behavior or review effort. Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Yellow-bellied slider (Trachemys scripta) Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) Images taken from the drone Effect of flight height on turtle detectability at ponds Effect of flight height and speed on turtle sinking behavior at RR Flights at lower heights significantly increased the risk of turtle sinking (p=0.034), unlike speed which had no effect on turtle sinking behavior (p=0.08). Variation in review effort based on flight height and speed Review time does not differ significantly based on height (p=0.70) or speed (p=0.31) of drone flights. Effect of flight height on species recognition at ponds Turtle species recognition does not appear to be affected by flight heights at any of ponds sampled. There does not appear to be any trends in turtle detection as a function of flight height or speed at individual ponds.