Evaluating new technology for biodiversity monitoring: Are drone surveys biased?

Drones and machine learning‐based automated detection methods are being used by ecologists to conduct wildlife surveys with increasing frequency. When traditional survey methods have been evaluated, a range of factors have been found to influence detection probabilities, including individual differences among conspecific animals, which can thus introduce biases into survey counts. There has been no such evaluation of drone‐based surveys using automated detection in a natural setting. This is important to establish since any biases in counts made using these methods will need to be accounted for, to provide accurate data and improve decision‐making for threatened species. In this study, a rare opportunity to survey a ground‐truthed, individually marked population of 48 koalas in their natural habitat allowed for direct comparison of the factors impacting detection probability in both ground observation and drone surveys with manual and automated detection. We found that sex and host tree preferences impacted detection in ground surveys and in manual analysis of drone imagery with female koalas likely to be under‐represented, and koalas higher in taller trees detected less frequently when present. Tree species composition of a forest stand also impacted on detections. In contrast, none of these factors impacted on automated detection. This suggests that the combination of drone‐captured imagery and machine learning does not suffer from the same biases that affect conventional ground surveys. This provides further evidence that drones and machine learning are promising tools for gathering reliable detection data to better inform the management of threatened populations.