Raptor Feeding Characterization and Dynamic System Simulation Applied to Airport Falconry
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Wildlife Control Services and Airport Falconry
2.2. Knowledge and Infrastructure Characterization
2.3. Systemic Characterization
2.4. Expected-Result Equations
3. Proposed Dynamic System
- Food: This is an independent and qualitative variable defined by the nutritional items the falconer supplies to the raptor. Food items are usually day-old chicks or chicken wings, thigh, or breast portions. Professional falconers source them from food raptor farms, which allow the tracking of nutritional information for each food item.
- Q: This parameter, which is dependent on the food variable, is a quantitative and continuous variable that represents the calories supplied by each food input. The food transformation system transduces the food variable into a numerical value that represents the energy (calories) supplied to the raptor (Table 5).
- Weight: Initially, this is an independent variable. In the model design, it becomes a dependent variable for stored and consumed energy; it is a quantitative and continuous variable that represents the weight of a raptor expressed in kg.
- FF: This is a dependent variable that represents the feeding factor by means of the ratio of Q to BMR: FF = Q/BMR; it is a quantitative and continuous variable.
- Season: This variable is dependent on time. It is a qualitative and discrete variable that represents the seasonal effects when modelling raptor behavior and nutritional needs.
- ER: This variable, which is dependent on FF and season, is a quantitative and discrete variable (between 1 and 6) that evaluates the release of the raptor, with 1 representing the worst possible result and 6 the best possible result (Table 2).
- BMR: This variable, which is dependent on weight, is a quantitative and continuous variable. The basal metabolic rate expresses the minimum number of calories that the raptor requires to survive (assuming it remains in a resting state), (see Equation (1)) [27].
3.1. Simulation Software Implementation
3.2. Vensim Variables
Variable | Description | Unit |
---|---|---|
BMR | Auxiliary variable to express basal metabolic rate. <<BMR = 78 × (Weight)^0.75>> | kcal |
Diet | Auxiliary variable that represents nutritional variation. This variation on the planned standard food depends on the Index variable. <<Diet = IF THEN ELSE(Index < 0,α,0) + IF THEN ELSE(Index = 0.5,β,0)++ IF THEN ELSE(Index = 1,γ,0)>>, where α, β, and γ are calories (kcal) of standard portions of food most commonly used to increase or decrease the diet (Table 7). | kcal |
Energy | Level of stored energy. <<Energy = INTEG (+ Food + Diet − Consumption,0)>> | kcal |
Food | Auxiliary variable that expresses standard feeding plan (in kcal), estimated by means of case study analysis; most commonly 150 kcal. <<Food = PULSE(0,366) × 150>> | kcal |
Index | Auxiliary variable indicating that if feeding factor is over Q3 limits, its value is −1; if between Q3 and Q1 limits, its value is 0.5; if under Q1 limits, its value is +1. <<Index = IF THEN ELSE(Feeding Factor < Q3Limit:AND:Feeding Factor > Q1Limit,0.5, 0 )++IF THEN (Feeding Factor > Q3Limit, −1,0) + IF THEN ELSE(Feeding Factor < Q1Limit,1,0)>> | Dml |
New | Auxiliary variable for new feeding input. <<New = Diet + Food>> | kcal |
Nutrition | Auxiliary variable that represents weight variation caused by energy balance between calorie supply and energy consumption. <<Nutrition = Energy × 0.0001>> | kg |
Performance | Lookup variable that represents seasonal effects on daily activity. <<Performance([(1,0) – (4,4)],(1,0.2),(2,0.25),(3,0.3),(4,0.25))>> | Dml |
Q3Limit | Auxiliary variable that represents upper limit of feeding factor (third quartile) that can lead raptor to a successful flight. <<Q3Limit = Q3model(season)>> | Dml |
Q1Limit | Auxiliary variable that represents lower limit of feeding factor (first quartile) that can lead raptor to a successful flight. <<Q1Limit = Q1model(season)>> | Dml |
Q3model | Lookup variable that contains Q3 limits for different raptor models. Models 01–08 correspond to species and gender, models 09 and 10 are for female and male median values, respectively. <<Q3model(; GET XLS LOOKUPS(‘1.xls’, ‘Q3′, ‘A’, ‘K1′))>> | Dml |
Q1model | Lookup variable that contains all Q1 limits for different raptor models. Models 01–08 correspond to species and gender, models 09 and 10 are for female and male median values, respectively. <<Q1model(GET XLS LOOKUPS(‘1.xls’, ‘Q1′, ‘A’, ‘K1′))>> | Dml |
Season | Auxiliary variable: 1 for winter, 2 for spring, 3 for summer, 4 for autumn. <<season = IF THEN ELSE (Time <= 90,1,0) + IF THEN ELSE (Time > 90:AND:Time <= 180,2,0) + IF THEN ELSE(Time > 180:AND: Time <= 270,3,0) + IF THEN ELSE(Time > 270,4,0)>>> | Dml |
TIME ST | Shadow variable used to set timing. <<TIME STEP = 1>> | Day |
Consumption | Auxiliary variable for total energy consumed, defined by BMR and energy needed to accomplish raptor’s activity. <<(Energy release factor × BMR) + BMR>> | kcal |
Weight | Level variable with an initial value introduced for each simulation; e.g., for a simulation of a young raptor, the initial weight is 0.8 kg. <<Weight = INTEG (Nutrition,0.8)>> | kg |
Release Energy Factor | Auxiliary variable that is a factor to be multiplied by BMR and added to Consumption. Represents energy that will be consumed because of raptor activity. <<Release Energy Factor = Performance(season)>> | Dml |
Model: | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | Female | Male |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
α | −90 | −90 | −90 | −90 | −90 | −90 | −90 | −90 | −90 | −50 |
β | −20 | −20 | −20 | −20 | −20 | −40 | −20 | −20 | −20 | 10 |
γ | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 80 | 10 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 50 |
Food | 150 | 150 | 100 | 100 | 150 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 170 | 100 |
3.3. Vensim Simulations
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Simulation Results and Graphical Information
4.2. Simulation Reliability Results
5. Conclusions and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dolbeer, R.A.; Wright, S.E.; Weller, J.; Begier, M.J. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2014. no. Serial Report Number 15, 2014. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/6461 (accessed on 4 December 2016).
- Allan, J.R. The cost of bird strikes and birdstrike prevention. In Human Conflicts with Wildlife: Economic Considerations; National Wildlife Research Cener: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2000; Volume 1, pp. 147–153. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrchumanconflicts/18 (accessed on 12 March 2014).
- Anderson, A.; Carpenter, D.S.; Begier, M.J.; Blackwell, B.F.; DeVault, T.L.; Shwiff, S.A. Modeling the cost of bird strikes to US civil aircraft. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2015, 38, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwarz, K.B.; Belant, J.L.; Martin, J.A.; DeVault, T.L.; Wang, G. Behavioral traits and airport type affect mammal incidents with U.S. civil aircraft. Environ. Manag. 2014, 54, 908–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hesse, G.; Rea, R.V.; Booth, A.L. Wildlife management practices at western Canadian airports. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2010, 16, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackwell, B.; DeVault, T.; Fernández-Juricic, E.; Dolbeer, R. Wildlife collisions with aircraft: A missing component of land-use planning for airports. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zugasti, M. Birds at Airports: The Use of Falconry, 4th ed.; Aena Aeropuertos, S.A.: Madrid, Spain, 2008; ISBN 9788496456884. [Google Scholar]
- Cook, A.; Rushton, S.; Allan, J.; Baxter, A. An Evaluation of Techniques to Control Problem Bird Species on Landfill Sites. Environ. Manag. 2008, 41, 834–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, D.-D.; Zhang, Z.-Q.; Hu, M.-W. Ranking birdstrike risk: A case study at Huanghua International Airport, Changsha, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2010, 30, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitowski, I.; Grzywaczewski, G.; Cwiklak, J.; Grzegorzewski, M.; Krop, S. Falconer activities as a bird dispersal tool at Deblin Airfield (E Poland). Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2011, 16, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackwell, B.F.; Seamans, T.W.; Schmidt, P.M.; Vault, T.L.D.; Belant, J.L.; Whittingham, M.J.; Martin, J.A.; Fernández-Juricic, E. A framework for managing airport grasslands and birds amidst conflicting priorities. Ibis 2013, 155, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ning, H.; Chen, W. Bird strike risk evaluation at airports. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. Int. J. 2014, 86, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matyjasiak, P. Methods of bird control at airports. In Theoretical and Applied Aspects of Modern Ecology; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynala Stefana Wyszynskiego: Warsaw, Poland, 2008; Volume 1, pp. 171–203. ISBN 978-83-7072-562-4. [Google Scholar]
- Roca-González, J.L.; Vera López, J.A.; Fernández Martínez, M. Raptor’s “Right Hunger” Characterization to Develop Sustainable Exclusion Areas for wildlife at Civil & Military Airports. Appl. Math. Nonlinear Sci. 2016, 1, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Staton, D. An Analysis of Australian Birdstrike Occurrences 2002 to 2006; Safety publications, Australian Transport Safety Bureau: Camberra City, Australia, 2008; p. 139. Available online: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2008/ar2008027/ (accessed on 27 February 2020).
- Thiériot, E.; Patenaude-Monette, M.; Molina, P.; Giroux, J.-F. The Efficiency of an Integrated Program Using Falconry to Deter Gulls from Landfills. Animals 2015, 5, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Littauer, G.; Glahn, J.; Reinhold, D.; Brunson, M.; Brunson, M.; Brunson, M. Control of Bird Predation at Aquaculture Facilities: Strategies and Cost Estimates; SRAC Publication, Southern Regional Aquaculture Center: Stoneville, MS, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, L.; Shivik, J.A.; Watkins, R.A.; VerCauteren, K.T.; Yoder, J.K. Human Conflicts with Wildlife: Economic Considerations. In Proceedings of the National Wildlife Research Center Symposium, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1–3 August 2000; Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrchumanconflicts/ (accessed on 27 February 2020).
- Wilke, S.; Majumdar, A.; Ochieng, W.Y. A framework for assessing the quality of aviation safety databases. Saf. Sci. 2014, 63, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tvrdon, L.; Fedorko, G. Usage of Dynamic Simulation in Pressing Shop Production System Design. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2020, 19, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roca-Gonzalez, J.-L. Designing dynamical systems for security and defence network knowledge management. A case of study: Airport bird control falconers organizations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.-S 2015, 8, 1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- International Civil Aviation Organization. Airport Services Manual Part 3 Wildlife Control and Reduction, 4th ed.; International Civil Aviation Organization: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2012; ISBN 978-92-9231-929-8. [Google Scholar]
- Burger, J. Bird Control at Airports. Environ. Conserv. 1983, 10, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ceballos, J.; Justribó, J.H. Manual Básico y Ético de Cetrería; Avium: Madrid, Spain, 2011; ISBN 978-84-85707-63-8. [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson-Lees, J.; Christie, D.A. Raptors of the World; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0-618-12762-7. [Google Scholar]
- Glasier, P. Falconry and Hawking; Charles Branford Publisher: London, UK, 1986; ISBN 978-07-13455557. [Google Scholar]
- Sedgwick, C.J.; Haskell, A.; Pokras, M. Scaling drug dosages for animals of diverse body sizes. Wildl. Rehabilators 1986, 5, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
- Porkas, M.; Karas, A.; Kirkwood, J.; Sedgwick, C.J. An introduction to allometric scaling and its uses in raptor medicine. In Raptor Biomedicine; University of Minesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1993; Volume 37, pp. 211–228. [Google Scholar]
- Barton, N.W.H.; Houston, D.C. A comparison of digestive efficiency in birds of prey. Ibis 1993, 135, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morley, S.K.; Brito, T.V.; Welling, D.T. Measures of Model Performance Based On the Log Accuracy Ratio. Space Weather 2018, 16, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Kim, H. A new metric of absolute percentage error for intermittent demand forecasts. Int. J. Forecast. 2016, 32, 669–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roca-González, J.-L.; Vera-Lopez, J.-A.; Rodriguez-Bermudez, G. Organisational and costing aspects to prevent wildlife strikes on airports: A case study of Spanish airport security managers. Saf. Sci. 2020, 122, 104520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, D.; Birge, J.R. Risk Intelligence in Big Data Era: A Review and Introduction to Special Issue. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2016, 46, 1718–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, T.; Liu, R.; Wei, Z. Improvement of the Fast Clustering Algorithm Improved by K-Means in the Big Data. Appl. Math. Nonlinear Sci. 2020, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Çitil, H.G. Investigation of A Fuzzy Problem by the Fuzzy Laplace Transform. Appl. Math. Nonlinear Sci. 2019, 4, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Raptor | Sex | Height (cm) | Wingspan (cm) | Weight (g) | Main Characteristics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low-altitude or hand-to-hand flights | |||||
Accipiter Gentilis | M | 49–56 | 93–105 | 510–1170 | Strong, nervous, with delicate feathers; males are better for feathered prey and females for hairy prey |
F | 58–64 | 108–127 | 820–1500 | ||
Accipiter Nisus | M | 29–34 | 58–65 | 110–200 | Nervous, aggressive, fast metabolic rate Appropriate for preying on other birds |
F | 35–41 | 67–80 | 185–340 | ||
Parabuteo Unicinctus | M | 50–60 | 103–125 | 450–750 | Calm, slow metabolic rate Ideal for preying on rabbits, hares, squirrels |
F | 50–60 | 103–125 | 750–1200 | ||
Buteo Jamaicensis | M | 45–56 | 105–135 | 690–1300 | Calm, low metabolic rate Ideal for on preying rabbits, hares, squirrels |
F | 50–65 | 105–135 | 900–1460 | ||
Bubo Bubo | M | 60–75 | 160–188 | 1580–3000 | Calm and tough Appropriate for night hunting |
F | 60–75 | 160–188 | 1750–4000 | ||
Aquila Chrysaëtos | M | ~80 | ~200 | 2650–3800 | Aggressive, with slow metabolic rate Requires a big area for flying and hunting |
F | ~80 | ~200 | 3600–4600 | ||
High-altitude flights | |||||
Falco Peregrinus | M | 38–45 | 89–100 | 600–700 | Calm, medium resistance Perfect for hunting feathered prey |
F | 46–51 | 104–113 | 850–1300 | ||
Falco Rusticolus | M | ~53 | 110–120 | 850–1200 | Strong, good behavior when released hand-to-hand Appropriate for hunting feathered prey |
F | ~56 | 120–130 | 1300–2100 | ||
Falco Cherrug | M | ~45 | 100–110 | 730–990 | High resistance, slow metabolic rate Perfect for any kind of prey |
F | ~55 | 120–130 | 970–1300 | ||
Falco Biarmicus | M | 35–40 | 90–100 | 500–600 | Considerably quiet, with high resistance |
F | 45–50 | 100–110 | 700–900 | ||
Falco Columb. | M | 25–30 | 50–62 | 125–250 | Nervous, high metabolic rate Limited to hunting feathered prey |
F | 25–30 | 50–62 | 150–300 | ||
Falco Tinnun. | M | 32–35 | 71–80 | 190–240 | Calm, with high resistance High metabolic rate |
F | 32–35 | 71–80 | 220–300 | ||
Falco Sparverius | M | ~25 | ~55 | 90–120 | Quiet, high metabolic rate Appropriate for hunting small birds. |
F | ~25 | ~55 | 90–120 | ||
Falco Femoralis | M | 35–39 | 78–84 | 208–305 | Calm, with high resistance Appropriate for bird hunting |
F | 41–45 | 93–102 | 310–460 |
Value | Description |
---|---|
1 | Raptor flies but does not return when called |
2 | Bad flight: raptor alights unexpectedly |
3 | Regular flight: raptor’s flight height is insufficient; raptor does not fly over the entire area |
4 | Good flight: raptor will reach the expected height but will not fly over the entire area |
5 | Very good: raptor flies over the entire area but returns late |
6 | Excellent: raptor’s flight height is sufficient; raptor succeeds at hunting and returns when summoned |
Raptor | ERQ3 | ERMed | ERQ1 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a | b | R2 | a | b | R2 | a | b | R2 | |
#01HPGH: Female specimen of Falco Rusticolus × Peregrinus (Niobe) | |||||||||
Winter | −2.02 | 4.89 | 0.98 | −2.32 | 5.62 | 0.96 | −2.47 | 5.97 | 0.95 |
Spring | −1.1 | 2.64 | 0.92 | −1.74 | 3.74 | 0.95 | −3.51 | 6.94 | 0.92 |
Summer | −0.67 | 1.71 | 0.98 | −0.74 | 2.31 | 0.94 | −0.92 | 2.75 | 0.96 |
Autumn | −1.23 | 2.84 | 0.93 | −1.17 | 3.02 | 0.98 | −0.84 | 2.74 | 0.99 |
#02HSGH: Female specimen of Falco Cherrug × Rusticolus (Thirma) | |||||||||
Winter | 4.12 | −3.51 | 0.99 | 3.47 | −3.19 | 0.92 | 1.11 | −1.09 | 0.91 |
Spring | −0.76 | 1.75 | 0.96 | −0.06 | 1.41 | 0.97 | −0.36 | 2.15 | 0.94 |
Summer | −2 | 2.84 | 0.93 | −1.6 | 3.26 | 0.92 | −1.48 | 4.16 | 0.95 |
Autumn | −0.85 | 1.82 | 0.99 | −0.57 | 1.81 | 0.91 | −0.47 | 1.93 | 0.91 |
#03HPGM: Male specimen of Falco Rusticolus × Peregrinus (Fenix) | |||||||||
Winter | 10.25 | −4.61 | 0.99 | 25.77 | 16.89 | 0.98 | 11.17 | −7.82 | 0.99 |
Spring | 4.16 | −1.63 | 0.91 | 3.58 | −1.62 | 0.97 | 2.96 | −1.29 | 0.92 |
Summer | 3.62 | −1.57 | 0.98 | 2.88 | −1.23 | 0.95 | 2.72 | −1.29 | 0.91 |
Autumn | −1.66 | 2.01 | 0.92 | −3.21 | 3.82 | 0.98 | −5.92 | 6.95 | 0.98 |
#04HPGM: Male specimen of Falco Rusticolus × Peregrinus (Coz) | |||||||||
Winter | −4.05 | 2.86 | 0.99 | −5.21 | 3.85 | 0.98 | −5.39 | 4.96 | 0.93 |
Spring | 9.18 | −5.72 | 0.98 | 9.41 | −6.62 | 0.96 | 10.99 | −8.4 | 0.94 |
Summer | −3.92 | 4.32 | 0.90 | −5.96 | 6.31 | 0.92 | 5.80 | −5.98 | 0.94 |
Autumn | −3.58 | 3.18 | 0.99 | −7.18 | 5.86 | 0.97 | −4.67 | 6.94 | 0.94 |
#05HPH: Female specimen of Falco Peregrinus (Titi) | |||||||||
Winter | 2.29 | −1 | 0.99 | 2.34 | −1.34 | 0.92 | 2.63 | −2.07 | 0.91 |
Spring | 7.82 | −4.78 | 0.99 | 8.81 | −6.14 | 0.95 | 4.51 | −3.67 | 0.96 |
Summer | 2.53 | −1.25 | 0.92 | 2.58 | −1.60 | 0.94 | 2.75 | −2.06 | 0.94 |
Autumn | 2.31 | −0.97 | 0.97 | 2.45 | −1.28 | 0.94 | 2.30 | −1.50 | 0.94 |
#06HPGM: Male specimen of Falco Rusticolus × Peregrinus (Darko) | |||||||||
Winter | −0.86 | 1.14 | 0.90 | −1.13 | 1.37 | 0.94 | −12.82 | 10.44 | 0.97 |
Spring | −3.59 | 2.73 | 0.93 | −7.3 | 6.00 | 0.97 | −3.36 | 2.73 | 0.93 |
Summer | −6.08 | 4.23 | 0.98 | −4.34 | 3.58 | 0.92 | −2.32 | 2.52 | 0.98 |
Autumn | −6.67 | 5.97 | 0.99 | −5.79 | 5.44 | 0.94 | −10.20 | 9.94 | 0.93 |
#07HPGM: Male specimen of Falco Rusticolus × Peregrinus (Zeus) | |||||||||
Winter | −2.89 | 2.75 | 0.99 | −4.06 | 3.70 | 0.91 | −9.84 | 8.15 | 0.97 |
Spring | 5.86 | −3.46 | 0.93 | 5.81 | −3.52 | 0.99 | 5.47 | −3.41 | 0.90 |
Summer | 4.44 | −2.23 | 0.99 | 4.43 | −2.47 | 0.96 | 4.31 | −2.65 | 0.97 |
Autumn | 4.19 | −1.83 | 0.96 | 6.21 | −3.75 | 0.99 | 8.12 | −5.81 | 0.94 |
#08HGSM: Male specimen of Falco Cherrug × Rusticolus (Nico) | |||||||||
Winter | −3.76 | 2.84 | 0.95 | −6.23 | 4.74 | 0.97 | −9.33 | 7.18 | 0.99 |
Spring | 2.90 | −3.03 | 0.97 | 3.28 | −1.38 | 0.92 | 4.0 | −1.98 | 0.96 |
Summer | 2.19 | −0.62 | 0.92 | 2.13 | −0.61 | 0.93 | 2.09 | −0.69 | 0.99 |
Autumn | −4.44 | 6.46 | 0.91 | −7.50 | 5.80 | 0.95 | −15.76 | 12.08 | 0.98 |
Raptor | ERQ3 | ERMed | ERQ1 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a | b | R2 | a | b | R2 | a | b | R2 | |
Generic modeling prediction of expected results for female raptors | |||||||||
Winter | 3.59 | −2.77 | 0.99 | 3.68 | −3.39 | 0.97 | 4.23 | −4.95 | 0.99 |
Spring | −3.4 | 1.19 | 0.99 | −2.37 | 3.67 | 0.99 | −5.62 | 8.89 | 0.99 |
Summer | −22.6 | 21.74 | 0.99 | −21.3 | 26.45 | 0.99 | −17.04 | 25.25 | 0.99 |
Autumn | 24.92 | −22.7 | 0.99 | −18.1 | 21.45 | 0.95 | −9.76 | 14.03 | 0.99 |
Generic modeling prediction of expected results for male raptors | |||||||||
Winter | −3.92 | 2.91 | 0.99 | −4.31 | 3.5 | 0.97 | −13.58 | 10.93 | 0.99 |
Spring | 5.92 | −3.0 | 0.99 | 5.5 | −3.1 | 0.92 | 4.98 | −2.93 | 0.99 |
Summer | 4.59 | −2.62 | 0.99 | 4.07 | −2.1 | 0.99 | 3.72 | −2.14 | 0.99 |
Autumn | −9.18 | 6.99 | 0.91 | −10.75 | 9.58 | 0.95 | 51.14 | −41.6 | 0.98 |
Food Description | kcal/Unit |
---|---|
Day-old chicks | 39.6 |
Chicken wing portion | 57.96 |
Chicken breast portion | 38.22 |
Model (i) | MSE * (Referring to Q3) | SMAPE * (Referring to Q3) | SMAPE ** (Referring to Q3) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | A | B | C | A | B | C | |
01 | 0.1719 | 0.4812 | 0.1986 | 28.37% | 46.36% | 29.09% | 31.82% | 49.65% | 32.12% |
02 | 0.1093 | 0.4187 | 0.1301 | 24.68% | 45.23% | 28.61% | 27.58% | 52.90% | 30.82% |
03 | 0.2570 | 0.2969 | 0.2848 | 34.16% | 37.44% | 35.70% | 48.86% | 53.95% | 51.28% |
04 | 0.2519 | 0.3120 | 0.3050 | 32.62% | 35.22% | 33.72% | 44.73% | 47.96% | 46.11% |
05 | 0.6594 | 0.7110 | 0.5506 | 57.84% | 66.39% | 61.26% | 66.34% | 70.48% | 63.90% |
06 | 0.5516 | 0.7076 | 0.6688 | 46.21% | 52.91% | 51.38% | 54.29% | 67.96% | 63.72% |
07 | 0.2670 | 1.2907 | 0.2981 | 38.29% | 53.93% | 46.68% | 50.31% | 62.05% | 55.48% |
08 | 0.2595 | 0.5807 | 0.2777 | 35.86% | 42.85% | 37.74% | 38.90% | 49.29% | 47.58% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Roca-González, J.L.; Briones Peñalver, A.J.; Campuzano-Bolarín, F. Raptor Feeding Characterization and Dynamic System Simulation Applied to Airport Falconry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8920. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218920
Roca-González JL, Briones Peñalver AJ, Campuzano-Bolarín F. Raptor Feeding Characterization and Dynamic System Simulation Applied to Airport Falconry. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):8920. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218920
Chicago/Turabian StyleRoca-González, José Luis, Antonio Juan Briones Peñalver, and Francisco Campuzano-Bolarín. 2020. "Raptor Feeding Characterization and Dynamic System Simulation Applied to Airport Falconry" Sustainability 12, no. 21: 8920. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218920