Monitoring GPS‐collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects

IF 1.7 3区 生物学 Q3 ECOLOGY Wildlife Biology Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1002/wlb3.01213
M. Mayer, Erlend Furuhovde, Kristoffer Nordli, Giorgia Myriam Ausilio, Petter Wabakken, A. Eriksen, Alina L. Evans, K. Mathisen, Barbara Zimmermann
{"title":"Monitoring GPS‐collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects","authors":"M. Mayer, Erlend Furuhovde, Kristoffer Nordli, Giorgia Myriam Ausilio, Petter Wabakken, A. Eriksen, Alina L. Evans, K. Mathisen, Barbara Zimmermann","doi":"10.1002/wlb3.01213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Efficient wildlife management requires precise monitoring methods, for example to estimate population density, reproductive success, and survival. Here, we compared the efficiency of drone (equipped with a RGB camera) and ground approaches to detect and observe GPS‐collared female moose Alces alces and their calves. We also quantified how drone (n = 42) and ground (n = 41) approaches affected moose behavior and space use (n = 24 individuals). The average time used for drone approaches was 17 min compared to 97 min for ground approaches, with drone detection probability being higher (95% of adult female moose and 88% of moose calves) compared to ground approaches (78% of adult females and 82% of calves). Drone detection success increased at lower drone altitudes (50–70 m). Adult female moose left the site in 35% of drone approaches (with > 40% of those moose becoming disturbed once the drone hovered < 50 m above ground) compared to 56% of ground approaches. We failed to find short‐term effects (3 h after approaches) of drone approaches on moose space use, but moose moved > fourfold greater distances and used larger areas after ground approaches (compared to before the approaches had started). Similarly, longer‐term (24 h before and after approaches) space use did not differ between drone approaches compared to days without known disturbance, but moose moved comparatively greater distances during days of ground approaches. In conclusion, we could show that drone approaches were highly efficient to detect adult moose and their calves in the boreal forest, being faster and less disturbing than ground approaches, making them a useful tool to monitor and study wildlife.","PeriodicalId":54405,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01213","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Efficient wildlife management requires precise monitoring methods, for example to estimate population density, reproductive success, and survival. Here, we compared the efficiency of drone (equipped with a RGB camera) and ground approaches to detect and observe GPS‐collared female moose Alces alces and their calves. We also quantified how drone (n = 42) and ground (n = 41) approaches affected moose behavior and space use (n = 24 individuals). The average time used for drone approaches was 17 min compared to 97 min for ground approaches, with drone detection probability being higher (95% of adult female moose and 88% of moose calves) compared to ground approaches (78% of adult females and 82% of calves). Drone detection success increased at lower drone altitudes (50–70 m). Adult female moose left the site in 35% of drone approaches (with > 40% of those moose becoming disturbed once the drone hovered < 50 m above ground) compared to 56% of ground approaches. We failed to find short‐term effects (3 h after approaches) of drone approaches on moose space use, but moose moved > fourfold greater distances and used larger areas after ground approaches (compared to before the approaches had started). Similarly, longer‐term (24 h before and after approaches) space use did not differ between drone approaches compared to days without known disturbance, but moose moved comparatively greater distances during days of ground approaches. In conclusion, we could show that drone approaches were highly efficient to detect adult moose and their calves in the boreal forest, being faster and less disturbing than ground approaches, making them a useful tool to monitor and study wildlife.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用地面方法和无人机方法监测 GPS 定位的驼鹿:效率和干扰效应
有效的野生动物管理需要精确的监测方法,例如估算种群密度、繁殖成功率和存活率。在这里,我们比较了无人机(配备 RGB 摄像机)和地面方法探测和观察 GPS 标示的雌性驼鹿 Alces alces 及其幼崽的效率。我们还量化了无人机(n = 42)和地面(n = 41)方法对驼鹿行为和空间利用(n = 24 只)的影响。无人机接近驼鹿的平均时间为 17 分钟,而地面接近驼鹿的平均时间为 97 分钟,无人机的探测概率(95% 的成年雌性驼鹿和 88% 的驼鹿幼崽)高于地面接近(78% 的成年雌性驼鹿和 82% 的驼鹿幼崽)。无人机探测成功率在无人机飞行高度较低(50-70 米)时有所提高。在 35% 的无人机接近中,成年雌性驼鹿离开了现场(其中超过 40% 的驼鹿在无人机悬停距离地面 < 50 米时受到干扰),而在地面接近中,这一比例为 56%。我们未能发现无人机进场对驼鹿空间使用的短期影响(进场后 3 小时),但驼鹿在地面进场后(与进场开始前相比)移动的距离>四倍,使用的区域更大。同样,与没有已知干扰的日子相比,无人机进场后较长时间(进场前后 24 小时)的空间使用情况没有差异,但在地面进场的日子里,驼鹿移动的距离相对更大。总之,我们可以证明,无人机在北方森林中探测成年驼鹿及其幼崽的效率很高,比地面探测更快,干扰更少,是监测和研究野生动物的有用工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Biology
Wildlife Biology 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: WILDLIFE BIOLOGY is a high-quality scientific forum directing concise and up-to-date information to scientists, administrators, wildlife managers and conservationists. The journal encourages and welcomes original papers, short communications and reviews written in English from throughout the world. The journal accepts theoretical, empirical, and practical articles of high standard from all areas of wildlife science with the primary task of creating the scientific basis for the enhancement of wildlife management practices. Our concept of ''wildlife'' mainly includes mammal and bird species, but studies on other species or phenomena relevant to wildlife management are also of great interest. We adopt a broad concept of wildlife management, including all structures and actions with the purpose of conservation, sustainable use, and/or control of wildlife and its habitats, in order to safeguard sustainable relationships between wildlife and other human interests.
期刊最新文献
Red deer grazing pressure on agricultural grass meadows from broad to local scale Wolf diet in the Notecka Forest, western Poland Where is the wolf? A multi‐method comparison of social values and perceptions in a Swiss park The effects of variability in catch effort on the precision of statistical population reconstruction Reaching and implementing the best available knowledge in wildlife biology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1