M. Mayer, Erlend Furuhovde, Kristoffer Nordli, Giorgia Myriam Ausilio, Petter Wabakken, A. Eriksen, Alina L. Evans, K. Mathisen, Barbara Zimmermann
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Monitoring GPS‐collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
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.
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.