Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions

The paper compares the aerial and ground methods of counting birds in a coastal area during different ice conditions. Ice coverage of waters was the most important factor affecting the results of the two methods. When the water was ice-free, more birds were counted from the ground, whereas during ic...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marchowski, Dominik, Jankowiak, Łukasz, Ławicki, Łukasz, Wysocki, Dariusz
Format: Other/Unknown Material
Language:unknown
Published: PeerJ 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26726
https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.pdf
https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.xml
https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.html
id crpeerj:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26726
record_format openpolar
spelling crpeerj:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26726 2024-06-02T08:07:10+00:00 Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions Marchowski, Dominik Jankowiak, Łukasz Ławicki, Łukasz Wysocki, Dariusz 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26726 https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.pdf https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.xml https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.html unknown PeerJ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ posted-content 2018 crpeerj https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26726 2024-05-07T14:14:04Z The paper compares the aerial and ground methods of counting birds in a coastal area during different ice conditions. Ice coverage of waters was the most important factor affecting the results of the two methods. When the water was ice-free, more birds were counted from the ground, whereas during ice conditions, higher numbers were obtained from the air. In ice-free conditions the group of waterbirds with the smallest difference between the two methods (< 6%) contained six species: Greater Scaup, Smew, Mute Swan, Goosander, Common Goldeneye and Tufted Duck; the group with a moderate difference (15%-45%) included another six species: Eurasian Coot, Whooper Swan, Mallard, Eurasian Wigeon, Great Crested Grebe and Common Pochard; while the group with a large difference (> 68%) included five species, all of the genus Anas: Gadwall, Eurasian Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail and Garganey. In ice conditions, smaller numbers of most species were counted from the ground, except for Mallard, where the difference between two methods was small (7.5%). Under ice-free conditions, both methods can be used interchangeably for the most numerous birds occupying open water without any great impact on the results. When water areas are frozen over, air counts are preferable as the results are more accurate. The cost analysis shows that a survey carried out by volunteer observers (reimbursement of travel expenses only) from the land is 58% cheaper, but if the observers are paid, then the aerial survey is 40% more economical. Other/Unknown Material greater scaup Northern Shoveler Shoveler Whooper Swan smew PeerJ Publishing
institution Open Polar
collection PeerJ Publishing
op_collection_id crpeerj
language unknown
description The paper compares the aerial and ground methods of counting birds in a coastal area during different ice conditions. Ice coverage of waters was the most important factor affecting the results of the two methods. When the water was ice-free, more birds were counted from the ground, whereas during ice conditions, higher numbers were obtained from the air. In ice-free conditions the group of waterbirds with the smallest difference between the two methods (< 6%) contained six species: Greater Scaup, Smew, Mute Swan, Goosander, Common Goldeneye and Tufted Duck; the group with a moderate difference (15%-45%) included another six species: Eurasian Coot, Whooper Swan, Mallard, Eurasian Wigeon, Great Crested Grebe and Common Pochard; while the group with a large difference (> 68%) included five species, all of the genus Anas: Gadwall, Eurasian Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail and Garganey. In ice conditions, smaller numbers of most species were counted from the ground, except for Mallard, where the difference between two methods was small (7.5%). Under ice-free conditions, both methods can be used interchangeably for the most numerous birds occupying open water without any great impact on the results. When water areas are frozen over, air counts are preferable as the results are more accurate. The cost analysis shows that a survey carried out by volunteer observers (reimbursement of travel expenses only) from the land is 58% cheaper, but if the observers are paid, then the aerial survey is 40% more economical.
format Other/Unknown Material
author Marchowski, Dominik
Jankowiak, Łukasz
Ławicki, Łukasz
Wysocki, Dariusz
spellingShingle Marchowski, Dominik
Jankowiak, Łukasz
Ławicki, Łukasz
Wysocki, Dariusz
Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions
author_facet Marchowski, Dominik
Jankowiak, Łukasz
Ławicki, Łukasz
Wysocki, Dariusz
author_sort Marchowski, Dominik
title Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions
title_short Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions
title_full Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions
title_fullStr Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions
title_full_unstemmed Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions
title_sort waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions
publisher PeerJ
publishDate 2018
url http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26726
https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.pdf
https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.xml
https://peerj.com/preprints/26726.html
genre greater scaup
Northern Shoveler
Shoveler
Whooper Swan
smew
genre_facet greater scaup
Northern Shoveler
Shoveler
Whooper Swan
smew
op_rights http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26726
_version_ 1800752179385991168