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

Efficient wildlife management requires precise monitoring methods, e.g., to estimate population density, reproductive success, and survival. Here, we compared the efficiency of drone and ground approaches to detect and monitor GPS-collared female moose (Alces alces) and their calves. Moreover, we qu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mayer, Martin, Furuhovde, Erlend, Nordli, Kristoffer, Ausilio, Giorgia, Wabakken, Petter, Eriksen, Ane, Evans, Alina, Mathisen, Karen, Zimmermann, Barbara
Format: Other/Unknown Material
Language:unknown
Published: Authorea, Inc. 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.22541/au.169382710.05264103/v1
id crwinnower:10.22541/au.169382710.05264103/v1
record_format openpolar
spelling crwinnower:10.22541/au.169382710.05264103/v1 2024-06-02T07:54:39+00:00 Monitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects Mayer, Martin Furuhovde, Erlend Nordli, Kristoffer Ausilio, Giorgia Wabakken, Petter Eriksen, Ane Evans, Alina Mathisen, Karen Zimmermann, Barbara 2023 http://dx.doi.org/10.22541/au.169382710.05264103/v1 unknown Authorea, Inc. posted-content 2023 crwinnower https://doi.org/10.22541/au.169382710.05264103/v1 2024-05-07T14:19:27Z Efficient wildlife management requires precise monitoring methods, e.g., to estimate population density, reproductive success, and survival. Here, we compared the efficiency of drone and ground approaches to detect and monitor GPS-collared female moose (Alces alces) and their calves. Moreover, we 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 minutes compared to 97 minutes for ground approaches, with drone detection rate 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 > 4-fold greater distances and used larger areas after ground approaches. 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, potentially making them a useful tool to monitor and study wildlife. Other/Unknown Material Alces alces The Winnower
institution Open Polar
collection The Winnower
op_collection_id crwinnower
language unknown
description Efficient wildlife management requires precise monitoring methods, e.g., to estimate population density, reproductive success, and survival. Here, we compared the efficiency of drone and ground approaches to detect and monitor GPS-collared female moose (Alces alces) and their calves. Moreover, we 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 minutes compared to 97 minutes for ground approaches, with drone detection rate 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 > 4-fold greater distances and used larger areas after ground approaches. 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, potentially making them a useful tool to monitor and study wildlife.
format Other/Unknown Material
author Mayer, Martin
Furuhovde, Erlend
Nordli, Kristoffer
Ausilio, Giorgia
Wabakken, Petter
Eriksen, Ane
Evans, Alina
Mathisen, Karen
Zimmermann, Barbara
spellingShingle Mayer, Martin
Furuhovde, Erlend
Nordli, Kristoffer
Ausilio, Giorgia
Wabakken, Petter
Eriksen, Ane
Evans, Alina
Mathisen, Karen
Zimmermann, Barbara
Monitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
author_facet Mayer, Martin
Furuhovde, Erlend
Nordli, Kristoffer
Ausilio, Giorgia
Wabakken, Petter
Eriksen, Ane
Evans, Alina
Mathisen, Karen
Zimmermann, Barbara
author_sort Mayer, Martin
title Monitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
title_short Monitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
title_full Monitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
title_fullStr Monitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
title_full_unstemmed Monitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
title_sort monitoring gps-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effects
publisher Authorea, Inc.
publishDate 2023
url http://dx.doi.org/10.22541/au.169382710.05264103/v1
genre Alces alces
genre_facet Alces alces
op_doi https://doi.org/10.22541/au.169382710.05264103/v1
_version_ 1800742587053637632