Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMayer, Martin
dc.contributor.authorFuruhovde, Erlend
dc.contributor.authorNordli, Kristoffer
dc.contributor.authorAusilio, Giorgia
dc.contributor.authorWabakken, Petter
dc.contributor.authorEriksen, Ane
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Alina
dc.contributor.authorMathisen, Karen Marie
dc.contributor.authorZimmermann, Barbara
dc.coverage.spatialNorwayen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-25T12:18:09Z
dc.date.available2025-02-25T12:18:09Z
dc.date.created2024-06-17T14:29:11Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.citationWildlife Biology. 2024, .en_US
dc.identifier.issn0909-6396
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3180394
dc.description.abstractEfficient 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectAlces alcesen_US
dc.subjectbehavioren_US
dc.subjectGPSen_US
dc.subjectNorwayen_US
dc.subjectunmanned aerial vehicleen_US
dc.subjectwildlifeen_US
dc.titleMonitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effectsen_US
dc.title.alternativeMonitoring GPS-collared moose by ground versus drone approaches: efficiency and disturbance effectsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2024 The Authors.en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488en_US
dc.source.pagenumber12en_US
dc.source.journalWildlife Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/wlb3.01213
dc.identifier.cristin2276751
dc.source.articlenumbere01213en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal