Some human, aircraft and animal factors affecting aerial surveys: how to enumerate animals from the air
Peter J. S. Fleming A B and John P. Tracey AA Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange Agricultural Institute, Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email:peter.fleming@dpi.nsw.gov.au
Wildlife Research 35(4) 258-267 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR07081
Submitted: 3 July 2007 Accepted: 21 February 2008 Published: 27 June 2008
Abstract
Aerial surveys of wildlife involve a noisy platform carrying one or more observers moving over animals in order to quantify their abundance. This simple-sounding system encapsulates limits to human visual acuity and human concentration, visual attention, salience of target objects within the viewed scene, characteristics of survey platforms and facets of animal behaviours that affect the detection of animals by the airborne observers. These facets are too often ignored in aerial surveys, yet are inherent sources of counting error. Here we briefly review factors limiting the ability of observers to detect animals from aerial platforms in a range of sites, including characteristics of the aircraft, observers and target animals. Some of the previously uninvestigated limitations identified in the review were studied in central and western New South Wales, showing that inaccuracies of human memory and enumeration processes are sources of bias in aerial survey estimates. Standard protocols that minimise or account for the reviewed factors in aerial surveys of wildlife are recommended.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Brian Lukins for assisting with aerial surveys and discussions on memory and for drawing Fig. 1. Ken England and Glen Walker assisted with aerial surveys at Coolah. The work at Coolah was funded by Wildlife and Exotic Disease Preparedness and National Feral Animal Control Programs, and the Warrego study was part-funded by the Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre. The assistance of Mike, Chris and Ant Martin, Doug and Don Arnott, and Kevin Cluff, and the comments of two anonymous referees are appreciated.
Atkinson, J. , Campbell, F. W. , and Francis, M. R. (1976). The magic number 4 ± 0: a new look at visual numerosity judgements. Perception 5, 327–334.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Calef, G. W. , DeBock, E. A. , and Lortie, G. M. (1976). The reaction of barren-ground caribou to aircraft. Arctic 29, 201–212.
Caughley, G. , and Goddard, J. (1975). Abundance and distribution of elephants in the Luangwa Valley Zambia East African Wildlife Journal 13, 39–48.
Donderi, D. C. (2006). Visual complexity: a review. Psychological Bulletin 132, 73–97.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Gilroy, J. (1999). Kangaroo monitoring in relation to kangaroo management in New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 31, 306–308.
Hone, J. (1986). Accuracy of the multiple regression method for estimating population density in strip transects. Australian Wildlife Research 13, 121–126.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jarman, P. J. , Jones, M. E. , Johnson, C. N. , Southwell, C. J. , Stuart-Dick, R. I. , Higgenbottom, K. B. , and Clarke, J. L. (1989). Macropod studies at Wallaby Creek. VIII. Individual recognition of kangaroos and wallabies. Australian Wildlife Research 16, 179–185.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marsh, H. , and Sinclair, D. F. (1989). Correcting for visibility bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic fauna. Journal of Wildlife Management 53, 1017–1024.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Melville, G. J. , Tracey, J. P. , Fleming, P. J. S. , and Lukins, B. S. (2008). Aerial surveys of multiple species: critical assumptions and sources of bias in distance and mark–recapture estimators. Wildlife Research 35, 310–319.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Potvin, F. , and Breton, L. (2005). Testing 2 aerial survey techniques on deer in fenced enclosures – visual double-counts and thermal infrared sensing. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, 317–325.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tracey, J. P. , and Fleming, P. J. S. (2007). Behavioural responses of feral goats (Capra hircus) to helicopters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 114–128.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tracey, J. P. , Fleming, P. J. S. , and Melville, G. J. (2005). Does variable probability of detection compromise the use of indices in aerial surveys of medium-sized mammals? Wildlife Research 32, 245–252.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tracey, J. P. , Fleming, P. J. S. , and Melville, G. J. (2008). Accuracy of some aerial survey estimators: contrasts with known numbers. Wildlife Research 35, 377–384. doi:10.1071/WR07105 .
Trick, L. M. , and Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review 101, 80–102.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Uno, H. , Kaji, K. , Saitoh, T. , Matsuda, H. , Hirakawa, H. , Yamamura, K. , and Tamada, K. (2006). Evaluation of relative density indices for sika deer in eastern Hokkaido, Japan. Ecological Research 21, 624–632.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van der Linden, D. , Fresea, M. , and Meijmanc, T. F. (2003). Mental fatigue and the control of cognitive processes: effects on perseveration and planning. Acta Psychologica 113, 45–65.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Walter, M. J. , and Hone, J. (2003). A comparison of 3 aerial survey techniques to estimate wild horse abundance in the Australian Alps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 1138–1149.
Westcott, D. A. , and McKeown, A. (2004). Observer error in exit counts of flying-foxes (Pteropus spp.). Wildlife Research 31, 551–558.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Windsor, D. E. , and Dagg, A. I. (1971). The gaits of the Macropodinae (Marsupialia). Journal of Zoology 163, 165–175.