Comparing an automated high-definition oblique camera system to rear-seat-observers in a wildlife survey in Tsavo, Kenya: Taking multi-species aerial counts to the next level. (January 2020)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Comparing an automated high-definition oblique camera system to rear-seat-observers in a wildlife survey in Tsavo, Kenya: Taking multi-species aerial counts to the next level. (January 2020)
- Main Title:
- Comparing an automated high-definition oblique camera system to rear-seat-observers in a wildlife survey in Tsavo, Kenya: Taking multi-species aerial counts to the next level
- Authors:
- Lamprey, Richard
Pope, Frank
Ngene, Shadrack
Norton-Griffiths, Michael
Frederick, Howard
Okita-Ouma, Benson
Douglas-Hamilton, Iain - Abstract:
- Abstract: In aerial wildlife counts, human observers often fail to detect animals. We conducted a multi-species sample-count in Tsavo National Park, Kenya, with traditional rear-seat-observers (RSOs) and an automated 'oblique-camera-count' (OCC) imaging system to compare estimates of 23 wildlife species derived from these two survey methods. An aerial Total Count of elephant, buffalo and giraffe, conducted a month previously, provided a further comparison. In the Tsavo Core (9560 km 2 ), which harbours 80% of Tsavo's elephants, the OCC system acquired 81 000 images for interpretation, of which 67 000 were obtained in parallel with RSO-counting along 3004 km of flight line. The Tsavo outer blocks (24 171 km 2 ) were surveyed using the OCC system without RSOs to acquire a further 84 000 images. A random sample of 11 553 images were re-interpreted to derive species-specific probabilities of detection and correction factors. Using 'Jolly II', non-parametric and Bayesian analyses, and applying correction factors, we demonstrate that the RSOs did not detect 14% of elephants, 60% of giraffe, 48% of zebra and 66% of the large antelopes. For comparison, the Total Count observers did not detect 27% of elephant, 33% of buffalo, 57% of giraffe and 85% of carcasses. The OCC method raises the elephant population estimate to 16 681 ± 4047 (95% cl) from the 12 722 counted in the Total Count (Z = 1.917, p = .0276). These results suggest that RSO-based methods have significantly undercountedAbstract: In aerial wildlife counts, human observers often fail to detect animals. We conducted a multi-species sample-count in Tsavo National Park, Kenya, with traditional rear-seat-observers (RSOs) and an automated 'oblique-camera-count' (OCC) imaging system to compare estimates of 23 wildlife species derived from these two survey methods. An aerial Total Count of elephant, buffalo and giraffe, conducted a month previously, provided a further comparison. In the Tsavo Core (9560 km 2 ), which harbours 80% of Tsavo's elephants, the OCC system acquired 81 000 images for interpretation, of which 67 000 were obtained in parallel with RSO-counting along 3004 km of flight line. The Tsavo outer blocks (24 171 km 2 ) were surveyed using the OCC system without RSOs to acquire a further 84 000 images. A random sample of 11 553 images were re-interpreted to derive species-specific probabilities of detection and correction factors. Using 'Jolly II', non-parametric and Bayesian analyses, and applying correction factors, we demonstrate that the RSOs did not detect 14% of elephants, 60% of giraffe, 48% of zebra and 66% of the large antelopes. For comparison, the Total Count observers did not detect 27% of elephant, 33% of buffalo, 57% of giraffe and 85% of carcasses. The OCC method raises the elephant population estimate to 16 681 ± 4047 (95% cl) from the 12 722 counted in the Total Count (Z = 1.917, p = .0276). These results suggest that RSO-based methods have significantly undercounted wildlife populations. To align with improved counting methods, previous results need to be re-calibrated. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Biological conservation. Volume 241(2020)
- Journal:
- Biological conservation
- Issue:
- Volume 241(2020)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 241, Issue 2020 (2020)
- Year:
- 2020
- Volume:
- 241
- Issue:
- 2020
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2020-0241-2020-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2020-01
- Subjects:
- Africa -- Elephants -- Aerial count -- Wildlife -- Multi-species -- Census -- Observers -- Cameras -- Imaging -- Bias
Conservation of natural resources -- Periodicals
Nature conservation -- Periodicals
Ecology -- Periodicals
Environment -- Periodicals
Environmental Pollution -- Periodicals
Electronic journals
333.9516 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108243 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0006-3207
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 2075.100000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 17917.xml