Performance of ground-based and aerial survey methods for monitoring wildlife assemblages in a conservation area of northern Tanzania. Greene, K., Bell, D., Kioko, J., & Kiffner, C. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 63(5):77, Sep, 2017. ![Performance of ground-based and aerial survey methods for monitoring wildlife assemblages in a conservation area of northern Tanzania [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Validating and improving field-sampling techniques for estimating wildlife community composition and population size is essential for wildlife management and conservation. We conducted ground distance sampling surveys along line transects and block counts from a small aircraft in Manyara Ranch in Northern Tanzania and contrasted estimates of species richness and species-specific densities from both sampling techniques. We used regression analyses (logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models) and model selection to investigate whether a species' body size, group size, body color, as well as vegetation cover explained the variation in species presence/absence and relative density differences in aerial vs. ground-based sampling. Ground surveys detected significantly more species than aerial surveys. However, aerial surveys detected three species that were missed by ground surveys (African lions, African buffalo, and spotted hyena). Model selection suggested that species with smaller body mass and small group sizes were more likely to be missed in aerial surveys. Densities estimated from the aerial surveys were generally but non-significantly lower than the densities estimated from the ground surveys, with the exception of density estimates for African elephants which were slightly higher from aerial surveys. Density differences between the two methods were greater for species with small group size, light body color, and in areas with denser vegetation cover; these variables explained 75% of the variation in density differences between the two survey methods. Albeit being similar in operational costs in our relatively small study area, ground surveys yielded (1) more complete information with respect to wildlife community composition and (2) density estimates were mostly higher and (3) more precise and (4) appear more feasible to be implemented in community-based conservation schemes.
@Article{Greene2017,
author = {Greene, Kathryn and Bell, Damian and Kioko, John and Kiffner, Christian},
title = {Performance of ground-based and aerial survey methods for monitoring wildlife assemblages in a conservation area of northern Tanzania},
year = {2017},
volume = {63},
number = {5},
month = {Sep},
pages = {77},
issn = {1439-0574},
doi = {10.1007/s10344-017-1133-2},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1133-2},
abstract = {Validating and improving field-sampling techniques for estimating wildlife community composition and population size is essential for wildlife management and conservation. We conducted ground distance sampling surveys along line transects and block counts from a small aircraft in Manyara Ranch in Northern Tanzania and contrasted estimates of species richness and species-specific densities from both sampling techniques. We used regression analyses (logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models) and model selection to investigate whether a species' body size, group size, body color, as well as vegetation cover explained the variation in species presence/absence and relative density differences in aerial vs. ground-based sampling. Ground surveys detected significantly more species than aerial surveys. However, aerial surveys detected three species that were missed by ground surveys (African lions, African buffalo, and spotted hyena). Model selection suggested that species with smaller body mass and small group sizes were more likely to be missed in aerial surveys. Densities estimated from the aerial surveys were generally but non-significantly lower than the densities estimated from the ground surveys, with the exception of density estimates for African elephants which were slightly higher from aerial surveys. Density differences between the two methods were greater for species with small group size, light body color, and in areas with denser vegetation cover; these variables explained 75{\%} of the variation in density differences between the two survey methods. Albeit being similar in operational costs in our relatively small study area, ground surveys yielded (1) more complete information with respect to wildlife community composition and (2) density estimates were mostly higher and (3) more precise and (4) appear more feasible to be implemented in community-based conservation schemes.},
day = {12},
file = {:10.1007%2Fs10344-017-1133-2.pdf:PDF},
journal = {European Journal of Wildlife Research},
owner = {Tiago Marques},
subdatabase = {distance},
timestamp = {2017.09.15},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"iMY7NGSd7rKA8Z9zM","bibbaseid":"greene-bell-kioko-kiffner-performanceofgroundbasedandaerialsurveymethodsformonitoringwildlifeassemblagesinaconservationareaofnortherntanzania-2017","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Greene, K.","Bell, D.","Kioko, J.","Kiffner, C."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Greene"],"firstnames":["Kathryn"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bell"],"firstnames":["Damian"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kioko"],"firstnames":["John"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kiffner"],"firstnames":["Christian"],"suffixes":[]}],"title":"Performance of ground-based and aerial survey methods for monitoring wildlife assemblages in a conservation area of northern Tanzania","year":"2017","volume":"63","number":"5","month":"Sep","pages":"77","issn":"1439-0574","doi":"10.1007/s10344-017-1133-2","url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1133-2","abstract":"Validating and improving field-sampling techniques for estimating wildlife community composition and population size is essential for wildlife management and conservation. We conducted ground distance sampling surveys along line transects and block counts from a small aircraft in Manyara Ranch in Northern Tanzania and contrasted estimates of species richness and species-specific densities from both sampling techniques. We used regression analyses (logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models) and model selection to investigate whether a species' body size, group size, body color, as well as vegetation cover explained the variation in species presence/absence and relative density differences in aerial vs. ground-based sampling. Ground surveys detected significantly more species than aerial surveys. However, aerial surveys detected three species that were missed by ground surveys (African lions, African buffalo, and spotted hyena). Model selection suggested that species with smaller body mass and small group sizes were more likely to be missed in aerial surveys. Densities estimated from the aerial surveys were generally but non-significantly lower than the densities estimated from the ground surveys, with the exception of density estimates for African elephants which were slightly higher from aerial surveys. Density differences between the two methods were greater for species with small group size, light body color, and in areas with denser vegetation cover; these variables explained 75% of the variation in density differences between the two survey methods. Albeit being similar in operational costs in our relatively small study area, ground surveys yielded (1) more complete information with respect to wildlife community composition and (2) density estimates were mostly higher and (3) more precise and (4) appear more feasible to be implemented in community-based conservation schemes.","day":"12","file":":10.1007%2Fs10344-017-1133-2.pdf:PDF","journal":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","owner":"Tiago Marques","subdatabase":"distance","timestamp":"2017.09.15","bibtex":"@Article{Greene2017,\r\n author = {Greene, Kathryn and Bell, Damian and Kioko, John and Kiffner, Christian},\r\n title = {Performance of ground-based and aerial survey methods for monitoring wildlife assemblages in a conservation area of northern Tanzania},\r\n year = {2017},\r\n volume = {63},\r\n number = {5},\r\n month = {Sep},\r\n pages = {77},\r\n issn = {1439-0574},\r\n doi = {10.1007/s10344-017-1133-2},\r\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1133-2},\r\n abstract = {Validating and improving field-sampling techniques for estimating wildlife community composition and population size is essential for wildlife management and conservation. We conducted ground distance sampling surveys along line transects and block counts from a small aircraft in Manyara Ranch in Northern Tanzania and contrasted estimates of species richness and species-specific densities from both sampling techniques. We used regression analyses (logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models) and model selection to investigate whether a species' body size, group size, body color, as well as vegetation cover explained the variation in species presence/absence and relative density differences in aerial vs. ground-based sampling. Ground surveys detected significantly more species than aerial surveys. However, aerial surveys detected three species that were missed by ground surveys (African lions, African buffalo, and spotted hyena). Model selection suggested that species with smaller body mass and small group sizes were more likely to be missed in aerial surveys. Densities estimated from the aerial surveys were generally but non-significantly lower than the densities estimated from the ground surveys, with the exception of density estimates for African elephants which were slightly higher from aerial surveys. Density differences between the two methods were greater for species with small group size, light body color, and in areas with denser vegetation cover; these variables explained 75{\\%} of the variation in density differences between the two survey methods. Albeit being similar in operational costs in our relatively small study area, ground surveys yielded (1) more complete information with respect to wildlife community composition and (2) density estimates were mostly higher and (3) more precise and (4) appear more feasible to be implemented in community-based conservation schemes.},\r\n day = {12},\r\n file = {:10.1007%2Fs10344-017-1133-2.pdf:PDF},\r\n journal = {European Journal of Wildlife Research},\r\n owner = {Tiago Marques},\r\n subdatabase = {distance},\r\n timestamp = {2017.09.15},\r\n}\r\n\r\n","author_short":["Greene, K.","Bell, D.","Kioko, J.","Kiffner, C."],"key":"Greene2017","id":"Greene2017","bibbaseid":"greene-bell-kioko-kiffner-performanceofgroundbasedandaerialsurveymethodsformonitoringwildlifeassemblagesinaconservationareaofnortherntanzania-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1133-2"},"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://distancelive.xyz/MainBibFile.bib","creationDate":"2020-06-16T14:23:40.141Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["performance","ground","based","aerial","survey","methods","monitoring","wildlife","assemblages","conservation","area","northern","tanzania","greene","bell","kioko","kiffner"],"title":"Performance of ground-based and aerial survey methods for monitoring wildlife assemblages in a conservation area of northern Tanzania","year":2017,"dataSources":["RjvoQBP8rG4o3b4Wi"]}