Evaluating the Potential of Aerial Infrared as a Lek Count Method for Prairie Grouse

Author:

Gillette Gifford L.1,Reese Kerry P.1,Connelly John W.2,Colt Chris J.3,Knetter Jeffrey M.4

Affiliation:

1. G.L. Gillette, K.P. Reese Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 1136, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1136

2. J.W. Connelly Idaho Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 1136, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1136

3. C.J. Colt United States Forest Service, Curlew National Grasslands, 4350 Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, Idaho 83204

4. J.M. Knetter Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut, Boise, Idaho 83707

Abstract

Abstract Wildlife biologists use counts of birds attending traditional breeding grounds (i.e., leks) to develop indices of population trends in several grouse species. Standardized lek counts for sage-grouse Centrocercus spp. provide information about population trends by allowing comparison of counts across their range. In contrast, biologists lack a standard lek-count method for prairie grouse Tympanuchus spp.. The lack of a standard lek-count method limits our ability to make rigorous spatial and temporal comparisons or to estimate population trends. Recent use of cooled infrared cameras in aerial surveys and their increased affordability make this technology attractive for monitoring prairie grouse populations. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of aerial infrared (AIR) technology for estimating abundance of prairie grouse by comparing AIR lek counts with ground-based lek counts of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse T. phasianellus columbianus in Idaho. We used both methods simultaneously to count sharp-tailed grouse at 25 leks to compare method consistency. We also used both methods to count sharp-tailed grouse at 88 other leks to quantify and compare the resources required for both methods. The average count obtained with the AIR method (12.3 grouse ± 1.5 SE) and the ground-based method (12.9 grouse ± 1.8 SE) was similar, and we were unable to detect a statistical difference between methods when conducting a negative binomial regression (z = 0.165, P = 0.87). Aerial infrared was twice the cost of the ground-based method, but AIR surveyed more leks in less time (88 leks during 4 d) compared with the ground-based method (88 leks during 29 d). Aerial infrared improves population monitoring by counting leks inaccessible by ground. The time efficiency of AIR and the ability to obtain counts consistent with ground-based methods suggests that AIR may be an effective and efficient lek-count method.

Publisher

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subject

Nature and Landscape Conservation,Animal Science and Zoology,Ecology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3