1
Detection Probability and Disturbance of Waterfowl During Aerial Surveys Methods Double sampling was used to determine a correction factor. Immediately before an aerial survey, a ground observer counted all waterbirds within a discrete area. Aerial estimates were divided by ground counts to calculate a detection rate. Introduction Aerial surveys of waterfowl have been conducted in the Illinois and Mississippi River floodplains since 1948. These traditional surveys provide an index of waterfowl population size rather than actual population size. New methods are being tested to determine actual population sizes in the survey areas. To estimate waterfowl populations, it is now crucial that aerial counts are accurate. Disturbance Average Detection Divers Dabblers Mergansers Geese Swans Divers Dabblers Mergansers Geese Swans Andrew D. Gilbert 1,2 , Heath M. Hagy 1 , Christopher N. Jacques 2 ,Aaron P. Yetter 2 1 Illinois Natural History Survey, Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center Forbes Biological Station Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, Havana, IL 62644 2 Western Illinois University, Department of Biological Sciences, Macomb, IL, 61455 Higher disturbance rates of waterfowl on refuges compared to non-refuge areas. Ducks and Canada geese show higher rates of disturbance in smaller groups, while light geese show higher rates of disturbance in larger groups. Waterfowl numbers were overestimated when there were many species present. Waterfowl numbers were overestimated when group size was very large. Abandonment Divers Dabblers Mergansers Geese Swans Total Detection Divers Dabblers Mergansers Geese Swans 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% DISTURBED ABANDONED Refuge Non-Refuge Average Disturbance Rates of All Waterfowl 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% XS (1-49) S (50-249) M (250-1249) L (≥1250) Waterbirds Waterfowl Average Detection Rates by Size of Waterbird Group 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 1-3 4-6 7-9 ≥10 Waterbirds Waterfowl Average Detection Rates by Number of Waterfowl Species 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% XS (1-49) S (50-249) M (250-1249) L (1250-6249) XL (≥6250) Ducks Canada Geese Light Geese All Waterfowl Average Disturbance Rates by Size of Waterbird Group Observers also documented disturbance to waterfowl by counting the number of each species that were: A) Disturbed: Exhibited a noticeable response to the airplane, or B) Abandoned: Vacated the survey area completely and did not immediately return.

Detection Probability and Disturbance of Waterfowl During ... · Waterfowl cies 0% % % % 0% 0% 1- 49) S (50- 249) M (250- 1249) 50- 6249) ≥6250) Ducks Geese Light Geese All Waterfowl

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Detection Probability and Disturbance of Waterfowl During ... · Waterfowl cies 0% % % % 0% 0% 1- 49) S (50- 249) M (250- 1249) 50- 6249) ≥6250) Ducks Geese Light Geese All Waterfowl

Detection Probability and Disturbance of Waterfowl During Aerial Surveys

MethodsDouble sampling was used to determine a correction factor. Immediately before an aerial survey, a ground observer counted all waterbirds within a discrete area. Aerial estimates were divided by ground counts to calculate a detection rate.

IntroductionAerial surveys of waterfowl have been conducted in the Illinois and Mississippi River floodplains since 1948. These traditional surveys provide an index of waterfowl population size rather than actual population size. New methods are being tested to determine actual population sizes in the survey areas. To estimate waterfowl populations, it is now crucial that aerial counts are accurate.

DisturbanceAverage DetectionDiversDabblers Mergansers Geese Swans Divers DabblersMergansersGeeseSwans

Andrew D. Gilbert1,2, Heath M. Hagy1, Christopher N. Jacques2, Aaron P. Yetter21Illinois Natural History Survey, Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center – Forbes Biological Station

Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, Havana, IL 626442Western Illinois University, Department of Biological Sciences, Macomb, IL, 61455

• Higher disturbance rates of waterfowl on refuges compared to non-refuge areas.• Ducks and Canada geese show higher rates of disturbance in smaller groups,

while light geese show higher rates of disturbance in larger groups.

• Waterfowl numbers were overestimated when there were many species present. • Waterfowl numbers were overestimated when group size was very large.

AbandonmentDivers DabblersMergansersGeeseSwans

Total DetectionDiversDabblers Mergansers Geese Swans

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

DISTURBED ABANDONED

RefugeNon-Refuge

Average Disturbance Rates of All Waterfowl

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%180%200%

XS (1-49) S (50-249) M (250-1249) L (≥1250)

WaterbirdsWaterfowl

Average Detection Rates by Size of Waterbird Group

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

1-3 4-6 7-9 ≥10

WaterbirdsWaterfowl

Average Detection Rates by Number of Waterfowl Species

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

XS (1-49) S (50-249) M (250-1249) L (1250-6249) XL (≥6250)

DucksCanada GeeseLight GeeseAll Waterfowl

Average Disturbance Rates by Size of Waterbird Group

Observers also documented disturbance to waterfowl by counting the number of each species that were: A) Disturbed: Exhibited a noticeable response to the airplane, or B) Abandoned: Vacated the survey area completely and did not immediately return.