Distance sampling has been identified as a reliable and well‐suited method for estimating northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) density. However, distance sampling using walked transects requires intense sampling to obtain precise estimates, thus making the technique impractical for large acreages. Researchers have addressed this limitation by either resorting to the use of indices (e.g., morning covey‐call surveys) or incorporating the use of aerial surveys with distance sampling. Both approaches remain relatively untested. Our objectives were to 1) compare density estimates among morning covey‐call surveys, helicopter transects, and walked transects; 2) test a critical assumption of distance sampling pertinent to helicopter surveys (i.e., all objects on line are detected); and 3) evaluate the underlying premise of morning covey‐call surveys (i.e., that the no. of calling coveys correlates with bobwhite density). Our study was conducted on 3 study sites in Brooks County, Texas, USA, during October to December, 2001 to 2005. Comparisons between walked transects and morning covey‐call surveys involved the entire 5‐year data set, whereas helicopter transects involved only the latter 2 years. Density estimates obtained from helicopter transects were similar to walked transect estimates for both years. We documented a detection probability on the helicopter transect line of 70 ± 10.2% (% ± SE; n = 20 coveys). Morning covey‐call surveys yielded similar density estimates to walked transect estimates during only 2 of 5 years, when walked transect estimates were the least accurate and precise. We detected a positive relationship (R2 = 0.51; 95% CI for slope: 29.5–53.1; n = 63 observations) between covey density and number of coveys heard calling. We conclude that helicopter transects appear to be a viable alternative to walked transects for estimating density of bobwhites. Morning covey‐call surveys appear to be a poor method to estimate absolute abundance and to depict general population trajectories.
Distance sampling during aerial surveys has been used extensively to estimate the density of many wildlife species. However, practical issues arise when using distance sampling during aerial surveys, such as obtaining accurate perpendicular distances. We assembled a computerized, electronic system to collect distance‐sampling data (e.g., transect length, detection location, and perpendicular distance) during aerial surveys. We tested the accuracy of the system in a controlled trial and a mock survey. We also evaluated the electronic system during field surveys of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) conducted in the Rio Grande Plains and Rolling Plains ecoregions of Texas, USA, during December 2007–2008. For comparison, we evaluated the accuracy of visual estimation of distance during a mock survey. A strong linear relationship existed between estimated and actual distances for the controlled trial (r2 = 0.99) and mock survey (r2 = 0.98) using the electronic system. Perpendicular‐distance error (i.e., absolute difference between estimated distance and actual distance) for the electronic system was low during the controlled trial (1.4 ± 0.4 m; ${\bar {x}}$ ± SE) and mock survey (3.0 ± 0.5 m) but not during the visual estimation of distance (10 ± 1.5 m). Estimates of bobwhite density obtained using the electronic system exhibited reasonable precision for each ecoregion during both years (CV < 20%). Perpendicular‐distance error slightly increased with target distance (0.7‐m increase in error for every 10‐m increase in target distance). Overall, the electronic system appears to be a promising technique to estimate density of northern bobwhite and possibly other terrestrial species for which aerial‐based distance sampling is appropriate. © The Wildlife Society, 2012
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.