2003
DOI: 10.1648/0273-8570-74.3.281
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy and variation in estimates of large numbers of birds by individual observers using an aerial survey simulator

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
83
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
5
83
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Bird identification and counts are performed either in real time by airborne observers or using on-board cameras to collect aerial imagery that is reviewed and analyzed later. Several studies have indicated that aerial image counts can be more accurate and consistent than live-observer counts (Boyd 2000, Frederick et al 2003, Buckland et al 2012, but a major drawback of the former is the significant time and effort required to manually analyze large volumes of imagery (Woodworth et al 1997, Béchet et al 2004. With burgeoning use of small low-flying unmanned aircraft, or drones, as a means of collecting very high-resolution aerial imagery of birds (Chabot and Bird 2015), as well as increasing possibilities to census birds in satellite imagery (LaRue et al 2017), the challenge of analyzing large volumes of imagery to detect and count subjects has been receiving increased attention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bird identification and counts are performed either in real time by airborne observers or using on-board cameras to collect aerial imagery that is reviewed and analyzed later. Several studies have indicated that aerial image counts can be more accurate and consistent than live-observer counts (Boyd 2000, Frederick et al 2003, Buckland et al 2012, but a major drawback of the former is the significant time and effort required to manually analyze large volumes of imagery (Woodworth et al 1997, Béchet et al 2004. With burgeoning use of small low-flying unmanned aircraft, or drones, as a means of collecting very high-resolution aerial imagery of birds (Chabot and Bird 2015), as well as increasing possibilities to census birds in satellite imagery (LaRue et al 2017), the challenge of analyzing large volumes of imagery to detect and count subjects has been receiving increased attention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both overestimation (Green et al 2008) and underestimation (Rodgers et al 2005) of colony size have been reported for visual counts from fixed-wing aircraft (Erwin 1982;Rodgers et al 2005). The use of digital photography improves the accuracy of aerial counts, and Dolbeer et al (1997) showed that aerial photos of Laughing Gull (L. atricilla) nests differed from the ground nest count by -9% to 1% (see also Frederick et al 2003).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Aerial surveys of colonial waterbirds based on visual counts alone may be inaccurate, and the use of photography provides a more reliable means of estimating adults and nests, although some degree of bias is still expected (Dolbeer et al 1997;Frederick et al 2003). Surveys on Lakes Winnipeg, St. Martin, Dog, Shoal and southern Lake Manitoba (south of 50.9° N) were conducted during 11 hr of flight time on 13 June using a Bell 206 Helicopter.…”
Section: Aerial Surveysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Estas diferencias pueden estar relacionadas a dos factores: la temporalidad de los censos, pues los trabajos anteriores se limitaron a temporadas de invierno y como se observó en el presente, las abundancias máximas de algunas especies, como el picopando canelo, no necesariamente se alcanzaron en esta época; y a la metodología llevada a cabo, pues pese a las ventajas de los censos aéreos, entre las que se cuenta poder recorrer áreas amplias en poco tiempo, en general esta metodología incrementa los riesgos de subestimación (Briggs et al 1985, Frederick et al 2003.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified