Assessing sampling error associated with animal movements and distributions across drone monitoring strategies

Emma A. Schultz, Natasha Ellison-Neary, Landon R. Jones, Kristine O. Evans and Raymond B. Iglay

Ecological Modelling, 2025, vol. 508, issue C

Abstract: Long-term animal population monitoring is essential for informing wildlife management practices. Erroneous estimates skew researchers’ understanding of population parameters. Novel survey methods resulting from technological advancements should be assessed to identify potential sampling error before adoption and execution. Drones (i.e., Unoccupied Aircraft Systems) allow for remote monitoring of animal populations. Typical drone flight planning involves large (40–80 %) image overlap to create orthomosaic images. However, this approach may introduce counting errors when monitoring non-randomly dispersed or mobile animals. We evaluated errors associated with counting multiple, moving animals among various drone flight patterns in an agent-based model framework. Scenarios investigated included nine animals in random and clumped spatial distributions exhibiting multiple movement patterns (random walk, correlated random walk, and stationary) to mimic specific, literature-informed animal density, distribution, and movement patterns. Drone flight patterns included lawnmower patterns with and without image overlap, belt transects, and systematic point counts. Drone flight pattern was the most important variable influencing the accuracy of counts of moving animals, although animal distributions had the greatest effect on precision. We recommend the use of spaced transects distributed across and covering at least 50 % of the entire survey area to minimize sampling error among various animal distribution patterns and/or when animals move during the survey period. Understanding the influence of animal movements and distributions on population estimates from drone surveys will aid researchers in deciding whether drones are appropriate for specific aerial wildlife monitoring scenarios and if so, in designing robust surveys.

Keywords: Population estimation; Agent-based model; Count bias; Unoccupied aircraft system (UAS); Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); Remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS); Sampling error (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380025002212
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:508:y:2025:i:c:s0304380025002212

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2025.111235

Access Statistics for this article

Ecological Modelling is currently edited by Brian D. Fath

More articles in Ecological Modelling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().