Comparison of Methods for Estimating Damage by Wild Ungulates on Field Crops

Jakub Drimaj (), Vlastimil Skoták, Jiří Kamler, Radim Plhal, Zdeněk Adamec, Ondřej Mikulka and Přemysl Janata
Additional contact information
Jakub Drimaj: Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
Vlastimil Skoták: Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
Jiří Kamler: Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
Radim Plhal: Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
Zdeněk Adamec: Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
Ondřej Mikulka: Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
Přemysl Janata: The Krkonoše Mountains National Park Administration, Dobrovského 3, 54301 Vrchlabí, Czech Republic

Agriculture, 2023, vol. 13, issue 6, 1-11

Abstract: High numbers of large ungulates are locally accompanied by high levels of damage to field crops, causing economic losses and increased costs for the protection of agricultural fields. Quantifying the levels of damage can be problematic, with the degree of accuracy depending on the method used. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, workload and cost of four methods commonly used for estimating damage to wheat fields caused by large ungulates (esp. wild boar) in the Czech Republic. The results suggest that the manual processing of aerial photographs (“Uncrewed Aerial Systems [UAS] with Operator Delineation Method”) was very laborious and the least accurate method, with a high risk of error. In comparison, the automatic evaluation of aerial images (“UAS Crop Height Method”) and the “Ground-Based Assessment” both provided similar results when carefully analyzed and were equally demanding. The “Yield Method”, comparing the net yield from damaged and undamaged areas, provided the same result of assessment and was the least laborious, although it does require the existence of comparable areas and for the conditions to be created in advance before the method is used. Equivalent results were achieved by the UAS Crop Height Method, which we recommend using in cases where the Yield Method cannot be applied.

Keywords: crop yields; wheat; wildlife damage; Uncrewed Aerial Systems; drone (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/6/1184/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/6/1184/ (text/html)

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:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:6:p:1184-:d:1162545

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture is currently edited by Ms. Leda Xuan

More articles in Agriculture from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().