Quantifying Waterfowl Numbers: Comparison of Drone and Ground-Based Survey Methods for Surveying Waterfowl on Artificial Waterbodies

Drones are becoming a common method for surveying wildlife as they offer an aerial perspective of the landscape. For waterbirds in particular, drones can overcome challenges associated with surveying locations not accessible on foot. With the rapid uptake of drone technology for bird surveys, there is a need to compare and calibrate new technologies with existing survey methods. We compared waterfowl counts derived from ground- and drone-based survey methods. We sought to determine if group size and waterbody size influenced the difference between counts of non-nesting waterfowl and if detection of species varied between survey methods. Surveys of waterfowl were carried out at constructed irrigation dams and wastewater treatment ponds throughout the Riverina region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Data were analyzed using Bayesian multilevel models (BMLM) with weakly informative priors. Overall, drone-derived counts of waterfowl were greater (+36%) than ground counts using a spotting scope (beta_ground= 0.64 [0.62-0.66], (R-2 = 0.973)). Ground counts also tended to underestimate the size of groups. Waterbody size had an effect on comparative counts, with ground counts being proportionally less than drone counts (mean = 0.74). The number of species identified in each waterbody type was similar regardless of survey method. Drone-derived counts are more accurate compared to traditional ground counts, but drones do have some drawbacks including initial equipment costs and time-consuming image or photo processing. Future surveys should consider using drones for more accurately surveying waterbirds, especially when large groups of birds are present on larger waterbodies.

Automated summary

The study found that using drones for waterbird surveys can provide more accurate results compared to traditional ground counts, but drones also have drawbacks such as high initial equipment costs and time-consuming image processing. The research also showed that ground counts tend to underestimate group size, and waterbody size has an impact on comparative counts.