[en] Damage caused by ungulates to agricultural areas are difficult to evaluate because the real extent of the damage remains usually poorly described and potentially arising conflicts. Recent advances in unmanned aerial system (UAS) provide new versatile mapping and quantification possibilities in a wide range of applications.
We used crop fields (Zea mays) damaged by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and compared the extent of the damage by means of three methods: i) traditional ground-based assessment ii) UAS orthoimages with operator delineation and iii) UAS Crop Height Model with automatic delineation based on height threshold.
We showed for the first time that UAS could be applied for assessing damage of ungulates to agriculture. The two methods using UAS imagery provide coherent and satisfactory results and trended to underestimate the damage area when compared to in-use ground-based field expertise. However we suggest that performance of UAS should further be tested in variable conditions in order to assess the broad application of this tool.
Our study describes the potential of UAS as a tool for estimating more accurately the damage area and subsequently the compensation costs for wildlife damage. The proposed approach can come in support of local and regional policies for the definitions of compensation for farmers.
Disciplines :
Environmental sciences & ecology
Author, co-author :
Michez, Adrien ; Université de Liège > Ingénierie des biosystèmes (Biose) > Gestion des ressources forestières et des milieux naturels
Morelle, Kevin
Lehaire, François
Widar, Jérôme
Authelet, Manon ; Université de Liège > Ingénierie des biosystèmes (Biose) > Laboratoire de Foresterie des régions trop. et subtropicales
Vermeulen, Cédric ; Université de Liège > Ingénierie des biosystèmes (Biose) > Laboratoire de Foresterie des régions trop. et subtropicales
Lejeune, Philippe ; Université de Liège > Ingénierie des biosystèmes (Biose) > Gestion des ressources forestières et des milieux naturels
Language :
English
Title :
Use of Unmanned Aerial System to assess wildlife (Sus scrofa) damage to crops (Zea mays)
Alternative titles :
[en] Utilisation des drones pour l'évaluation des dégâts de la faune (sanglier - Sus scrofa) à l'agriculture (maïs - Zea mays)
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
Anderson, K., and Gaston, K.J. 2013. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11: 138–146. doi: 10.1890/120150.
Anthony, D., Elbaum, S., Lorenz, A., and Detweiler, C. 2014. On crop height estimation with UAVs. In International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), 2014 IEEE/RSJ. IEEE. pp. 4805–4812.
Apollonio, M., Andersen, R., and Putman, R. 2010. European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Barrios-García, M.N., and Ballari, S.A. 2012. Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: A review. Biol. Invasions. 14: 2283–2300. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6.
Bendig, J., Bolten, A., and Bareth, G. 2013. UAV-based Imaging for Multi-Temporal, very high Resolution Crop Surface Models to monitor Crop Growth Variability Monitoring des Pflanzenwachstums mit Hilfe multitemporaler und hoch auflösender Oberflächenmodelle von Getreidebeständen auf Basis von Bildern aus UAV-Befliegungen. Photogrammetrie – Fernerkundung – Geoinformation. 2013: 551–562. doi: 10.1127/1432-8364/2013/0200.
Bendig, J., Bolten, A., Bennertz, S., Broscheit, J., Eichfuss, S., and Bareth, G. 2014. Estimating biomass of barley using crop surface models (CSMs) derived from UAV-based RGB imaging. Rem. Sens. 6(11): 10395–10412.
Bieber, C., and Ruf, T. 2005. Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: Ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers. J. Appl. Ecol. 42: 1203–1213. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01094.x.
Christiansen, P., Steen, K.A., Jørgensen, R.N., and Karstoft, H. 2014. Automated detection and recognition of wildlife using thermal cameras. Sensors. 14: 13778–13793.
Clark, W., and Young, R. 1986. Crop damage by small mammals in no-till cornfields. J. Soil. Water. Conservat. 41: 338–341.
DeHaven, R., and Hothem, R. 1979. Procedure for visually estimating bird damage to grapes. In Vertebrate pest control and management materials. ASTM International. Available from: http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP34974S.htm.
Delcour, A., Van Stappen, F., Gheysens, S., Decruyenaere, V., Stilmant, D., Burny, P., Rabier, F., Louppe, H., and Goffart, J.-P. 2014. État des lieux des flux céréaliers en Wallonie selon différentes filières d’utilisation. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 18(2), 181.
Drobyshev, I., Niklasson, M., Mazerolle, M.J., and Bergeron, Y. 2014. Reconstruction of a 253-year long mast record of European beech reveals its association with large scale temperature variability and no long-term trend in mast frequencies. Agr. Forest. Meteorol. 192–193: 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.02.010.
Fickel, J., and Reinsch, A. 2000. Microsatellite markers for the European Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Mol. Ecol. 9: 994–995. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00939-2.x.
Forchhammer, M.C., Stenseth, N.C., Post, E., and Landvatn, R. 1998. Population dynamics of Norwegian red deer: Density–depen-dence and climatic variation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond B. Biol. Sci. 265: 341–350. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0301.
Gabrey, S.W., Vohs, P.A., and Jackson, D.H. 1993. Perceived and real crop damage by wild turkeys in northeastern Iowa. Wildl. Soc. Bull (1973–2006). 21: 39–45.
Getzin, S., Wiegand, K., and Schöning, I. 2012. Assessing biodiversity in forests using very high‐resolution images and unmanned aerial vehicles. Meth. Ecol. Evol. 3: 397–404. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00158.x.
Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., et al. 2013. High-Resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science. 342: 850–853. doi: 10.1126/science.1244693.
Herrero, J., García-Serrano, A., Couto, S., Ortuño, V.M., and García-González, R. 2006. Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa L. and crop damage in an intensive agroecosystem. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 52: 245–250. doi: 10.1007/s10344-006-0045-3.
Hewison, A.J.M., Vincent, J.P., Joachim, J., Angibault, J.M., Cargnelutti, B., and Cibien, C. 2001. The effect of woodland fragmentation and human activity on roe deer distribution in agricultural landscape. Can. J. Zool. 79: 679–689. doi: 10.1139/z01-032.
Honkavaara, E., Saari, H., Kaivosoja, J., Pölönen, I., Hakala, T., Litkey, P., Mäkynen, J., and Pesonen, L. 2013. Processing and assessment of spectrometric, stereoscopic imagery collected using a lightweight UAV spectral camera for precision agriculture. Rem. Sens. 5: 5006–5039. doi: 10.3390/rs5105006.
Huang, Y., Thomson, S.J., Hoffmann, W.C., Lan, Y., and Fritz, B.K. 2013. Development and prospect of unmanned aerial vehicle technologies for agricultural production management. Int. J. Agr. Biol. Eng. 6(2013): 1–10.
Israel, M. 2011. A UAV-based roe deer fawn detection system. Int. Arch. Photogram. Rem. Sens. 38: 1–5.
Jarnemo, A. 2002. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus fawns and mowing – Mortality rates and countermeasures. Wildl. Biol. 8: 211–218.
Jongman, R.H.G. 2002. Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: Ecological consequences and solutions. Landsc. Urban Plann. 58: 211–221. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00222-5.
Keuling, O., Stier, N., and Roth, M. 2009. Commuting, shifting or remaining?: Different spatial utilisation patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest and field crops during summer. Mammalian Biol. 74: 145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2008.05.007.
Koh, L.P., and Wich, S.A. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: Low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5: 121–132. doi: 10.1177/194008291200500202.
Linchant, J., Lisein, J., Semeki, J., Lejeune, P., and Vermeulen, C. 2015. Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mammal Rev. 45: 239–252. doi: 10.1111/mam.12046.
Michez, A., Piégay, H., Lisein, J., Claessens, H., and Lejeune, P. 2016. Classification of riparian forest species and health condition using multi-temporal and hyperspatial imagery from unmanned aerial system. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 188: 146. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-4996-2.
Milner, J.M., Van Beest, F.M., Schmidt, K.T., Brook, R.K., and Storaas, T. 2014. To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J. Wildl. Manage. 78: 1322–1334. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.798.
Morelle, K., and Lejeune, P. 2014. Seasonal variations of wild boar Sus scrofa distribution in agricultural landscapes: A species distribution modelling approach. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 61: 45–56. doi: 10.1007/s10344-014-0872-6.
Morelle, K., Fattebert, J., Mengal, C., and Lejeune, P. 2016. Invading or recolonizing? Patterns and drivers of wild boar population expansion into Belgian agroecosystems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 222: 267–275.
Navarro, L.M., and Pereira, H.M. 2012. Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems. 15: 900–912. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7.
Public Service of Wallonia, 2016. Géoportail wallon. Available from http://geoportail.wallonie.be
Putman, R., and Apollonio, M. 2014. Behaviour and management of European ungulates. Whittles Publishing, UK.
Putman, R., Apollonio, M., and Andersen, R. (Eds.), 2011. Ungulate management in Europe: Problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Schley, L., and Roper, T.J. 2003. Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Rev. 33: 43–56. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00010.x.
Schley, L., Dufrêne, M., Krier, A., and Frantz, A.C. 2008. Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 54(4): 589–599.
Szemethy, L., Mátrai, K., Bíró, Z., and Katona, K. 2003. Seasonal home range shift of red deer in a forest-agriculture area in southern Hungary. Acta Theriol. 48: 547–556. doi: 10.1007/BF03192500.
Vetter, S.G., Ruf, T., Bieber, C., and Arnold, W. 2015. What is a mild winter? Regional differences in within-species responses to climate change. PLoS One. 10: e0132178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132178.
Widar, J. 2011. Les dégâts de la faune sauvage en zone agricole: Identification, prévention, gestion et indemnisation, Les livrets de l’agriculture. Namur: Service Public de Wallonie.
Zhang, L., and Grift, T.E. 2012. A LIDAR-based crop height measurement system for Miscanthus giganteus. Comput. Electron. Agr. 85: 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2012.04.001.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.
