Suchergebnisse

Context Manned aerial surveys are an expensive endeavour, which is one of the core reasons for insufficient data coverage on wildlife monitoring in many regions. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be a valid, cost-efficient alternative, but the application of UAVs also comes with challenges. Aim In this explorative simulation study, our aim was to develop an efficient layout of UAV surveys that could potentially overcome challenges related to double counts of individuals and even area coverage, and that would minimise off-effort travel costs. Methods Based on different simulated survey layouts we developed hypothetically for the Katavi National Park in Tanzania, we quantified the advantages that UAVs might offer. We then compared these findings with manned aerial surveys. Key results The proposed new survey design and layout indicated an increase in survey efficiency of up to 21% when compared with conventional survey designs using parallel transect lines. Despite the complex flight pattern, the accuracy of the flight paths of the UAV outcompeted those of manned aerial surveys. The adapted survey layout enabled a team of two operators with a small battery-powered UAV to cover an area of up to 1000 km2 per day, without specific infrastructural requirements. Conclusion Our calculations may serve as a vital spark for innovation for future UAV survey designs that may have to deal with large areas and complex topographies while reducing operational effort. Implications UAV applications, if well designed, provide useful complementation, if not replacement, for manned aerial surveys and other remotely sensed data collections. Our suggested survey design is transferable to other study regions, and may be useful for applying UAVs efficiently.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now. ; Peer reviewed

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now. ; peerReviewed