Translator Disclaimer
1 September 2007 Aerial Surveys Vs Hunting Statistics To Monitor Deer Density: The Example Of Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Cervid densities have recently increased in many parts of North America and Europe. To design sustainable harvesting strategies, a good understanding of deer population dynamics and reliable estimates of population densities are required. This is especially true on Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada, where sport hunting is the main source of income, and where long-lasting impacts of white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus on the forest ecosystem have been reported due to high deer densities. We compared white-tailed deer densities estimated in 2001 on the basis of an extensive aerial survey of 512 plots, each 3.5 km long by 60 m wide, with indices based on hunting statistics in 24 hunting zones on the island. We found a positive correlation between the number of deer seen per hunter day and the density of deer estimated by the aerial survey, but this correlation was highly influenced by the four locations with the highest densities of deer. We detected no significant correlation between deer density estimated by the aerial survey within each hunting zone and the number of deer harvested per hunter day. Our results underline the need for comparative studies addressing the validity of density indices based on hunting statistics to monitor variations in cervid population numbers.

A major goal for successful management of hunted populations is to define harvesting strategies that are accepted by everyone, sustainable, not leading to instabilities or extinctions, and that optimize annual yield, with as little variation among years as possible (Lande et al. 1995, Sutherland 2001). Requirements for such successful strategies include a good understanding of deer population dynamics and a need for reliable estimates of population densities.

Estimating density of cervids is a hard task, and several methods have been developed to cope with it (Caughley 1977, Seber 1982, 1992). A distinction is generally made between methods aiming at monitoring trends in population sizes and methods designed to provide absolute values of population sizes (Seber 1992), although the distinction is not always clear (see e.g. Marques et al. 2001). There is no consensus on the use of one particular approach, and the choice of method is generally a function of area considered, questions asked, species under study, structure of the landscape, budget and number of people that could be involved in the monitoring (Rabe et al. 2002).

To provide accurate estimates of the population sizes of large animals ranging over extensive areas (such as deer), aerial surveys are often the only practical way (Caughley & Sinclair 1994). They have been extensively used in Australia to monitor red kangaroo Macropus rufus (Cairns & Grigg 1993), in North America for elk Cervus elaphus, moose Alces alces and caribou Rangifer tarandus (Courtois et al. 1994, Couturier et al. 1996, Eberhardt et al. 1998), and in Africa to monitor ungulates such as wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus, zebra Equus burchelli, elephant Loxondonta africana or antelopes (e.g. Harrington et al. 1999, Mduma et al. 1999, Ogutu & Owen-Smith 2003).

There are, however, shortcomings associated with aerial surveys. First, one of the main challenges has been to improve accuracy, which is a measure of how close a population estimate is to the true population size. Underestimates are indeed the rule in aerial surveys (Caughley 1974). Some of the factors contributing to a negative bias in aerial surveys are vegetation cover, species surveyed, survey specifications (e.g. height above ground, speed and strip width), weather conditions, the number of observers and the observers' experience (e.g. Baylis & Giles 1985, Caughley & Sinclair 1994). The progress made to account for such biases has, however, largely contributed in making aerial surveys an efficient method to estimate population sizes over large areas (e.g. Potvin & Breton 2005).

Another challenge with aerial surveys is that they are expensive and, therefore, cannot generally be used for long-term monitoring. To monitor deer densities over large areas on a yearly time scale, typical alternatives include observation methods (e.g. Ericsson & Wallin 1999, Sylvén 2000) and use of hunting statistics. Many authors have indeed used hunting-based indices to estimate changes in population sizes (e.g. Grøtan et al. 2005, Pettorelli et al. 2005). Although it has been proposed that indices designed to monitor trends, such as hunting-based statistics, need to be calibrated before use (Seber 1992), few studies have confronted trend indices with more accurate estimates such as those obtained with capture-mark-recapture (CMR) methods or aerial surveys (but see Fuller 1991, Gaillard et al. 1996).

In this paper, we aim at comparing white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus densities estimated in 2001 by aerial surveys with hunting statistics in 24 hunting zones on Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada, to determine the potential of hunting statistics as a surrogate estimate of deer densities. The white-tailed deer population on Anticosti stems from the introduction of about 220 deer at the end of the 19th century. In the absence of predation, the population grew rapidly, and today deer density exceeds 20 deer/km2 locally (Potvin & Breton 2005). The high costs of aerial surveys urge wildlife managers to find reliable and less expensive alternatives.

Material and Methods

Study Area

Our study was conducted on Anticosti Island in Québec, Canada (49°28′N, 63°00′W), which covers an area of 7,943 km2. Forests are naturally dominated by balsam fir Abies balsamea, white spruce Picea glauca and black spruce P. mariana. White birch Betula papyrifera and trembling aspen Populus tremoloides are irregularly found on the island. The climate is maritime and is characterized by long, mild winters. Mean temperatures are -11°C in January and 15°C in July, snow precipitation averages 327 cm annually and rainfall 610 mm (Environment Canada 1982).

Data

Hunting Statistics

White-tailed deer hunting on Anticosti Island takes place during 1 August-24 December; during August, only antlered individuals can be hunted, whereas all sex and age classes can be harvested from 1 September onwards. The average area of the 24 hunting zones is 287 km2, ranging from 77 to 956 km2. The number of hunter days (Ericsson & Wallin 1999, Sylvén 2000) varied from 209 to 2,073 among the hunting zones, and this measure of effort positively correlated with the size of the hunting zone (N  =  24, r  =  0.94, P < 0.001). The numbers of deer harvested per hunter day and deer seen per hunter day were available for 24 hunting zones on the Island in 2001 (covering a total area of 6,899 km2).

Aerial Survey

The Anticosti Island was surveyed using the double-count technique during 13-24 August 2001 (Rochette et al. 2003, Potvin et al. 2004). Two observers took place on the left side of a helicopter, one in front and one in the rear, and a navigator sat in the back-right seat. The observers counted white-tailed deer between 0 (vertical) and a maximum angle of 45°, delimited by aligning a mark on the window and one on an outside rod attached to the front of the helicopter (see Fig. 2 in Potvin et al. 2004). The altitude was checked using a radar altimeter and was maintained at 60 m above ground level, and the speed was kept from 70 to 100 km/hour. A Global positioning satellite system (GPS) was used to follow a north-south or south-north direction on flight lines spaced at 2.5′ of longitude (about 3,125 m). Survey plots, each 3.5 km long, were systematically distributed along survey lines, with 1.5-km spacing between two consecutive plots. Two different communication systems were used between the observers and the navigator to ensure independent counts. The navigator tallied information (number of deer seen and their activity) separately for each observer on a 1:20,000 map at the location where the group was reported. A total of 607 plots (of which 512 were considered for this study), each 3.5 km long and 60 m wide, were surveyed over the whole island, and 1,772 deer were seen. The average accuracy of this aerial survey technique was recently evaluated on Anticosti Island to be 65% (Potvin & Breton 2005). Densities per plot were estimated using the CERF Software (Rochette et al. 2003), and we averaged density per hunting zone. There were on average 20 ± 14 aerial survey plots per hunting zone.

Analyses

We linked our data at the minimal common spatial unit, i.e. at the hunting zone scale (N  =  24). We used Linear Models (LM) to analyse correlations between the density estimated by the aerial survey and indices derived from the hunting statistics (i.e. the number of deer seen and the number of deer harvested per hunter day). All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package R (Crawley 2005).

Results

Aerial Survey and Number of Deer Seen

The number of deer seen per hunter day ranged from 3 to 24 individuals (mean  =  11.7 ± 5.0) in the different hunting zones. We found a nearly-significant and positive correlation between the number of deer seen and the density of deer estimated by the aerial survey (N  =  24, r  =  0.37, P  =  0.07; Fig. 1). The correlation was mainly due to the four locations with the highest densities of deer. If the four points are removed, the correlation remains positive but not significant (N  =  20, r  =  0.29, P  =  0.21).

Figure 1

Relationship between white-tailed deer density (deer/km2) estimated by helicopter surveys and number of deer seen per hunter day on Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada, with standard deviations associated with the aerial survey estimates provided.

i0909-6396-13-3-321-f01.gif

Figure 2

Relationship between white-tailed deer density (deer/km2) estimated by helicopter surveys and the number of deer harvested per hunter day on Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada.

i0909-6396-13-3-321-f02.gif

Aerial Survey and Number of Deer Harvested

In 2001, the number of deer harvested per hunting zone ranged from 136 to 1,263 individuals, and the number of deer harvested per hunter day was 0.3-0.7. The density estimated by the aerial survey ranged from 6.1 to 33.8 individuals/km2. We found no significant correlation between the deer density estimated by the aerial survey and the number of deer harvested per hunter day (N  =  24, r  =  0.08, P  =  0.70; Fig. 2).

Discussion

Wildlife managers and scientists often assume that indices derived from hunting statistics can provide useful information to monitor variations in ungulate population sizes (e.g. Swihart et al. 1998, Solberg et al. 2004). Our study, however, demonstrates that this assumption is not always valid and seems to be dependent on deer density. The number of deer seen per hunter day appeared to be more informative in our area than the number of deer harvested. At < 20 deer/km2, however, the correlation became weak (see Fig. 1), which indicates that hunting-based statistics capture large spatial variations in density, but are imprecise at average and low deer densities.

Although we only had one year of data, we used a large area representing 24 hunting zones covering around 7,000 km2, with estimated densities ranging from 6 to 33 deer/km2. But, can we trust our approach and the assumption that aerial survey estimates are of higher quality than indices derived from hunting statistics? Aerial surveys can be affected by problems such as observer bias and experience, double counting, limited sightability and sex differences in sightability (Caughley 1974, Routledge 1981, Samuel & Pollock 1981, Pollock & Kendall 1987, Samuel et al. 1992, McCorquodale 2001). Biases in helicopter surveys can also result from extraneous sources of variability, such as speed and altitude effects, and sampling intensity (DeYoung 1985, Beasom et al. 1986, Shupe & Beasom 1987). However, most of these effects have been accounted for in our survey which had an accuracy of 65% (Rochette et al. 2003, Potvin & Breton 2005).

The Anticosti Island may represent a particular case. Quotas are fixed at two deer per permit and two permits per hunter visit. However, most hunters only buy one either-sex permit, which may influence the relationship between number of animals harvested and density estimates obtained from the aerial survey. Infrastructures of outfitters are the main factor limiting the number of hunters per zone, but the occurrence of infrastructures is not expected to be linked to deer densities, although we found a good correlation between the number of hunter days and the size of the hunting zones. Another point is that some hunters benefit from professional local guides, who generally highly improve hunter success. The experience of a guide operating in a specific hunting zone may therefore be a source of bias. Finally, standard errors in aerial survey estimates are high at the hunting-zone scale (see Fig. 1). All these factors could presumably affect the strength of the relationship between the number of deer estimated by the aerial survey and hunting statistics.

Catch (or observations) per unit (CPU) effort indices, such as the number of deer seen per hunter day, are sensitive to a number of factors, including hunting effort or scale of hunting zones (Sylvén 2000). The number of observations made from a few days of hunting might indeed provide a less precise and stable index than if made during a higher number of hunter days. Moreover, the correlation between the actual density and CPU effort indices is expected to increase with the size of the sampling area; a minimum size of 500 km2 has been previously suggested (Sylvén 2000). Only three out of the 24 hunting zones on Anticosti Island exceeded 500 km2. Our measure of effort (number of hunter days) highly correlated with the size of the hunting zone, although both parameters varied greatly. This high variability, associated with the variability in habitat characteristics, might also influence the strength of the relationship between the number of deer seen per hunter day and density estimated by the aerial survey.

Our findings have implications at multiple scales. At the scale of the island, our results suggest that, as for now, there seems to be no real alternative to expensive aerial surveys to provide reliable estimates of deer densities. We have data of only one aerial survey for the whole island, and there are no other indices at the scale of the island against which the estimates from the aerial surveys could be compared. Body masses of harvested individuals, for example, have not been monitored regularly and are difficult to obtain at the scale of the island. The only time series existing at the scale of the island are the hunting based indices, which prove here to provide limited information on deer densities. Our results obtained with the number of deer seen per hunter day, however, are encouraging and in accordance with results from Scandinavia (Ericsson & Wallin 1999). Wildlife managers for Anticosti Island are, nevertheless, left without any precise and confirmed reliable annual monitoring tool, even though deer-density variations affect the outcome of most residents and outfitters of the island, and the high deer density reached nowadays affects the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of the island (Côté 2005, Tremblay et al. 2005, Pellerin et al. 2006).

At the international scale, our results strongly encourage comparative studies to assess the validity of hunting-based statistics to estimate cervid density. We need to know whether the situation on Anticosti Island is common or an exception. Clearly, scientists and wildlife managers cannot use hunting statistics as a surrogate of density and assume that they are reliable without first testing this assumption. This is particularly important considering the growing use of hunting statistics to estimate ungulate density in ecological studies (e.g. Swihart et al. 1998, Solberg et al. 2004, Grøtan et al. 2005, Pettorelli et al. 2005). In many locations experiencing ecological problems associated with deer overabundance (Côté et al. 2004), there is still no effective monitoring program launched or available monitoring tool to obtain reliable estimates of ungulate densities.

Acknowledgments

we thank the outfitters on Anticosti Island for help with recording hunting statistics and J-P. Tremblay for ideas, comments and suggestions on previous drafts of this work. Funding for the aerial survey was provided by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec and Nathalie Pettorelli was supported by the Chaire de recherche industrielle CRSNG-Produits forestiers Anticosti.

References

1.

P. Baylis and J. Giles . 1985. Factors affecting the visibility of kangaroos counted during aerial surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:686–692. Google Scholar

2.

S. L. Beasom, F. G. Leon, and D. R. Synatzske . 1986. Accuracy and precision of counting white-tailed deer with helicopters at different sampling intensities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:363–368. Google Scholar

3.

S. C. Cairns and G. C. Grigg . 1993. Population dynamics of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) in relation to rainfall in the South Australian pastoral zone. Journal of Applied Ecology 30:444–458. Google Scholar

4.

G. Caughley 1974. Bias in aerial survey. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:921–933. Google Scholar

5.

G. Caughley 1977. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. John Wiley & Sons. London. pp. Google Scholar

6.

G. Caughley and A. R. E. Sinclair . 1994. Wildlife ecology and management. Blackwell Science. Cambridge, United Kingdom. pp. Google Scholar

7.

S. D. Côté, T. P. Rooney, J. P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D. M. Waller . 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:113–147. Google Scholar

8.

S. D. Côté 2005. Extirpation of a large black bear population by introduced white-tailed deer. Conservation Biology 19:1668–1671. Google Scholar

9.

R. Courtois, Y. Leblanc, J. Maltais, and H. Crépeau . 1994. Québec moose aerial surveys: methods to estimate population characteristics and improved sampling strategies. Alces 30:159–171. Google Scholar

10.

S. Couturier, R. Courtois, H. Crépeau, L. P. Rivest, and S. Luttich . 1996. Calving photocensus of the Rivière George caribou herd and comparison with an independent census. Rangifer, Special Issue 9:283–296. Google Scholar

11.

M. J. Crawley 2005. Statistics: an Introduction R. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. Google Scholar

12.

C. A. DeYoung 1985. Accuracy of helicopter surveys of deer in South Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:146–149. Google Scholar

13.

L. L. Eberhardt, R. A. Garrott, P. J. White, and P. J. Gogan . 1998. Alternative approaches to aerial censuring of elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1046–1055. Google Scholar

14.

Environment Canada 1982. Canadian climate normals, temperature and precipitations, 1951-1980, Québec. Atmospheric Environment Service. Ottawa, Ontario. pp. Google Scholar

15.

G. Ericsson and K. Wallin . 1999. Hunter observations as an index of moose Alces alces population parameters. Wildlife Biology 5:177–185. Google Scholar

16.

T. K. Fuller 1991. Do pellet counts index white-tailed deer numbers and population change? Journal of Wildlife Management 55:393–396. Google Scholar

17.

J-M. Gaillard, D. Delorme, J. M. Boutin, G. Van Laere, and B. Boisaubert . 1996. Body mass of roe deer fawns during winter in 2 contrasting populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:29–36. Google Scholar

18.

V. Grøtan, B-E. Sæther, S. Engen, E. J. Solberg, J. D. C. Linnell, R. Andersen, H. Brøseth, and E. Lund . 2005. Climate causes large-scale spatial synchrony in population fluctuations of a temperate herbivore. Ecology 86:1472–1482. Google Scholar

19.

R. Harrington, N. Owen Smith, P. C. Viljoen, H. C. Biggs, D. R. Mason, and P. J. Funston . 1999. Establishing the causes of the roan antelope decline in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Biological Conservation 90:69–78. Google Scholar

20.

R. Lande, S. Engen, and B-E. Sæther . 1995. Optimal harvesting of fluctuating populations with a risk of extinction. American Naturalist 145:728–745. Google Scholar

21.

F. F. C. Marques, S. T. Buckland, D. Goffin, C. E. Dixon, D. L. Borchers, B. A. Mayle, and A. J. Peace . 2001. Estimating deer abundance from line transect surveys of dung: sika deer in southern Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:349–363. Google Scholar

22.

S. M. McCorquodale 2001. Sex-specific bias in helicopter surveys of elk: sightability and dispersion effects. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:216–225. Google Scholar

23.

S. A. R. Mduma, A. R. E. Sinclair, and R. Hilborn . 1999. Food regulates the Serengeti wildebeest: a 40-year record. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:1101–1122. Google Scholar

24.

J. Ogutu and N. Owen-Smith . 2003. ENSO, rainfall and temperature influences on extreme population declines among African savannah ungulates. Ecology Letters 6:412–419. Google Scholar

25.

S. Pellerin, J. Huot, and S. D. Côté . 2006. Long term effects of deer browsing and trampling on the vegetation of peatlands. Biological Conservation 128:316–326. Google Scholar

26.

N. Pettorelli, A. Mysterud, N. G. Yoccoz, R. Langvatn, and N. C. Stenseth . 2005. Importance of climatological downscaling and plant phenology for red deer in heterogeneous landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 272:2357–2364. Google Scholar

27.

K. H. Pollock and W. L. Kendall . 1987. Visibility bias in aerial surveys: a review of estimation procedures. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:502–510. Google Scholar

28.

F. Potvin, L. Breton, and L-P. Rivest . 2004. Aerial surveys for white-tailed deer with the double-count technique in Québec: two 5-year plans completed. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1099–1107. Google Scholar

29.

F. Potvin and L. Breton . 2005. Testing two aerial survey techniques on deer in fenced enclosures - visual double-counts and thermal infrared sensing. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:317–325. Google Scholar

30.

M. J. Rabe, S. S. Rosenstock, and J. C. deVos . 2002. Review of big-game survey methods used by wildlife agencies of the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:46–52. Google Scholar

31.

B. Rochette, A. Gingras, and F. Potvin . 2003. Inventaire aérien du cerf de virginie de l'île d'Anticosti - été 2001 Rapport de la Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. pp. (In French).  Google Scholar

32.

R. D. Routledge 1981. The unreliability of population estimates from repeated, incomplete, aerial surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:997–1000. Google Scholar

33.

M. D. Samuel and K. H. Pollock . 1981. Correction of visibility bias in aerial surveys where animals occur in groups. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:993–997. Google Scholar

34.

M. D. Samuel, R. K. Steinhorst, E. O. Garton, and J. W. Unsworth . 1992. Estimation of wildlife population ratios incorporating survey design and visibility bias. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:718–725. Google Scholar

35.

G. A. F. Seber 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. 2nd edition. MacMillan. New York, USA. pp. Google Scholar

36.

G. A. F. Seber 1992. A review of estimating animal abundance II. International Statistical Review 60:129–166. Google Scholar

37.

T. E. Shupe and S. L. Beasom . 1987. Speed and altitude influences on helicopter surveys of mammals in brushland. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:552–555. Google Scholar

38.

E. J. Solberg, A. Loison, J-M. Gaillard, and M. Heim . 2004. Lasting effects of conditions at birth on moose body mass. Ecography 27:677–687. Google Scholar

39.

W. J. Sutherland 2001. Sustainable exploitation: a review of principles and methods. Wildlife Biology 7:131–140. Google Scholar

40.

R. K. Swihart, H. P. Weeks, A. L. Easter-Pilcher, and A. J. DeNicola . 1998. Nutritional condition and fertility of white-tailed deer from areas with contrasting histories of hunting. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1932–1941. Google Scholar

41.

S. Sylvén 2000. Effects of scale on hunter moose Alces alces observation rate. Wildlife Biology 6:157–165. Google Scholar

42.

J-P. Tremblay, I. Thibault, C. Dussault, J. Huot, and S. D. Côté . 2005. Long-term decline in white-tailed deer browse supply: can lichens and litterfall act as alternative food sources that preclude density-dependent feedbacks? Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1087–1096. Google Scholar
Nathalie Pettorelli, Steeve D. Côté, André Gingras, François Potvin, and Jean Huot "Aerial Surveys Vs Hunting Statistics To Monitor Deer Density: The Example Of Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada," Wildlife Biology 13(3), 321-327, (1 September 2007). https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[321:ASVHST]2.0.CO;2
Received: 20 January 2006; Accepted: 1 May 2006; Published: 1 September 2007
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top