Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Scaring of wildlife is commonly used in attempts to reduce crop damage in agricultural landscapes, but relatively few studies exist on its actual effect. We tracked GPS‐tagged greylag geese (Anser anser) in south‐central Sweden, before and after scaring by approaching them either by walking or by drone. On the field level, we studied the scaring effect by estimating return rate to the field where scared. On the landscape level, we tested if geese were less prone to use agricultural fields after being scared. Geese immediately left the field when scared and 5 min later they were on average 990 m (±56 SE) from the scaring position. The proportion of GPS positions near the scaring position decreased significantly for at least 4 h after scaring. Geese showed a significant shift from agricultural fields to wetland habitats the first 4 h after scaring. However, the effect of scaring soon levelled off; after 24 h the field where scaring had occurred was used to the same extent as any other field in the landscape, and agricultural fields were used to the same extent by scared and undisturbed geese. We did not find any differences in response depending on scaring technique. The probability to return and use agricultural fields after scaring was higher for geese scared in the morning compared to in the afternoon. Moreover, the probability to return and use of agricultural fields were higher in spring than in other seasons. Practical implication. We found that scared geese tend to visit agricultural fields soon after scaring and that scaring alone tends ‘to move the problem around’. This suggests that scaring needs to be repeated across the landscape, but also that accommodation fields where geese do not cause damage may be needed to keep geese off conventional fields. However, our study presents a glimpse of promise as the rather simple drone used covers large areas quickly and minimizes walking in growing crops. With technological advancement and possible autonomous techniques, drones may be capable of providing repeated scaring over large areas in the future.
Scaring of wildlife is commonly used in attempts to reduce crop damage in agricultural landscapes, but relatively few studies exist on its actual effect. We tracked GPS‐tagged greylag geese (Anser anser) in south‐central Sweden, before and after scaring by approaching them either by walking or by drone. On the field level, we studied the scaring effect by estimating return rate to the field where scared. On the landscape level, we tested if geese were less prone to use agricultural fields after being scared. Geese immediately left the field when scared and 5 min later they were on average 990 m (±56 SE) from the scaring position. The proportion of GPS positions near the scaring position decreased significantly for at least 4 h after scaring. Geese showed a significant shift from agricultural fields to wetland habitats the first 4 h after scaring. However, the effect of scaring soon levelled off; after 24 h the field where scaring had occurred was used to the same extent as any other field in the landscape, and agricultural fields were used to the same extent by scared and undisturbed geese. We did not find any differences in response depending on scaring technique. The probability to return and use agricultural fields after scaring was higher for geese scared in the morning compared to in the afternoon. Moreover, the probability to return and use of agricultural fields were higher in spring than in other seasons. Practical implication. We found that scared geese tend to visit agricultural fields soon after scaring and that scaring alone tends ‘to move the problem around’. This suggests that scaring needs to be repeated across the landscape, but also that accommodation fields where geese do not cause damage may be needed to keep geese off conventional fields. However, our study presents a glimpse of promise as the rather simple drone used covers large areas quickly and minimizes walking in growing crops. With technological advancement and possible autonomous techniques, drones may be capable of providing repeated scaring over large areas in the future.
Agroecosystems are experiencing a biodiversity crisis. Biodiversity monitoring is needed to inform conservation, but existing monitoring schemes lack standardisation and are biased towards birds, insects and plants. Automated monitoring techniques offer a promising solution, but while passive acoustic monitoring and remote sensing are increasingly used, the potential of camera traps (CTs) in farmland remains underexplored. We reviewed CT publications from the last 30 years and found only 59 articles that sampled farmland habitats in Europe. The main research topics addressed management or (avian) conservation issues, such as monitoring wildlife‐livestock interactions, nest predation, and the use of feeders and water troughs. Fewer studies employed landscape‐wide approaches to investigate species' habitat use or activity patterns over large agricultural areas. We discuss existing barriers to a more widespread use of CTs in farmland and suggest strategies to overcome them: boxed CTs tailored for small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, perch‐mounted CTs for raptor monitoring and time‐lapse imagery can help in overcoming the technical challenges of monitoring (small) elusive species in open habitats where misfires and missed detections are more frequent. Such approaches would also expand the taxonomic coverage of farmland monitoring schemes towards under‐surveyed species and species groups. Moreover, the engagement of farmers in CT‐based biodiversity monitoring programmes and advances in computer vision for image classification provide opportunities for low‐cost, broad‐scale and automated monitoring schemes. Research priorities that could be tackled through such CT applications include basic science topics such as unravelling animal space use in agricultural landscapes, and how this is influenced by varying agricultural practices. Management‐related research priorities relate to crop damage and livestock predation by wildlife, disease transmission between wildlife and livestock, effects of agrochemicals on wildlife, and the monitoring and assessment of conservation measures. Altogether, CTs hold great, yet unexplored, potential to advance agroecological research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.