Comparison of thermal cameras and human observers to estimate population density of fallow deer (Dama dama) from aerial surveys in Tasmania, Australia

Comparison of thermal cameras and human observers to estimate population density of fallow deer (Dama dama) from aerial surveys in Tasmania, Australia

Context
The population of introduced fallow deer (Dama dama) is thought to have increased exponentially across much of the island of Tasmania, Australia, since 2000. Historically, deer management decisions have relied on population trend data from vehicular spotlight surveys. Renewed focus on the contemporary management of the species requires development of more robust and precise population estimation methodology.

Aims
This study demonstrates two aerial survey methods – conventional counts by trained human observers, and thermal imaging footage recorded during the same flights – to inform future survey practices.

Methods
Conventional counts were carried out by three observers, two seated on the left side of the helicopter, and one on the right. A high-resolution thermal camera was fitted to the helicopter and was orientated to meet the assumptions of distance sampling methodologies. Both survey methods were used to generate deer population density estimates. Spatial distribution of deer was also analysed in relation to patches of remnant native vegetation across an agricultural landscape. Mark–recapture distance sampling was used to estimate density from human observer counts and provide a comparison to the distance sampling estimates derived from the thermal camera.

Key results
Human observer counts gave a density estimate of 2.7 deer per km2, while thermal camera counts provided an estimate of 2.8 deer per km2. Deer population density estimates calculated via both methods were similar, but variability of the thermal camera estimate (coefficient of variation (CV) of 36%) was unacceptably high. Human observer data was within acceptable bounds of variability (CV, 19%). The estimated population size in central and north-eastern Tasmania for 2019 approximated 53,000 deer. Deer were primarily congregated within 200 metres of the interface between canopy cover and open pasture.

Conclusions
The population density estimate provides a baseline for monitoring and managing the Tasmanian deer population. Human observer data was more precise than thermal camera data in this study, but thermal counts could be improved by reducing sources of variability.

Implications
Improvements for the collection of thermal imagery are recommended. Future control efforts may be more efficient if they preferentially target habitat edges at this time of year, paired with random or grid-based searches where population density is lower.