Combinations of inexpensive methods can reduce monitoring costs substantially while yielding an equal or an increased performance.

Survey method choice for wildlife management: the case of moose Alces alces in Sweden

Johan Månsson, Cindy E. Hauser, Henrik Andrén & Hugh P. Possingham

Volumes / 2011 - Volume 17 / 2 / Wildlife Biology

Monitoring wildlife populations is sine qua non to determine whether management goals are achieved and to improve future decisions. Cost and accuracy of monitoring strategies weighs heavily while determining survey methods.

Here the researchers tested the relative performance of three survey methods: aerial survey, pellet-group counts and hunters’ observations, to get an idea about the management of Swedish moose Alces alces populations. 

Annual aerial survey was the most costly monitoring method (27,000€) and maintained the population within the desired range 72% of the time. The least expensive monitoring strategy (hunters’ observations; 1,600€) maintained the population within a desired range of 66% of the time. A combination of two relatively inexpensive survey methods (i.e. pellet-group counts and hunters’ observations; at an expense of 10,000€) maintained the population within the desired range in 76% of the simulated years.

A combination of annual pellet-group counts and hunters’ observations performed better than annual aerial surveys, but was considerably less expensive. 

The authors sign off with the following words” In wildlife management systems, where a variety of monitoring methods are used, the overall performance generally improves with monitoring expenditure, but very few studies explicitly account for expenditure. However, our study shows that combinations of inexpensive methods can reduce monitoring costs substantially while yielding an equal or an increased performance.”