Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:13:53.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing colonies of Antarctic shags by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2021

Christian Pfeifer Open the ORCID record for Christian Pfeifer [Opens in a new window] ,
Marie-Charlott Rümmler Open the ORCID record for Marie-Charlott Rümmler [Opens in a new window]  and
Osama Mustafa Open the ORCID record for Osama Mustafa [Opens in a new window]
Christian Pfeifer*
Affiliation:
Thuringian Institute of Sustainability and Climate Protection (ThINK), Leutragraben 1, 07743Jena, Germany
Marie-Charlott Rümmler
Affiliation:
Thuringian Institute of Sustainability and Climate Protection (ThINK), Leutragraben 1, 07743Jena, Germany
Osama Mustafa
Affiliation:
Thuringian Institute of Sustainability and Climate Protection (ThINK), Leutragraben 1, 07743Jena, Germany
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Due to the remote location of colonies of Antarctic shags (Phalacrocorax (atriceps) bransfieldensis) in Antarctica, there is only sparse data on the abundance of this species. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) survey for known and unknown Antarctic shag colonies along the coasts of Nelson Island and western King George Island, Antarctica, was conducted in December 2016. Four colonies, one of them previously unknown, were detected. For the first time since the 1980s, the total population size of the colonies in that area was determined. A comparison with previous estimates revealed evidence of a population increase by a factor of 2.86. To support future survey campaigns, several characteristic features of Antarctic shag colonies, nests and individuals in aerial imagery were identified. This makes possible more reliable detection and determination of population size in Antarctic shag colonies. These characteristic features were compared with those of chinstrap penguin colonies (Pygoscelis antarcticus) because these species often overlap spatially and are difficult to distinguish. In addition, the optimal weather conditions and flight parameters for an aerial survey were specified.

Keywords

abundancedronesKing George IslandmonitoringPhalacrocorax bransfieldensisshags
Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 133 - 149
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bayes, J.C., Dawson, M.J. & Potts, G.R. 1964. The food and feeding behaviour of the great skua in the Faroes. Bird Study, 11, 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borowicz, A., McDowall, P., Youngflesh, C., Sayre-McCord, T., Clucas, G., Herman, R., et al. 2018. Multi-modal survey of Adélie penguin mega-colonies reveals the Danger Islands as a seabird hotspot. Scientific Reports, 8, 10.1038/s41598-018-22313-w.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrascal, L.M., Moreno, J. & Amat, J.A. 1995. Nest maintenance and stone theft in the chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarctica). Polar Biology, 15, 10.1007/BF00239645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casanovas, P., Naveen, R., Forrest, S., Poncet, J. & Lynch, H.J. 2015. A comprehensive coastal seabird survey maps out the front lines of ecological change on the western Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology, 38, 10.1007/s00300-015-1651-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casaux, R. & Barrera-Oro, E. 2006. Shags in Antarctica: their feeding behaviour and ecological role in the marine food web. Antarctic Science, 18, 10.1017/S0954102006000010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CCAMLR. 2014. CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program: Standard Methods for Monitoring Studies. Hobart, Australia: Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.Google Scholar
Cook, T.R. & Leblanc, G. 2007. Why is wing-spreading behaviour absent in blue-eyed shags? Animal Behaviour, 74, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.11.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erfurt, J. & Grimm, H. 1990. Expeditionsbericht der 2. DDR-Antarktisexpedition, Überwinterungsteilnehmer an der 34. Sowjetischen Antarktisexpedition, Station “Bellingshausen” 1988–1990. Potsdam: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Goebel, M.E., Perryman, W.L., Hinke, J.T., Krause, D.J., Hann, N.A., Gardner, S. & LeRoi, D.J. 2015. A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biology, 38, 10.1007/s00300-014-1625-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C.M., Herata, H. & Hertel, F. 2019. Environmental guidelines for operation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS): Experience from Antarctica. Biological Conservation, 236, 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J.W. & Woehler, E.J. 2004. Can the Important Bird Area approach improve the Antarctic Protected Area System? Polar Record, 40, 10.1017/S0032247403003322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S., Quintana, F., Ciancio, J., Riccialdelli, L. & Raya Rey, A. 2016. Linking foraging behavior and diet in a diving seabird. Marine Ecology, 37, 10.1111/maec.12327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, G.R.W., Naveen, R., Schwaller, M., Che-Castaldo, C., McDowall, P., Schrimpf, M. & Lynch, H.J. 2017. Mapping Application for Penguin Populations and Projected Dynamics (MAPPPD): data and tools for dynamic management and decision support. Polar Record, 53, 10.1017/S0032247417000055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korczak-Abshire, M., Chwedorzewska, K., Karlsen, S.R. & Zmarz, A. 2017. Project MONICA “A novel approach to monitoring the impact of climate change on Antarctic ecosystems”. Warszawa: Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics PAS, 96 pp.Google Scholar
Korczak-Abshire, M., Zmarz, A., Rodzewicz, M., Kycko, M., Karsznia, I. & Chwedorzewska, K.J. 2019. Study of fauna population changes on Penguin Island and Turret Point Oasis (King George Island, Antarctica) using an unmanned aerial vehicle. Polar Biology, 42, 10.1007/s00300-018-2379-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobell, D.B. & Asner, G.P. 2002. Moisture effects on soil reflectance. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66, 10.2136/sssaj2002.7220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, D.G. 2004. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60, 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, H.J., Fagan, W.F., Naveen, R., Trivelpiece, S.G. & Trivelpiece, W.Z. 2009. Timing of clutch initiation in Pygoscelis penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula: towards an improved understanding of off-peak census correction factors. CCAMLR Science, 16, 149–165.Google Scholar
Lynch, H.J., Naveen, R. & Fagan, W.F. 2008. Censuses of penguin, blue-eyed shag Phalacrocorax atriceps and southern giant petrel Macronectes giganteus populations on the Antarctic Peninsula, 2001–2007. Marine Ornithology, 36, 83–97.Google Scholar
McDowall, P. & Lynch, H.J. 2017. Ultra-fine scale spatially-integrated mapping of habitat and occupancy using structure-from-motion. PloS one, 12, e0166773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mustafa, O., Barbosa, A., Krause, D.J., Peter, H.-U., Vieira, G. & Rümmler, M.-C. 2018. State of knowledge: Antarctic wildlife response to unmanned aerial systems. Polar Biology, 41, 10.1007/s00300-018-2363-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustafa, O., Braun, C., Esefeld, J., Knetsch, S., Maercker, J., Pfeifer, C. & Rümmler, M.-C. 2019. Detecting Antarctic seals and flying seabirds by UAV. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, IV-2/W5, 10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-W5-141-2019.Google Scholar
Mustafa, O., Esefeld, J., Grämer, H., Maercker, J., Rümmler, M.-C. & Pfeifer, C. 2017. Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data (002498/ENG). Dessau-Roßlau: German Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/monitoring-penguin-colonies-in-the-antarctic-using [Accessed 20 June 2017].Google Scholar
Oosthuizen, W.C., Krüger, L., Jouanneau, W. & Lowther, A.D. 2020. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) survey of the Antarctic shag (Leucocarbo bransfieldensis) breeding colony at Harmony Point, Nelson Island, South Shetland Islands. Polar Biology, 43, 10.1007/s00300-019-02616-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, C., Barbosa, A., Mustafa, O., Peter, H.-U., Rümmler, M.-C. & Brenning, A. 2019. Using fixed-wing UAV for detecting and mapping the distribution and abundance of penguins on the South Shetlands Islands, Antarctica. Drones, 3, 10.3390/drones3020039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R.A., Silk, J.R.D., Massey, A. & Hughes, K.A. 2019. Surveys reveal increasing and globally important populations of south polar skuas and Antarctic shags in Ryder Bay (Antarctic Peninsula). Polar Biology, 42, 10.1007/s00300-018-2432-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
QGIS.org. 2020. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.orgGoogle Scholar
Rees, W.G., Brown, J.A., Fretwell, P.T. & Trathan, P.N. 2017. What colour is penguin guano? Antarctic Science, 29, 10.1017/S0954102017000190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J.A. & Jia, X. 2006. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: an introduction. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 10.1007/3-540-29711-1.Google Scholar
Schrimpf, M., Naveen, R. & Lynch, H.J. 2018. Population status of the Antarctic shag Phalacrocorax (atriceps) bransfieldensis. Antarctic Science, 30, 10.1017/S0954102017000530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuckard, R., Melville, D.S. & Taylor, G. 2015. Population and breeding census of New Zealand king shag (Leucocarbo carunculatus) in 2015. Notornis, 62, 209–218.Google Scholar
Shirihai, H. & Kirwan, G.M. 2007. A complete guide to Antarctic wildlife: the birds and marine mammals of the Antarctic continent and the Southern Ocean, 2nd ed. London: A & C Black, 544 pp.Google Scholar
Shuford, W.D. & Spear, L.B. 1988. Surveys of breeding penguins and other seabirds in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica, January–February 1987. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center. Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/5839 [Accessed 1 September 2017].Google Scholar
Southwell, C. & Emmerson, L. 2013. Large-scale occupancy surveys in East Antarctica discover new Adélie penguin breeding sites and reveal an expanding breeding distribution. Antarctic Science, 25, 10.1017/S0954102012001174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwell, C., McKinlay, J., Low, M., Wilson, D., Newbery, K., Lieser, J.L. & Emmerson, L. 2013. New methods and technologies for regional-scale abundance estimation of land-breeding marine animals: application to Adélie penguin populations in East Antarctica. Polar Biology, 36, 10.1007/s00300-013-1310-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimerskirch, H., Prudor, A. & Schull, Q. 2018. Flights of drones over sub-Antarctic seabirds show species- and status-specific behavioural and physiological responses. Polar Biology, 41, 10.1007/s00300-017-2187-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., Pike, R., Southwell, D. & Southwell, C. 2009. A systematic survey of breeding Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) along the Mawson and Kemp Land coasts, East Antarctica: new colonies and population counts. Antarctic Science, 21, 10.1017/S0954102009990307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woehler, E.J. 1993. The distribution and abundance of Antarctic and Subantarctic penguins. Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scott Polar Research Institute, 76 pp. Available at: https://www.scar.org/library/scar-publications/occasional-publications/3513-the-distribution-and-abundance-of-antarctic-and-subantarctic-penguins/file/ [Accessed 1 September 2019].Google Scholar
Zmarz, A., Rodzewicz, M., Dąbski, M., Karsznia, I., Korczak-Abshire, M. & Chwedorzewska, K.J. 2018. Application of UAV BVLOS remote sensing data for multi-faceted analysis of Antarctic ecosystem. Remote Sensing of Environment, 217, 10.1016/j.rse.2018.08.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pfeifer et al. supplementary material

Pfeifer et al. supplementary material

Download Pfeifer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 34.9 KB