IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i6p1184-d1162545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Methods for Estimating Damage by Wild Ungulates on Field Crops

Author

Listed:
  • Jakub Drimaj

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Vlastimil Skoták

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
    Department of Game Management, Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, Strnady 136, 25202 Jíloviště, Czech Republic)

  • Jiří Kamler

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Radim Plhal

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Zdeněk Adamec

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Ondřej Mikulka

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Přemysl Janata

    (The Krkonoše Mountains National Park Administration, Dobrovského 3, 54301 Vrchlabí, Czech Republic)

Abstract

High numbers of large ungulates are locally accompanied by high levels of damage to field crops, causing economic losses and increased costs for the protection of agricultural fields. Quantifying the levels of damage can be problematic, with the degree of accuracy depending on the method used. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, workload and cost of four methods commonly used for estimating damage to wheat fields caused by large ungulates (esp. wild boar) in the Czech Republic. The results suggest that the manual processing of aerial photographs (“Uncrewed Aerial Systems [UAS] with Operator Delineation Method”) was very laborious and the least accurate method, with a high risk of error. In comparison, the automatic evaluation of aerial images (“UAS Crop Height Method”) and the “Ground-Based Assessment” both provided similar results when carefully analyzed and were equally demanding. The “Yield Method”, comparing the net yield from damaged and undamaged areas, provided the same result of assessment and was the least laborious, although it does require the existence of comparable areas and for the conditions to be created in advance before the method is used. Equivalent results were achieved by the UAS Crop Height Method, which we recommend using in cases where the Yield Method cannot be applied.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakub Drimaj & Vlastimil Skoták & Jiří Kamler & Radim Plhal & Zdeněk Adamec & Ondřej Mikulka & Přemysl Janata, 2023. "Comparison of Methods for Estimating Damage by Wild Ungulates on Field Crops," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:6:p:1184-:d:1162545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/6/1184/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/6/1184/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smriti Mallapaty, 2022. "COVID is spreading in deer. What does that mean for the pandemic?," Nature, Nature, vol. 604(7907), pages 612-615, April.
    2. Reimoser, Susanne & Partl, Ernst & Reimoser, Friedrich & Vospernik, Sonja, 2009. "Roe-deer habitat suitability and predisposition of forest to browsing damage in its dependence on forest growth—Model sensitivity in an alpine forest region," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(18), pages 2231-2243.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seidl, Rupert & Fernandes, Paulo M. & Fonseca, Teresa F. & Gillet, François & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Merganičová, Katarína & Netherer, Sigrid & Arpaci, Alexander & Bontemps, Jean-Daniel & Bugmann, Hara, 2011. "Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(4), pages 903-924.
    2. Maebe, Laura & Dufrêne, Marc & Claessens, Hugues & Maréchal, Kevin & Ligot, Gauthier & Messier, Christian, 2023. "The Navigate framework: How the ecosystem services and resilience concepts can help us navigate in the current crises," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:6:p:1184-:d:1162545. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.