The comparison
A study on monitoring the European hare. The work was designed and coordinated by Francesco Santilli of the Faunistic and Agro-Environmental Studies and Research Office of Federcaccia. Although infrared thermography is more expensive, its use in wildlife monitoring is becoming increasingly common. The use of the thermal viewer was compared with the traditional 100-watt spotlight for monitoring the European hare in 20 sample areas in central Italy.
Tall vegetation
Although infrared thermography detected 37% more hares than searchlight counts, overall, the densities estimated by the two methods were not significantly different. This difference is partly due to the greater distance at which hares can be detected with thermography, but partly because this tool allows for better detection of hares in environments with taller vegetation, such as forage legumes and fallow fields.
Biodiversity Index
However, in the hilly environments typical of central Italy, infrared thermography was more accurate and reduces the risk of underestimation. The importance of the study lies in the fact that the European hare is not only a species of wildlife-hunting interest, but represents a significant index of biodiversity and therefore of the quality of agro-ecosystems (source: FIDC).
You May Also Like ..
