This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
from 2013 to 2021 showed consistently poor breeding performance, with a mean productivity of 0.22 (±0.04) fledged young/pair/year. Using GPS tracking data to infer breeding performance gave a significantly higher productivity of 0.46 (±0.10) fledged young/pair/year. Breeding rate and success were also underestimated by field monitoring. These differences were likely due to logistical constraints of field monitoring, particularly relating to finding alternative nests. Comparing costs between approaches, we estimated that GPS monitoring was financially cheaper than field monitoring per sample after 10 years. Carbon costs per sample were lower for GPS-based approaches than field monitoring from the second year, and over a 10-year period GPS monitoring produced considerable savings (200% less carbon). We recommend that despite high initial costs, for long-term demographic monitoring of low-density species, or where logistical constraints make traditional field monitoring inaccurate, remote monitoring options should be considered.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murgatroyd et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: