Aerial Survey Analysis

Land is managed according to the desired state required by the management authority, whether it be for photographic safaris, hunting or biodiversity goals, knowledge is required of the flora and fauna in order to make informed decision making. The management goal for conservation areas is to maintain and enhance biodiversity that includes all species of fauna and flora. Decision making may include harvesting or research to facilitate the goals of a specific management plan (Riley et al. 2002). In order to obtain knowledge of the flora and fauna, surveys are routinely conducted by researchers or managers.

The management of wildlife and decision-making requires knowledge of the wildlife populations. Surveys are routinely used as a method

In many instances with regards to large mammals, aerial surveys are a key approach (Caughley 1977). There are several aerial survey techniques including strip-transects, block counts, distance sampling, mark-recapture and total count techniques. The technique utilized is mostly dependent on the size of the area and cost implication to be survey. The smaller an area the more likely the use of total counts, as opposed to larger areas where sample counts are more prevalent. Surveying of an area completely using an aerial platform such as a helicopter or fixed wing is usually referred to as a total count – this inherently assumes that it is a near exact estimate of the number of individuals of a specific

Conservation actions varied over an extended period in Kruger National Park as a whole. The free-ranging rare antelope species did not receive specific attention, but may have responded to a variety of management actions. Management actions during the late 1980’s included implementing, artificial water points, fire programs, elephant culling and fences (Harrington et al. 1999). All four rare antelope species peaked during the mid-1980, but have declined since then (Knoop 2003). Different explanations have been provided for the decline of rare antelope and its lack of subsequent recovery in the Kruger National Park. (Harrington et al. 1999; Grant et al. 2002). The most likely reason is increased predation pressure following the influx of grazers from artificial water points (Knoop & Owen-Smith 2006). The increase in predation may have been associated with the increase in the number of water dependent species in certain landscapes, which in turn facilitated an increase in predation (Harrington et al. 1999). Indications are that abundances may have stabilized since 2000 (Grant et al. 2002) with the most recent estimates of rare antelope populations in Kruger National Park as follows: eland 460, roan 90, sable 290 and tsessebe 220 (Ferreira et al. 2011b). These are based on educated