Data from: Is it worthwhile scaring geese to alleviate damage to crops? – an experimental study

1. Increasing population sizes of geese are the cause of numerous agricultural conflicts in many regions of the northern Hemisphere. Scaring is often used as a tool to chase geese away from fields, either as a means to protect vulnerable crops or as part of goose management schemes to drive geese to accommodation areas. Geese are quick to habituate to stationary scaring devices; hence active scaring by humans is often employed. However, it remains undocumented how much effort is required for active scaring to be effective. 2. We explored the relationship between intensity of active human scaring on field use and behaviour by geese. Using an experimental framework we applied four different scaring doses per day (geese were scared either 2, 5, 7 or 10 times per day), to random pastures in a pink-footed goose spring staging area in mid-Norway, and recorded goose flock sizes, fleeing response distances, as well as average weekly goose densities assessed by dropping densities. In addition, we counted droppings in fields without scaring. We used mixed models to test for changes in the effects of different scaring doses over time and compared observed with predicted dropping levels. 3. Cumulative dropping densities increased at different rates depending on the scaring dose. Scaring doseage did not affect flock size and fleeing response distance during the study period, but both flock sizes and fleeing response distances changed with time. 4. Scaring dose 2 did not show any decrease in relative goose use compared to the fields without scaring, whereas doses 5, 7 and 10 all showed 74–78% fewer droppings by the end of the spring staging period, indicating a possible threshold between dose 2 and 5. The largest effect of scaring appeared during the first week of scaring. 5. Synthesis and applications. This study is the first to show a dose–response relationship between active scaring and field use of flocking geese. For individual farmers, the study provides guidance on the level of scaring effort needed to be cost-effective. If implemented as part of a management scheme with subsidy/accommodation areas in combination with systematic and persistent scaring it can be used as a tool to keep geese away from areas where they are not wanted, thereby assisting in the alleviation of goose–agriculture conflicts. The approach in this study can be adapted and used in a wider range of wildlife interactions with human economic interests.1. 北半球诸多区域的雁类种群规模持续扩张，引发了大量农业冲突。驱赶常被用作将雁类驱离农田的手段，既可保护易受损害的作物，也可作为雁类管理方案的组成部分，引导雁群前往安置栖息地（accommodation areas）。但雁类极易对固定式驱离设备产生习惯化，因此人类主动驱赶常被采用。然而，目前尚无关于主动驱离达到有效效果所需投入工作量的相关研究记载。 2. 本研究探究了人类主动驱赶强度与雁类农田利用行为之间的关联。我们以挪威中部粉脚雁（pink-footed goose）春季迁徙停留地的随机牧场为实验对象，设置了每日4种不同的驱赶频次（每日分别驱赶2、5、7或10次），并记录了雁群规模、逃离反应距离，以及通过粪便密度评估得到的周均雁类种群密度。此外，我们还对未开展驱赶的农田进行了粪便计数。我们采用混合模型（mixed models）检验不同驱赶频次的效应随时间的变化，并将观测到的粪便密度与预测值进行对比。 3. 累积粪便密度的增长速率随驱赶频次的不同而存在差异。研究期间，驱赶频次未对雁群规模与逃离反应距离产生显著影响，但雁群规模与逃离反应距离均随时间发生了变化。 4. 与未开展驱赶的农田相比，每日驱赶2次的处理组相对雁类利用量未出现下降；而每日驱赶5、7、10次的处理组，在春季停留期结束时的粪便密度均降低了74%~78%，这表明在2次与5次驱赶频次之间可能存在有效阈值。驱离的最大效应出现在驱赶实施的首周。 5. 综合与应用。本研究首次揭示了主动驱离强度与集群雁类农田利用间的剂量-反应关系（dose–response relationship）。对于个体农户而言，本研究为实现成本效益最优的驱离工作量提供了指导方案。若将该方法纳入包含补贴配套安置栖息地的管理方案，并结合系统性、持续性的主动驱离，即可作为将雁类驱离非目标区域的有效手段，从而助力缓解雁类与农业的冲突。本研究采用的方法可被推广应用于更多涉及人类经济利益的野生动物互作场景中。