Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:54:07.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Applications of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for Waterbird Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2015

Sharon Dulava ,
William T. Bean  and
Orien M. W. Richmond
Sharon Dulava*
Affiliation:
Humboldt State University, Arcata, California
William T. Bean
Affiliation:
Humboldt State University, Arcata, California
Orien M. W. Richmond
Affiliation:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Fremont, California
*
*Address correspondence to: Sharon Dulava, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst St., Arcata, CA 95521; (phone) 925-285-9473; (fax) 707-826-4060; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Utilizing unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) can be an efficient and repeatable means of surveying wildlife, especially waterbirds. As with any technology in its infancy, case studies offer opportunities to explore drawbacks and limitations, both anticipated and unanticipated. We examined the relationship between flight altitude and camera focal length on bird identification. We then conducted a post-hoc analysis to examine the effect of flight altitude on bird flushing behavior. We flew UAS missions at three locations in California and Nevada to assess the use of UAS for censusing non-nesting waterbirds. A minimum pixel resolution of approximately 5 mm was needed be able to identify most waterbird species from imagery. Sensors needed to be carefully calibrated in order to obtain images of sufficient quality to identify waterbirds over open water. Our results suggest that gas-powered UAS may result in increased rates of flushing at low flight altitudes for some waterbirds. With careful design of surveys and processing workflow, UAS show promise for censusing and monitoring waterbirds.

Environmental Practice 17: 201–210 (2015)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 201 - 210
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bajzak, D., and Piatt, J.F.. 1990. Computer-Aided Procedure for Counting Waterfowl on Aerial Photographs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:125–129.Google Scholar
Bakó, G., Tolnai, M., and Takács, Á.. 2014. Introduction and Testing of a Monitoring and Colony-Mapping Method for Waterbird Populations that Uses High-Speed and Ultra-Detailed Aerial Remote Sensing. Sensors 14(7):12828–12846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartholomew, G.A. 1942. The Fishing Activities of Double-Crested Cormorants on San Francisco Bay. Condor, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartmann, R.M., White, G.C., Carpenter, L.H., and Garrott, R.A.. 1987. Aerial Mark-Recapture Estimates of Confined Mule Deer in Pinyon-Juniper Woodland. The Journal of Wildlife Management 51(1):41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A.L. 1990. Measuring the Effect of Aircraft Noise on Seabirds. Environment International 16(4-6):587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, K.P., and Anderson, D.R.. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, (Second Edition). Springer-Verlag, Medford, MA, 351pp.Google Scholar
Caughley, G. 1974. Bias in Aerial Survey. The Journal of Wildlife Management 38(4):921–933.Google Scholar
Chabot, D., and Bird, D.. 2012. Evaluation of an Off-the-Shelf Unmanned Aircraft System for Surveying Flocks of Geese. Waterbirds 35(1):170–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conomy, J.T., Collazo, J.A., Dubovsky, J.A., and Fleming, W. J.. 1998. Dabbling Duck Behavior and Aircraft Activity in Coastal North Carolina. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(3):1127–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freddy, D.J., White, G.C., Kneeland, M.C., Kahn, R.H., Unsworth, J.W., deVergie, W.J., Graham, V.K., Ellenberger, J.H., and Wagner, C.H.. 2004. How Many Mule Deer Are There? Challenges of Credibility in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3):916–927.Google Scholar
Frederick, P.C., Hylton, B., Heath, J.A., and Ruane, M.. 2003. Accuracy and Variation in Estimates of Large Numbers of Birds by Individual Observers Using an Aerial Survey Simulator. Journal of Field Ornithology 74(3):281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, G., Stjernholm, M., Nielsen, R.D., Fleetwood, A., and Petersen, I.K.. 2013. Remote Sensing Image Data and Automated Analysis to Describe Marine Bird Distributions and Abundances. Ecological Informatics 14:2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedley, J.D., Harborne, A.R., and Mumby, P.J.. 2005. Technical Note: Simple and Robust Removal of Sun Glint for Mapping Shallow-Water Benthos. International Journal of Remote Sensing 26(10):2107–2112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G.P., Pearlstine, L.G., and Percival, H.F.. 2006. An Assessment of Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Wildlife Research. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3):750–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, S., Hedley, J.D., and Lavender, S.. 2009. Sun Glint Correction of High and Low Spatial Resolution Images of Aquatic Scenes: A Review of Methods for Visible and Near-Infrared Wavelengths. Remote Sensing 1(4):697–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koh, L.P., and Wich, S.A.. 2012. Dawn of Drone Ecology: Low-Cost Autonomous Aerial Vehicles for Conservation. Tropical Conservation Science 5(2):121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komenda-Zehnder, S., Cevallos, M., and Bruderer, B.. 2003. Effects of Disturbance by Aircraft Overflight on Waterbirds: An Experimental Approach, IBSC26/WP-LE2. International Bird Strike Committee, 13pp. Available at http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Warsaw_Papers/IBSC26%20WPLE2.pdf.Google Scholar
Laliberte, A., and Ripple, W.. 2003. Automated Wildlife Counts from Remotely Sensed Imagery. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:362–371.Google Scholar
Lawrence, G.E. 1950. The Diving and Feeding Activity of the Western Grebe on the Breeding Grounds. Condor, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Aviation Services. 2014. 25th Annual Aviation Safety Summary & Annual Report FY 2014. Available at http://www.doi.gov/aviation/safety/upload/FY14_DOI_Aviation_Safety_Summary.pdf.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Reeves, H.M. 1984. Portraits - Frederick C. Lincoln. In Flyways: Pioneering Waterfowl Management in North America, A.S. Hawkins, R.C. Hanson, H.K. Nelson and H.M. Reeves, eds. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 72–74.Google Scholar
Sardà-Palomera, F., Bota, G., Viñolo, C., Pallarés, O., Sazatornil, V., Brotons, L., Gomáriz, S., and Sardà, F.. 2012. Fine-Scale Bird Monitoring from Light Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Ibis 154(1):177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, D.B. 2003. Job-Related Mortality of Wildlife Workers in the United States, 1937-2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):1015–1020.Google Scholar
Terletzky, P., Ramsey, R.D., and Neale, C.M.U.. 2012. Spectral Characteristics of Domestic and Wild Mammals. GIScience and Remote Sensing 49(4):597–608.Google Scholar
Vas, E., Lescroël, A., Duriez, O., Boguszewski, G., and Grémillet, D.. 2015. Approaching Birds with Drones: First Experiments and Ethical Guidelines. Biology Letters 11(2) DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venables, W.N., and Ripley, B.D.. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S, (Fourth Edition). Springer, New York, NY, 330pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, A.C., Ambrosia, V.G., and Hinkley, E.A.. 2012. Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Remote Sensing and Scientific Research: Classification and Considerations of Use. Remote Sensing 4(6):1671–1692.Google Scholar
White, G.C., Bartmann, R.M., Carpenter, L.H., and Garrott, R.A.. 1989. Evaluation of Aerial Line Transects for Estimating Mule Deer Densities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 53(3):625–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, T.W. 2010. The VGAM Package for Categorical Data Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 32(10):1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar