Tailoring Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Requirements to Operating Area and Minimizing Wildlife Disturbances during Monitoring

Tailoring Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Requirements to Operating Area and Minimizing Wildlife Disturbances during Monitoring

Source Article:

Scobie, C. A., Hugenholtz, C. H. (2016, October 7). Wildlife monitoring with unmanned aerial vehicles: Quantifying distance to auditory detection. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 40(4), 781-785. Retrieved from doi: 10.1002/wsb.700.

 

The use of unmanned technology to monitor wildlife, particularly endangered and protected species, is becoming more popular for smaller organizations and parks across the globe (Jones, 2006). The appeal of using small unmanned aerial vehicles to detect and enumerate wildlife from a cost perspective is a massive benefit to companies with tight budgets and high commitments to protecting the animals living in their respective areas. 

In an ongoing effort to evaluate the most effective means of monitoring and protecting wildlife from poachers, each type of UAV technology is being analyzed and/or designed to have minimal impact to the animals habitat by reducing the surveillance signature. Manned aircraft such as rotary wing helicopters can generate disruptive wind gusts and decibel levels that are deemed disruptive to animals with the ability to detect low sound levels in different octave bands (Scobie & Hugenholtz, 2016). Attempting to monitor with ground vehicles and personnel presents its own list of challenges, which can disturb big cat habitats, wildlife flow, and even pose a threat to the ground personnel by sheer proximity to wild animals. Due to the ability to remain on station for long periods of time, at a safe distance as to not disturb the animals, and safe proximity from dangerous wildlife the small unmanned aerial vehicle is the ideal choice for such operations (Scobie & Hugenholtz, 2016).

This article highlights some of the design challenges that some organizations may face when attempting to minimize negative impacts of technology introduced into a wildlife preserve. The SkyRanger and eBee were just two different vehicles used in a test to survey and monitor tigers in a large preserve area, and determine if there was any impact to UAV sound on the habitat. “If UAVs are to be used for detection of wildlife, it is important that disturbance of the target species is minimized to reduce behavioral responses that could result in detection bias or lowered fitness. If animals hear the UAV and hide or evade before the UAV sensors can detect them, there will be fewer target species observed, potentially rendering the results of the survey inaccurate (Scobie & Hugenholtz, 2016).”

Carefully analyzing the animals for hearing detection thresholds, sound attenuation based on the current environmental conditions, and UAV operating height are just some of the variables considered to positively implement this technology for unmanned methods of wildlife monitoring (Whitehead & Hugenholtz, 2014). Articles such as this are important to current and future users of this system in order to tailor the UAV capabilities and UAV type that best match their preserve area and intended animal/species to monitor (Scobie & Hugenholtz, 2016). 

References:

Jones, G. P., Pearlstine, L., Percival, H. F. (2006). An Assessment of Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Wildlife Research. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:750−758.

Whitehead, K., Hugenholtz, C. H. (2014). Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 1: a review of progress and challenges. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 2:69−85.