Comparing unmanned aerial systems with conventional methodology for surveying a wild white-tailed deer population
Michael C. McMahon
A B , Mark A. Ditmer A and James D. Forester A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, 2003 Upper Buford Circle, Suite 135, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.
B Corresponding author. Email: mcmah231@d.umn.edu
Wildlife Research 49(1) 54-65 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20204
Submitted: 9 December 2020 Accepted: 18 June 2021 Published: 15 September 2021
Abstract
Context: Ungulate populations are subject to fluctuations caused by extrinsic factors and require efficient and frequent surveying to monitor population sizes and demographics. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have become increasingly popular for ungulate research; however, little is understood about how this novel technology compares with conventional methodologies for surveying wild populations.
Aims: We examined the feasibility of using a fixed-wing UAS equipped with a thermal infrared sensor for estimating the population density of wild white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) at the Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve (CCESR), Minnesota, USA. We compared UAS density estimates with those derived from faecal pellet-group counts.
Methods: We conducted UAS thermal survey flights from March to April of 2018 and January to March of 2019. Faecal pellet-group counts were conducted from April to May in 2018 and 2019. We modelled deer counts and detection probabilities and used these results to calculate point estimates and bootstrapped prediction intervals for deer density from UAS and pellet-group count data. We compared results of each survey approach to evaluate the relative efficacy of these two methodologies.
Key results: Our best-fitting model of certain deer detections derived from our UAS-collected thermal imagery produced deer density estimates (
, 95% prediction interval = 4.32–17.84 deer km−2) that overlapped with the pellet-group count model when using our mean pellet deposition rate assumption (
, 95% prediction interval = 4.14–11.29 deer km−2). Estimates from our top UAS model using both certain and potential deer detections resulted in a mean density of 13.77 deer km−2 (95% prediction interval = 6.64–24.35 deer km−2), which was similar to our pellet-group count model that used a lower rate of pellet deposition (
, 95% prediction interval = 6.46–17.65 deer km−2). The mean point estimates from our top UAS model predicted a range of 136.68–273.81 deer, and abundance point estimates using our pellet-group data ranged from 112.79 to 239.67 deer throughout the CCESR.
Conclusions: Overall, UAS yielded results similar to pellet-group counts for estimating population densities of wild ungulates; however, UAS surveys were more efficient and could be conducted at multiple times throughout the winter.
Implications: We demonstrated how UAS could be applied for regularly monitoring changes in population density. We encourage researchers and managers to consider the merits of UAS and how they could be used to enhance the efficiency of wildlife surveys.
Keywords: deer, FLIR, population estimation, thermal detection, UAS, unmanned aerial system.
References
Allan, B. M., Nimmo, D. G., Ierodiaconou, D., VanDerWal, J., Koh, L. P., and Ritchie, E. G. (2018). Futurecasting ecological research: the rise of technology. Ecosphere 9, e02163.| Futurecasting ecological research: the rise of technology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barasona, J. A., Mulero-Pázmány, M., Acevedo, P., Negro, J. J., Torres, M. J., Gortázar, C., and Vicente, J. (2014). Unmanned aircraft systems for studying spatial abundance of ungulates: relevance to spatial epidemiology. PLoS One 9, e115608.
| Unmanned aircraft systems for studying spatial abundance of ungulates: relevance to spatial epidemiology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25551673PubMed |
Beaver, J. T., Baldwin, R. W., Messinger, M., Newbolt, C. H., Ditchkoff, S. S., and Silman, M. R. (2020). Evaluating the use of drones equipped with thermal sensors as an effective method for estimating wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 44, 434–443.
| Evaluating the use of drones equipped with thermal sensors as an effective method for estimating wildlife.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bennett, L. J., English, P. F., and McCain, R. (1940). A study of deer populations by use of pellet-group counts. The Journal of Wildlife Management 4, 398–403.
| A study of deer populations by use of pellet-group counts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bennitt, E., Bartlam-Brooks, H. L. A., Hubel, T. Y., and Wilson, A. M. (2019). Terrestrial mammalian wildlife responses to Unmanned Aerial Systems approaches. Scientific Reports 9, 2142.
| Terrestrial mammalian wildlife responses to Unmanned Aerial Systems approaches.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30765800PubMed |
Bergman, E. J., Doherty, P. F., White, G. C., and Holland, A. A. (2015). Density dependence in mule deer: a review of evidence. Wildlife Biology 21, 18–29.
| Density dependence in mule deer: a review of evidence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bonenfant, C., Pelletier, F., Garel, M., and Bergeron, P. (2009). Age-dependent relationship between horn growth and survival in wild sheep. Journal of Animal Ecology 78, 161–171.
| Age-dependent relationship between horn growth and survival in wild sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brack, I. V., Kindel, A., and Oliveira, L. F. B. (2018). Detection errors in wildlife abundance estimates from unmanned aerial systems (UAS) surveys: synthesis, solutions, and challenges. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9, 1864–1873.
| Detection errors in wildlife abundance estimates from unmanned aerial systems (UAS) surveys: synthesis, solutions, and challenges.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brinkman, T. J., Jenks, J. A., DePerno, C. S., Haroldson, B. S., and Osborn, R. G. (2004). Survival of white-tailed deer in an intensively farmed region of Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 726–731.
| Survival of white-tailed deer in an intensively farmed region of Minnesota.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brooks, M. E., Kristensen, K., van Benthem, K. J., Magnusson, A., Berg, C. W., Nielsen, A., Skaug, H. J., Maechler, M., and Bolker, B. M. (2017). glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal 9, 378–400.
| glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve (2019). History summary. Available at www.cedarcreek.umn.edu/about/history [verified 19 November 2019].
Chabot, D., and Bird, D. M. (2012). Evaluation of an off-the-shelf unmanned aircraft system for surveying flocks of geese. Waterbirds 35, 170–174.
| Evaluation of an off-the-shelf unmanned aircraft system for surveying flocks of geese.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chabot, D., Dillon, C., and Francis, C. M. (2018). An approach for using off-the-shelf object-based image analysis software to detect and count birds in large volumes of aerial imagery. Avian Conservation & Ecology 13, 15.
| An approach for using off-the-shelf object-based image analysis software to detect and count birds in large volumes of aerial imagery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chrétien, L.-P., Théau, J., and Ménard, P. (2016). Visible and thermal infrared remote sensing for the detection of white-tailed deer using an unmanned aerial system. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40, 181–191.
| Visible and thermal infrared remote sensing for the detection of white-tailed deer using an unmanned aerial system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dawe, K. L., and Boutin, S. (2016). Climate change is the primary driver of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) range expansion at the northern extent of its range; land use is secondary. Ecology and Evolution 6, 6435–6451.
| Climate change is the primary driver of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) range expansion at the northern extent of its range; land use is secondary.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27777720PubMed |
Del Giudice, G. D. (2018).’ 2018 aerial moose survey.’ (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Forest Wildlife Populations and Research Group: Grand Rapids, MN, USA.)
Ditmer, M. A., McGraw, A. M., Cornicelli, L., Forester, J. D., Mahoney, P. J., Moen, R. A., Stapleton, S. P., St-Louis, V., VanderWaal, K., and Carstensen, M. (2020). Using movement ecology to investigate meningeal worm risk in moose, Alces alces. Journal of Mammalogy 101, 589–603.
| Using movement ecology to investigate meningeal worm risk in moose, Alces alces.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dunn, W. C., Donnelly, J. P., and Krausmann, W. J. (2002). Using thermal infrared sensing to count elk in the southwestern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 963–967.
Eberhardt, L., and Van Etten, R. C. (1956). Evaluation of the pellet group count as a deer census method. The Journal of Wildlife Management 20, 70–74.
| Evaluation of the pellet group count as a deer census method.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Edmunds, D. R., Kauffman, M. J., Schumaker, B. A., Lindzey, F. G., Cook, W. E., Kreeger, T. J., Grogan, R. G., and Cornish, T. E. (2016). Chronic wasting disease drives population decline of white-tailed deer. PLoS One 11, e0161127.
| Chronic wasting disease drives population decline of white-tailed deer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27575545PubMed |
Elsey, R. M., and Trosclair, P. L. (2016). The use of an unmanned aerial vehicle to locate alligator nests. Southeastern Naturalist (Steuben, ME) 15, 76–82.
| The use of an unmanned aerial vehicle to locate alligator nests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fisher, J. T., and Burton, A. C. (2018). Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16, 323–328.
| Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Franke, U., Goll, B., Hohmann, U., and Heurich, M. (2012). Aerial ungulate surveys with a combination of infrared and high-resolution natural colour images. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 35, 285–293.
| Aerial ungulate surveys with a combination of infrared and high-resolution natural colour images.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gable, T. D., Windels, S. K., and Olson, B. T. (2017). Estimates of white-tailed deer density in Voyageurs National Park: 1989–2016. Natural Resource Report NPS/VOYA/NRR-2017/1427. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Gesch, D., Oimoen, M., Greenlee, S., Nelson, C., Steuck, M., and Tyler, D. (2002). The national elevation dataset. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68, 5–32.
Gill, R. M. A., Thomas, M. L., and Stocker, D. (1997). The use of portable thermal imaging for estimating deer population density in forest habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 1273–1286.
| The use of portable thermal imaging for estimating deer population density in forest habitats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grovenburg, T. W., Swanson, C. C., Jacques, C. N., Klaver, R. W., Brinkman, T. J., Burris, B. M., DePerno, C. S., and Jenks, J. A. (2011). Survival of white-tailed deer neonates in Minnesota and South Dakota. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 213–220.
| Survival of white-tailed deer neonates in Minnesota and South Dakota.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hodgson, J. C., and Koh, L. P. (2016). Best practice for minimising unmanned aerial vehicle disturbance to wildlife in biological field research. Current Biology 26, R404–R405.
| Best practice for minimising unmanned aerial vehicle disturbance to wildlife in biological field research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27218843PubMed |
Hodgson, J. C., Mott, R., Baylis, S. M., Pham, T. T., Wotherspoon, S., Kilpatrick, A. D., Raja Segaran, R., Reid, I., Terauds, A., and Koh, L. P. (2018). Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9, 1160–1167.
| Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ireland, A. W., Palandro, D. A., Garas, V. Y., Woods, R. W., Davi, R. A., Butler, J. D., Gibbens, D. M., and Gibbens, J. S. (2019). Testing unmanned aerial systems for monitoring wildlife at night. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43, 182–190.
| Testing unmanned aerial systems for monitoring wildlife at night.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Israel, M. (2011). A UAV-based roe deer fawn detection system. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 38, 51–55.
Jennelle, C. S., Henaux, V., Wasserberg, G., Thiagarajan, B., Rolley, R. E., and Samuel, M. D. (2014). Transmission of chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin white-tailed deer: Implications for disease spread and management. PLoS One 9, e91043.
| Transmission of chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin white-tailed deer: Implications for disease spread and management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24676479PubMed |
Jiménez López, J., and Mulero-Pázmány, M. (2019). Drones for conservation in protected areas: present and future. Drones (Basel) 3, 10.
| Drones for conservation in protected areas: present and future.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kays, R., Sheppard, J., Mclean, K., Welch, C., Paunescu, C., Wang, V., Kravit, G., and Crofoot, M. (2019). Hot monkey, cold reality: surveying rainforest canopy mammals using drone-mounted thermal infrared sensors. International Journal of Remote Sensing 40, 407–419.
| Hot monkey, cold reality: surveying rainforest canopy mammals using drone-mounted thermal infrared sensors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kellenberger, B., Marcos, D., and Tuia, D. (2018). Detecting mammals in UAV images: best practices to address a substantially imbalanced dataset with deep learning. Remote Sensing of Environment 216, 139–153.
| Detecting mammals in UAV images: best practices to address a substantially imbalanced dataset with deep learning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Krause, D. J., Hinke, J. T., Perryman, W. L., Goebel, M. E., and LeRoi, D. J. (2017). An accurate and adaptable photogrammetric approach for estimating the mass and body condition of pinnipeds using and unmanned aerial system. PLoS One 12, e0187465.
| An accurate and adaptable photogrammetric approach for estimating the mass and body condition of pinnipeds using and unmanned aerial system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29186134PubMed |
Lethbridge, M., Stead, M., and Wells, C. (2019). Estimating kangaroo density by aerial survey: a comparison of thermal cameras with human observers. Wildlife Research 46, 639–648.
| Estimating kangaroo density by aerial survey: a comparison of thermal cameras with human observers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lhoest, S., Linchant, J., Quevauvillers, S., Vermeulen, C., and Lejeune, P. (2015). How many hippos: algorithm for automatic counts of animals with infra-red thermal imagery from UAV. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-3, 355–362.
| How many hippos: algorithm for automatic counts of animals with infra-red thermal imagery from UAV.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Linchant, J., Tech, G. A., and Management, F. R. (2015). Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mammal Review 45, 239–252.
| Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Makau, D. N., Vanderwaal, K., Kincheloe, J., and Wells, S. J. (2020). Implications of farmed-cervid movements on the transmission of chronic wasting disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 182, 105088.
| Implications of farmed-cervid movements on the transmission of chronic wasting disease.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32673935PubMed |
McMahon, M. C., Ditmer, M. A., Isaac, E. J., Moore, S. A., and Forester, J. D. (2021). Evaluating unmanned aerial systems for the detection and monitoring of moose in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin , .
| Evaluating unmanned aerial systems for the detection and monitoring of moose in northeastern Minnesota.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mech, L. D., Fieberg, J., and Barber-Meyer, S. (2018). An historical overview and update of wolf–moose interactions in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 42, 40–47.
| An historical overview and update of wolf–moose interactions in northeastern Minnesota.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MNDNR] (2019). Climate of Minnesota. Available at www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/historical/acis_stn_meta.html [verified 18 November 2019].
Montague, D. M., Montague, R. D., Fies, M. L., and Kelly, M. J. (2017). Using distance-sampling to estimate density of white-tailed deer in forested, mountainous landscapes in Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 24, 505–519.
| Using distance-sampling to estimate density of white-tailed deer in forested, mountainous landscapes in Virginia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mulero-Pázmány, M., Stolper, R., van Essen, L. D., Negro, J. J., and Sassen, T. (2014). Remotely piloted aircraft systems as a rhinoceros anti-poaching tool in Africa. PLoS One 9, e83873.
| Remotely piloted aircraft systems as a rhinoceros anti-poaching tool in Africa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25551673PubMed |
Mulero-Pázmány, M., Jenni-Eiermann, S., Strebel, N., Sattler, T., Negro, J. J., and Tablado, Z. (2017). Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: a systematic review. PLoS One 12, e0178448.
| Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28636611PubMed |
Mysterud, A. (2006). The concept of overgrazing and its role in management of large herbivores. Wildlife Biology 12, 129–141.
| The concept of overgrazing and its role in management of large herbivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (2011). Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). Available at https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/national-land-cover-database-2011-nlcd-2011.
Naugle, D. E., Jenks, J. A., and Kernoham, B. J. (1996). Use of thermal infrared sensing to estimate density of white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 37–43.
Patterson, B. R., Macdonald, B. A., Lock, B. A., Anderson, D. G., and Benjamin, L. K. (2002). Proximate factors limiting population growth of white-tailed deer in Nova Scotia. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66, 511–521.
| Proximate factors limiting population growth of white-tailed deer in Nova Scotia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Plante, S., Dussault, C., Richard, J. H., and Côte, S. D. (2018). Human disturbance effects and cumulative habitat loss in endangered migratory caribou. Biological Conservation 224, 129–143.
| Human disturbance effects and cumulative habitat loss in endangered migratory caribou.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Preston, T. M., Wildhaber, M. L., Green, N. S., Albers, J. L., and Debenedetto, G. P. (2021). Enumerating white-tailed deer using unmanned aerial vehicles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 45, 97–108.
| Enumerating white-tailed deer using unmanned aerial vehicles.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rampi, L. P., Knight, J. F., and Bauer, M. (2016). Minnesota land cover classification and impervious surface area by Landsat and Lidar: 2013 Update. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota, USA.
R Core Team (2019). ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria.) Available at https://www.R-project.org/.
Rhoads, C. L., Bowman, J. L., and Eyler, B. (2010). Home range and movement rates of female exurban white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 987–994.
| Home range and movement rates of female exurban white-tailed deer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rogers, L. L. (1987). Seasonal changes in defecation rates of free-ranging white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 51, 330–333.
| Seasonal changes in defecation rates of free-ranging white-tailed deer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sasse, D. B. (2003). Job-related mortality of wildlife workers in the United States, 1937–2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 1015–1020.
Scobie, C. A., and Hugenholtz, C. H. (2016). Wildlife monitoring with unmanned aerial vehicles: quantifying distance to auditory detection. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40, 781–785.
| Wildlife monitoring with unmanned aerial vehicles: quantifying distance to auditory detection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sivertsen, T. R., Mysterud, A., and Gundersen, H. (2012). Moose (Alces alces) calf survival in the presence of wolves (Canis lupus) in southeast Norway. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58, 863–868.
| Moose (Alces alces) calf survival in the presence of wolves (Canis lupus) in southeast Norway.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vermeulen, C., Lejeune, P., Lisein, J., Sawadogo, P., and Bouché, P. (2013). Unmanned aerial survey of elephants. PLoS One 8, e54700.
| Unmanned aerial survey of elephants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23658762PubMed |
Vincent, J. B., Werden, L. K., and Ditmer, M. A. (2015). Barriers to adding UAVs to the ecologist’s toolbox. Ecological Society of America 13, 74–75.
| Barriers to adding UAVs to the ecologist’s toolbox.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wallmo, O. C., Jackson, A. W., Hailey, T. L., and Carlisle, R. L. (1962). Influence of rain on the count of deer pellet groups. The Journal of Wildlife Management 26, 50–55.
| Influence of rain on the count of deer pellet groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Watts, A. C., Perry, J. H., Smith, S. E., Burgess, M. A., Wilkinson, B. E., Szantoi, Z., Ifju, P. G., and Percival, H. F. (2010). Small unmanned aircraft systems for low-altitude aerial surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1614–1619.
| Small unmanned aircraft systems for low-altitude aerial surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weiskopf, S. R., Ledee, O. E., and Thompson, L. M. (2019). Climate change effects on deer and moose in the Midwest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83, 769–781.
| Climate change effects on deer and moose in the Midwest.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weissensteiner, M. H., Poelstra, J. W., and Wolf, J. B. W. (2015). Low-budget ready-to-fly unmanned aerial vehicles: an effective tool for evaluating the nesting status of canopy-breeding bird species. Journal of Avian Biology 46, 425–430.
| Low-budget ready-to-fly unmanned aerial vehicles: an effective tool for evaluating the nesting status of canopy-breeding bird species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wenger, S. J., and Freeman, M. C. (2008). Estimating species occurrence, abundance, and detection probability using zero-inflated distributions. Ecology 89, 2953–2959.
| 18959332PubMed |
Werden, L. K., Vincent, J. B., Tanner, J. C., and Ditmer, M. A. (2015). Not quite free yet: clarifying UAV regulatory progress for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13, 534–535.
| Not quite free yet: clarifying UAV regulatory progress for ecologists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whitehead, K., Hugenholtz, C. H., Myshak, S., Brown, O., Leclair, A., Tamminga, A., Barchyn, T. E., Moorman, B., and Eaton, B. (2014). Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 2: scientific and commercial applications. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 2, 86–102.
| Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 2: scientific and commercial applications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Witczuk, J., Pagacz, S., Zmarz, A., and Cypel, M. (2018). Exploring the feasibility of unmanned aerial vehicles and thermal imaging for ungulate surveys in forests – preliminary results. International Journal of Remote Sensing 39, 5504–5521.
| Exploring the feasibility of unmanned aerial vehicles and thermal imaging for ungulate surveys in forests – preliminary results.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
