Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Heating decoys to mimic thermal signatures of live animals for drones.
Jones, Landon R; Mensah, Cerise; Elmore, Jared A; Evans, Kristine O; Pfeiffer, Morgan B; Blackwell, Bradley F; Iglay, Raymond B.
Afiliación
  • Jones LR; Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
  • Mensah C; Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
  • Elmore JA; Museum of Natural Science, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, Jackson, MS 39202, USA.
  • Evans KO; Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
  • Pfeiffer MB; Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
  • Blackwell BF; Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
  • Iglay RB; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Ohio Field Station, OH 44870, USA.
MethodsX ; 13: 102933, 2024 Dec.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39286441
ABSTRACT
Thermal sensors mounted on drones (unoccupied aircraft systems) are popular and effective tools for monitoring cryptic animal species, although few studies have quantified sampling error of animal counts from thermal images. Using decoys is one effective strategy to quantify bias and count accuracy; however, plastic decoys do not mimic thermal signatures of representative species. Our objective was to produce heat signatures in animal decoys to realistically match thermal images of live animals obtained from a drone-based sensor. We tested commercially available methods to heat plastic decoys of three different size classes, including chemical foot warmers, manually heated water, electric socks, pad, or blanket, and mini and small electric space heaters. We used criteria in two categories, 1) external temperature differences from ambient temperatures (ambient difference) and 2) color bins from a palette in thermal images obtained from a drone near the ground and in the air, to determine if heated decoys adequately matched respective live animals in four body regions. Three methods achieved similar thermal signatures to live animals for three to four body regions in external temperatures and predominantly matched the corresponding yellow color bins in thermal drone images from the ground and in the air. Pigeon decoys were best and most consistently heated with three-foot warmers. Goose and deer decoys were best heated by mini and small space heaters, respectively, in their body cavities, with a heated sock in the head of the goose decoy. The materials and equipment for our best heating methods were relatively inexpensive, commercially available items that provide sustained heat and could be adapted to various shapes and sizes for a wide range of avian and mammalian species. Our heating methods could be used in future studies to quantify bias and validate methodologies for drone surveys of animals with thermal sensors.•We determined optimal heating methods for plastic animal decoys with inexpensive and commercially available equipment to mimic thermal signatures of live animals.•Methods could be used to quantify bias and improve thermal surveys of animals with drones in future studies.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: MethodsX Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Países Bajos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: MethodsX Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Países Bajos