为无人机加热诱饵以模仿活体动物的热信号

IF 1.6 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES MethodsX Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.mex.2024.102933
Landon R. Jones , Cerise Mensah , Jared A. Elmore , Kristine O. Evans , Morgan B. Pfeiffer , Bradley F. Blackwell , Raymond B. Iglay
{"title":"为无人机加热诱饵以模仿活体动物的热信号","authors":"Landon R. Jones ,&nbsp;Cerise Mensah ,&nbsp;Jared A. Elmore ,&nbsp;Kristine O. Evans ,&nbsp;Morgan B. Pfeiffer ,&nbsp;Bradley F. Blackwell ,&nbsp;Raymond B. Iglay","doi":"10.1016/j.mex.2024.102933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p><ul><li><span>•</span><span><p>We determined optimal heating methods for plastic animal decoys with inexpensive and commercially available equipment to mimic thermal signatures of live animals.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Methods could be used to quantify bias and improve thermal surveys of animals with drones in future studies.</p></span></li></ul></div>","PeriodicalId":18446,"journal":{"name":"MethodsX","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 102933"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215016124003844/pdfft?md5=b577c4502bc9b74e8410dcf4df5ff873&pid=1-s2.0-S2215016124003844-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heating decoys to mimic thermal signatures of live animals for drones\",\"authors\":\"Landon R. Jones ,&nbsp;Cerise Mensah ,&nbsp;Jared A. Elmore ,&nbsp;Kristine O. Evans ,&nbsp;Morgan B. Pfeiffer ,&nbsp;Bradley F. Blackwell ,&nbsp;Raymond B. Iglay\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mex.2024.102933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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.</p><ul><li><span>•</span><span><p>We determined optimal heating methods for plastic animal decoys with inexpensive and commercially available equipment to mimic thermal signatures of live animals.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Methods could be used to quantify bias and improve thermal surveys of animals with drones in future studies.</p></span></li></ul></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MethodsX\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102933\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215016124003844/pdfft?md5=b577c4502bc9b74e8410dcf4df5ff873&pid=1-s2.0-S2215016124003844-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MethodsX\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215016124003844\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MethodsX","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215016124003844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

安装在无人机(无人驾驶飞机系统)上的热传感器是监测隐蔽动物物种的流行而有效的工具,但很少有研究对热图像中动物计数的取样误差进行量化。使用诱饵是量化偏差和计数准确性的有效策略之一;然而,塑料诱饵并不能模拟代表性物种的热信号。我们的目标是在动物诱饵中产生热信号,以真实地匹配从无人机传感器获得的活体动物热图像。我们测试了市售的加热三种不同大小的塑料诱饵的方法,包括化学暖脚器、手动加热水、电热袜、垫子或毯子以及迷你和小型电热空间加热器。我们采用了两类标准:1)外部温度与环境温度的差异(环境差异);2)无人机在近地面和空中获取的热图像调色板中的色块,以确定加热后的诱饵是否在四个身体区域与各自的活体动物充分匹配。三种方法在三到四个身体区域的外部温度上都获得了与活体动物相似的热特征,并且主要与地面和空中无人机热图像中相应的黄色色块相匹配。使用三脚加热器对鸽子诱饵的加热效果最好,也最稳定。鹅诱饵和鹿诱饵的最佳加热方法分别是在其体腔内使用迷你加热器和小型空间加热器,并在鹅诱饵的头部使用加热袜。我们的最佳加热方法所使用的材料和设备都是相对廉价的市售物品,它们可以提供持续的热量,并可适用于各种鸟类和哺乳动物物种的各种形状和大小。我们确定了塑料动物诱饵的最佳加热方法,这些方法使用的是廉价的商用设备,可以模拟活体动物的热信号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Heating decoys to mimic thermal signatures of live animals for drones

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MethodsX
MethodsX Health Professions-Medical Laboratory Technology
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.30%
发文量
314
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
A method to enhance privacy preservation in cloud storage through a three-layer scheme for computational intelligence in fog computing Method for measuring the transpiration resistance of fruit and vegetables Deep learning-based classification of alfalfa varieties: A comparative study using a custom leaf image dataset Evaluative comparison of machine learning algorithms for stutter detection and classification Optimized Methyl methacrylate embedding of small and large undecalcified bones.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1