Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems in gray and harbor seals during breeding and molt in the uk

Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 102-113

  Pomeroy, P ^a   O'connor L ^a   Davies, P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b East Lilburn Farm   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Photo ID; Photogrammetry; Seals; UAS; Wildlife

Indexed keywords

ANIMALS; ANTENNAS; SEALS; SURVEYS; USER EXPERIENCE;

BODY SIZES; HARBOR SEALS; RELATIVE ABUNDANCE; SCOTLAND; TARGET SPECIES; UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS;

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV);

EID: 85101129367     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22913467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/juvs-2015-0013     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Anderson, K., and Galston, K.J. 2013. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11: 138–146. doi: 10.1890/120150.
2. Bishop, A., Pomeroy, P., and Twiss, S. 2015. Breeding male gray seals exhibit similar activity budgets across varying exposures to human activity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 527: 247–259. doi: 10.3354/meps 11254.
3. de Bruyn, P.J.N., Bester, M.N., Carlini, A.R., and Oosthuizen, W.C. 2009. How to weigh an elephant seal with one finger: A simple three-dimensional photogrammetric application. Aquat. Biol. 5: 31–39. doi: 10.3354/ab00135.
4. Civil Aviation Authority, UK. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in UK Airspace-Guidance. CAP 722, 6th ed. 2015. www.caa.co. uk/CAP722.
5. Cordes, L.S., and Thompson, P.M. 2014. Mark-recapture modeling accounting for state uncertainty provides concurrent estimates of survival and fecundity in a protected harbor seal population. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 30: 691–705. doi: 10.1111/mms.12070.
6. Goebel, M.E., Perryman, W.L., Hinke, J.T., Krause, D.J., Hann, N.A., Gardner, S., and LeRoi, D. 2015. A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biol. 38(5): 619–630. doi: 10.1007/s00300-014-1625-4.
7. Hiby, L., Paterson, W.D., Redman, P., Watkins, J., Twiss, S.D., and Pomeroy, P. 2013. Analysis of photo-ID data allowing for missed matches and individuals identified from opposite sides. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4: 252–259. doi: 10.1111/2041-210x.12008.
8. Hodgson, A., Kelly, N., and Peel, D. 2013. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for surveying marine fauna: A dugong case study. PLoS One. 8(11): e79556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079556.
9. Jones, G.P. IV., Pearlstine, L.G., and Percival, H.F. 2006. An assessment of small unmanned aerial vehicles for wildlife research. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34(3): 750–758.
10. Koh, L.P., and Wich, S.A. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: Low cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5: 121–132.
11. Lonergan, M., Duck, C.D., Thompson, D., Mackey, L., Cunningham, L., and Boyd, I.L. 2007. Using sparse survey data to investigate the declining abundance of British harbour seals. J. Zool. 271(3): 261–269. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00311.x.
12. SCOS. 2013. Scientific Advice on Matters Related to the Management of Seal Populations: 2013. Available from http://www.smru.st-and.ac.uk/documents/1803.pdf.
13. Smout, S., King, R., and Pomeroy, P. 2011. Estimating demographic parameters for capture-recapture data in the presence of multiple mark types. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 18: 331–347. doi: 10.1007/s10651-010-0135-y.
14. 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 Sens. 4: 1671–1692. doi: 10.3390/rs4061671.