Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T07:03:47.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zoometric data extraction from drone imagery: the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2021

Meyer E de Kock Open the ORCID record for Meyer E de Kock [Opens in a new window] ,
Declan O’Donovan ,
Tamer Khafaga Open the ORCID record for Tamer Khafaga [Opens in a new window]  and
Pavla Hejcmanová Open the ORCID record for Pavla Hejcmanová [Opens in a new window]
Meyer E de Kock*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czechia
Declan O’Donovan
Affiliation:
Wadi Al Safa Wildlife Centre, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Fota Wildlife Park, Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork, Ireland
Tamer Khafaga
Affiliation:
Diversidad Biologica y Medio Ambiete, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Malaga, Malaga, Spain Dubai Desert Conservation Reserve, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Pavla Hejcmanová
Affiliation:
Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czechia
*
Author for correspondence: Meyer E de Kock, Email: meyer@enviroconservation.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Data extraction from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery has proved effective in animal surveys and monitoring, but to date has scarcely been used for detailed population analysis and individual animal feature extraction. We assessed the zoometric and feature extraction of the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) using data acquired from a captive population for comparison with reintroduced populations monitored by UAVs. Highly accurate scaled and geo-rectified imagery derived from UAV surveys allowed precise morphometric measurements of the oryx. The scaled top-view imagery combined with baseline data from known sex, age, weight and pregnancy status of captive individuals were used to develop predictive models. A bracketed index developed from the predictive models showed high accuracy for classifying the age group ≤16 months, animals with a weight >80 kg and pregnancy. The pregnancy classification decision tree model performed with 91.7% accuracy. The polynomial weight predictive model performed well with relatively high accuracy when using the total top-view surface measurement. Photogrammetrically processed UAV-acquired imagery can yield valuable zoometric data, feature extraction and modelling; it is a tool with a practical application for field biologists that can assist in the decision-making process for species conservation management.

Keywords

aerial imageryantelope conservationdronelarge mammal monitoringphotogrammetrywildlife management
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 295 - 300
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berteška, T, Ruzgienė, B (2013) Photogrammetric mapping based on UAV imagery. Geodesy and Cartography 39: 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaschke, T (2010) Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 65: 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, E, Collin, A, Harris, D, Ferse, S, Bejarano, S, Parravicini, V et al. (2017) Mapping coral reefs using consumer-grade drones and structure from motion photogrammetry techniques. Coral Reefs 36: 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, F, Vivier, F, Charlton, C, Ward, R, Amerson, A, Burnell, S, Bejder, L (2018) Maternal body size and condition determine calf growth rates in southern right whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 592: 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Kock, ME (2015) Using Remote Sensing Data and Weighted Object-based Image Analysis to Determine Animal Distribution. Master’s thesis. Salzburg, Austria: University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
de Kock, M, Al Qarqaz, M, Burns, K, Al Faqeer, M, Chege, S, Lloyd, C et al. (2018) Arabian Oryx Housing & Husbandry Guidelines. Abu Dhabi, UAE: Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi (EAD).Google Scholar
de Kock, ME, Gallacher, D (2016) From drone data to decisions: turning images into ecological answers. Presented at: Innovation Arabia 2016, Dubai, UAE, 7–9 March 2016.Google Scholar
Durban, JW, Fearnbach, H, Barrett-Lennard, L, Perryman, W, Leroi, D (2015) Photogrammetry of killer whales using a small hexacopter launched at sea. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 3: 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, LF, Montes, GA, Puig, E, Johnson, S, Mengersen, K, Gaston, KJ (2016) Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and artificial intelligence revolutionizing wildlife monitoring and conservation. Sensors 16: 97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, DL, Bates, PJJ (1991) The Mammals of Arabia. Sevenoaks, UK: Harrison Zoological Museum.Google Scholar
Horton, TW, Hauser, N, Cassel, S, Klaus, KF, Fettermann, T, Key, N (2019) Doctor drone: non-invasive measurement of humpback whale vital signs using unoccupied aerial system infrared thermography. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, GP IV, Pearlstine, LG, Percival, HF (2006) An assessment of small unmanned aerial vehicles for wildlife research. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 750–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koski, W, Rugh, D, Punt, A, Zeh, J (2006) An approach to minimise bias in estimation of the length-frequency distribution of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) from aerial photogrammetric data. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8: 45.Google Scholar
Krause, DJ, Hinke, JT, Perryman, WL, Goebel, ME, LeRoi, DJ (2017) An accurate and adaptable photogrammetric approach for estimating the mass and body condition of pinnipeds using an unmanned aerial system. PLoS One 12: e0187465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, M (2019) The CARET Package [www document]. URL http://topepo.github.io/caret/index.html Google Scholar
Laliberte, AS, Herrick, JE, Rango, A, Winters, C (2010) Acquisition, orthorectification, and object-based classification of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery for rangeland monitoring. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 76: 661–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyequien, E, Verrelst, J, Slot, M, Schaepman-Strub, G, Heitkönig, IMA, Skidmore, A (2007) Capturing the fugitive: applying remote sensing to terrestrial animal distribution and diversity. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 9: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luppicini, R, So, A (2016) A technoethical review of commercial drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy. Technology in Society 46: 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, DP, Price, MRS (2013) The fall of the wild. Oryx 47: 467–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donovan, D, Bailey, T (2006) Restraint of Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates using a mobile raceway. Presented at: Conference of the International Congress of Zookeepers, Gold Coast, Australia, 7–11 May 2006.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rey, N, Volpi, M, Joost, S, Tuia, D (2017) Detecting animals in African Savanna with UAVs and the crowds. Remote Sensing of Environment 200: 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riede, K (2000) Conservation and modern information technologies: the global register of migratory species (GROMS). Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 3: 152–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seddon, PJ, Ismail, K, Shobrak, M, Ostrowski, S, Magin, C (2003) A comparison of derived population estimate, mark-resighting and distance sampling methods to determine the population size of a desert ungulate, the Arabian oryx. Oryx 37: 286–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöcker, C, Bennett, R, Nex, F, Gerke, M, Zevenbergen, JM (2017) Review of the current state of UAV regulations. Remote Sensing 9: 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, LG, Nieukirk, SL, Lemos, L, Chandler, TE (2018) Drone up! Quantifying whale behavior from a new perspective improves observational capacity. Frontiers in Marine Science 5: 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, AC, Perry, JH, Smith, SE, Burgess, MA, Wilkinson, BE, Szantoi, Z et al. (2010) Small unmanned aircraft systems for low-altitude aerial surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1614–1619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zafar-ul Islam, M, Ismail, K, Boug, A (2011) Restoration of the endangered Arabian oryx Oryx leucoryx . Pallas 1766: 125–140.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Hu, J, Lian, J, Fan, Z, Ouyang, X, Ye, W (2016) Seeing the forest from drones: testing the potential of lightweight drones as a tool for long-term forest monitoring. Biological Conservation 198: 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

de Kock et al. supplementary material

de Kock et al. supplementary material

Download de Kock et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.3 MB